Key result
Cardiogenic shock increasingly complicates cancer care, driven by ACS, PE, and cardiotoxicity.
Why the study?
Cardiogenic shock is increasingly triggered by cancer and its treatments, but its etiologies differ from non-cancer patients and its management remains a matter of debate.
This review highlights that cardiogenic shock in cancer patients has specific etiologies and requires a multidisciplinary approach, but is often reversible with intensive supportive care.
Alerts clinicians to diverse etiologies in cancer-related cardiogenic shock; leaves open prospective studies on multidisciplinary protocols.
Sophisticated cancer treatments, cardiovascular risk factors, and aging trigger acute cardiovascular diseases in an increasing number of cancer patients. Among acute cardiovascular diseases, cancer treatment, as well as the cancer disease itself, may induce a cardiogenic shock. Although increasing, these cardiogenic shocks are still relatively limited, and their management is a matter of debate in cancer patients. Etiologies that cause cardiogenic shock are slightly different from those of non-cancer patients, and management has some specific features always requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Recent guidelines and extensive data from the scientific literature can provide useful guidance for the management of these critical patients. Even if no etiologic therapy is available, maximal intensive supportive measures can often be justified, as most of these cardiogenic shocks are potentially reversible. In this review, we address the major etiologies that can lead to cardiogenic shock in cancer patients and discuss issues related to its management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Curtiaud et al. (2022) conducted a review in Cardiogenic shock in cancer patients. Cardiogenic shock in cancer patients is an increasingly recognized complication with multiple etiologies including acute coronary syndromes, pulmonary embolism, and cardiotoxicity from cancer therapies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: