Why the study?
The management of patients with shock is challenging due to diverse clinical presentations and the limitations of contemporary therapies, with newer agents' clinical benefits remaining to be proven.
This review provides a comprehensive overview of the pathophysiological principles and pharmacological management of various types of shock, detailing both established and emerging therapeutic agents.
May guide vasopressor selection in shock; leaves open RCTs validating newer agents for outcomes.
The management of patients with shock is extremely challenging because of the myriad of possible clinical presentations in cardiogenic shock, septic shock and hypovolemic shock and the limitations of contemporary therapeutic options. The treatment of shock includes the administration of endogenous catecholamines (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine) as well as various vasopressor agents that have shown efficacy in the treatment of the various types of shock. In addition to the endogenous catecholamines, dobutamine, isoproterenol, phenylephrine, and milrinone have served as the mainstays of shock therapy for several decades. Recently, experimental studies have suggested that newer agents such as vasopressin, selepressin, calcium-sensitizing agents like levosimendan, cardiac-specific myosin activators like omecamtiv mecarbil (OM), istaroxime, and natriuretic peptides like nesiritide can enhance shock therapy, especially when shock presents a more complex clinical picture than normal. However, their ability to improve clinical outcomes remains to be proven. It is the purpose of this review to describe the mechanism of action, dosage requirements, advantages and disadvantages, and specific indications and contraindications for the use of each of these catecholamines and vasopressors, as well as to elucidate the most important clinical trials that serve as the basis of contemporary shock therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kislitsina et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: