Introduction
Consensus methodology
Topic | ICM Antonelli 2007 | ICM Cecconi 2014 |
---|---|---|
Definition | We recommend that shock be defined as a life-threatening, generalized maldistribution of blood flow resulting in failure to deliver and/or utilize adequate amounts of oxygen, leading to tissue dysoxia. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | We define circulatory as a life-threatening, generalized form of acute circulatory failure associated with inadequate oxygen utilization by the cells. Ungraded
|
Blood pressure statements | –We recommend a target blood pressure during initial shock resuscitation of: –For uncontrolled hemorrhage due to trauma: MAP of 40 mmHg until bleeding is surgically controlled. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) –For TBI without systemic hemorrhage: MAP of 90 mmHg. Level 1; QoE low (C) –For all other shock states: MAP >65 mmHg. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | –We recommend individualizing the target blood pressure during shock resuscitation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) –We recommend to initially target a MAP of ≥65 mmHg. Level 1; QoE low (C) –We suggest to tolerate a lower level of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled bleeding (i.e. in patients with trauma) without severe head injury. Level 2; QoE low (C) –We suggest a higher MAP in septic patients with history of hypertension and in patients that show clinical improvement with higher blood pressure. Level 2; QoE moderate (B) |
Fluid responsiveness statements | –We do not recommend the routine use of dynamic measures of fluid responsiveness (including but not limited to pulse pressure variation, aortic flow changes, systolic pressure variation, respiratory systolic variation test and collapse of vena cava). Level 1; QoE high (A) –There may be some advantage to these measurements in highly selected patients. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | –We recommend using dynamic over static variables to predict fluid responsiveness, when applicable. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) –When the decision for fluid administration is made we recommend to perform a fluid challenge, unless in cases of obvious hypovolemia (such as overt bleeding in a ruptured aneurysm). Level 1; QoE low (C) –We recommend that even in the context of fluid-responsive patients, fluid management should be titrated carefully, especially in the presence of elevated intravascular filling pressures or extravascular lung water. Ungraded best practice
|
Topic | ICM Antonelli 2007 | ICM Cecconi 2014 |
---|---|---|
Hemodynamic monitoring | –We do not recommend routine measurement of CO for patients with shock. Level 1; QoE moderate (B) –We suggest considering echocardiography or measurement of CO for diagnosis in patients with clinical evidence of ventricular failure and persistent shock with adequate fluid resuscitation. Level 2 (weak); QoE moderate (B) –We do not recommend the routine use of the pulmonary artery catheter for patients in shock. Level 1; QoE high (A) | –We recommend further hemodynamic assessment (such as assessing cardiac function) to determine the type of shock if the clinical examination does not lead to a clear diagnosis. Ungraded best practice
–We suggest that, when further hemodynamic assessment is needed, echocardiography is the preferred modality to initially evaluate the type of shock as opposed to more invasive technologies. Level 2; QoE moderate (B) –In complex patients we suggest to additionally use pulmonary artery catheterization or transpulmonary thermodilution to determine the type of shock. Level 2; QoE low (C) –We do not recommend routine measurement of cardiac output for patients with shock responding to the initial therapy. Level 1; QoE low (C) –We recommend measurements of cardiac output and stroke volume to evaluate the response to fluids or inotropes in patients that are not responding to initial therapy. Level 1; QoE low (C) –We suggest sequential evaluation of hemodynamic status during shock. Level 1; QoE low (C) –Echocardiography can be used for the sequential evaluation of cardiac function in shock. Statement of fact
–We do not recommend the routine use of the pulmonary artery catheter for patients in shock. Level 1; QoE high (A) –We suggest pulmonary artery catheterization in patients with refractory shock and right ventricular dysfunction. Level 2; QoE low (C) –We suggest the use of transpulmonary thermodilution or pulmonary artery catheterization in patients with severe shock especially in the case of associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Level 2; QoE low (C) –We recommend that less invasive devices are used, instead of more invasive devices, only when they have been validated in the context of patients with shock. Ungraded best practice
|
No. | Statement/recommendation | GRADEa level of recommendation; quality of evidence | Type of statement |
---|---|---|---|
1 | We define circulatory as a life-threatening, generalized form of acute circulatory failure associated with inadequate oxygen utilization by the cells | Ungraded | Definition |
2 | As a result, there is cellular dysoxia, associated with increased blood lactate levels | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
3. | Shock can be associated with four underlying patterns: three associated with a low flow state (hypovolemic, cardiogenic, obstructive) and one associated with a hyperkinetic state (distributive) | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
4. | Shock can be due to a combination of processes | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
5. | Shock is typically associated with evidence of inadequate tissue perfusion on physical examination. The three organs readily accessible to clinical assessment of tissue perfusion are the: -skin (degree of cutaneous perfusion); kidneys (urine output); and brain (mental status) | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
6. | We recommend frequent measurement of heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature and physical examination variables (including signs of hypoperfusion, urine output and mental status) in patients with a history and clinical findings suggestive of shock | Ungraded | Best practice |
7. | We recommend not to use a single variable (for the diagnosis and/or management of shock | Ungraded | Best practice |
8. | We recommend efforts to identify the type of shock to better target causal and supportive therapies | Ungraded | Best practice |
9. | We recommend that the presence of arterial hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure of <90 mmHg, or MAP of <65 mmHg, or decrease of ≥40 mmHg from baseline), while commonly present, should not be required to define shock | Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
10. | We recommend routine screening of patients at risk, to allow earlier identification of impending shock and implementation of therapy | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
11. | We recommend measuring blood lactate levels in all cases where shock is suspected | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
12. | Lactate levels are typically >2 mEq/L (or mmol/L) in shock states | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
No. | Statement/recommendation | GRADE level of recommendation; quality of evidence | Type of statement |
---|---|---|---|
13. | We recommend further hemodynamic assessment (such as assessing cardiac function) to determine the type of shock if the clinical examination does not lead to a clear diagnosis | Ungraded | Best practice |
14. | We suggest that, when further hemodynamic assessment is needed, echocardiography is the preferred modality to initially evaluate the type of shock as opposed to more invasive technologies | Level 2; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
15. | In complex patients, we suggest to additionally use pulmonary artery catheterization or transpulmonary thermodilution to determine the type of shock | Level 2; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
16. | We recommend early treatment, including hemodynamic stabilization (with fluids and vasopressors if needed) and treatment of the shock etiology, with frequent reassessment of response | Ungraded | Best practice |
17. | We recommend arterial and central venous catheter insertion in shock not responsive to initial therapy and/or requiring vasopressor infusion | Ungraded | Best practice |
18. | In patients with a central venous catheter, we suggest measurements of ScvO2) and V-ApCO2 to help assess the underlying pattern and the adequacy of cardiac output as well as to guide therapy | Level 2; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
19. | We recommend serial measurements of blood lactate to guide, monitor, and assess | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
20. | We suggest the techniques to assess regional circulation or microcirculation for research purposes only | Level 2; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
No. | Statement/recommendation | GRADE level of recommendation; quality of evidence | Type of statement |
---|---|---|---|
21. | We recommend individualizing the target blood pressure during shock resuscitation | Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
22. | We recommend to initially target a MAP of ≥65 mmHg | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
23. | We suggest to tolerate a lower level of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled bleeding (i.e. in patients with trauma) without severe head injury | Level 2; QoE low(C) | Recommendation |
24. | We suggest a higher MAP in septic patients with history of hypertension and in patients that show clinical improvement with higher blood pressure | Level 2; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
25. | Optimal fluid management does improve patient outcome; hypovolemia and hypervolemia are harmful | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
26. | We recommend to assess volume status and volume responsiveness | Ungraded | Best practice |
27 | We recommend that immediate fluid resuscitation should be started in shock states associated with very low values of commonly used preload parameters | Ungraded | Best practice |
28. | We recommend that commonly used preload measures (such as CVP or PAOP or end diastolic area or global end diastolic volume) alone should not be used to guide fluid resuscitation | Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
29. | We recommend not to target any absolute value of ventricular filling pressure or volume | Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
30. | We recommend that fluid resuscitation should be guided by more than one single hemodynamic variable | Ungraded | Best practice |
31. | We recommend using dynamic over static variables to predict fluid responsiveness, when applicable | Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
32. | When the decision for fluid administration is made we recommend to perform a fluid challenge, unless in cases of obvious hypovolemia (such as overt bleeding in a ruptured aneurysm) | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
33. | We recommend that even in the context of fluid-responsive patients, fluid management should be titrated carefully, especially in the presence of elevated intravascular filling pressures or extravascular lung water | Ungraded | Best practice |
34. | We suggest that inotropic agents should be added when the altered cardiac function is accompanied by a low or inadequate cardiac output, and signs of tissue hypoperfusion persist after preload optimization | Level 2; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
35. | We recommend not to give inotropes for isolated impaired cardiac function | Level 1; QoE moderate (B) | Recommendation |
36. | We do not recommend targeting absolute values of oxygen delivery in patients with shock | Level 1; QoE high (A) | Recommendation |
No. | Statement/recommendation | GRADE level of recommendation; quality of evidence | Type of statement |
---|---|---|---|
37. | We do not recommend routine measurement of cardiac output for patients with shock responding to the initial therapy | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
38. | We recommend measurements of cardiac output and stroke volume to evaluate the response to fluids or inotropes in patients that are not responding to initial therapy | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
39. | We suggest sequential evaluation of hemodynamic status during shock | Level 1; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
40. | Echocardiography can be used for the sequential evaluation of cardiac function in shock | Ungraded | Statement of fact |
41. | We do not recommend the routine use of the pulmonary artery catheter for patients in shock | Level 1; QoE high (A) | Recommendation |
42. | We suggest pulmonary artery catheterization in patients with refractory shock and right ventricular dysfunction | Level 2; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
43. | We suggest the use of transpulmonary thermodilution or pulmonary artery catheterization in patients with severe shock especially in the case of associated acute respiratory distress syndrome | Level 2; QoE low (C) | Recommendation |
44. | We recommend that less invasive devices are used, instead of more invasive devices, only when they have been validated in the context of patients with shock | Ungraded | Best practice |
Definition, pathophysiology, features and epidemiology of shock
Definition
Pathophysiology and features of shock
Epidemiology
-
We define circulatory shock as a life-threatening, generalized form of acute circulatory failure associated with inadequate oxygen utilization by the cells. Definition.
-
As a result, there is cellular dysoxia, associated with increased blood lactate levels. Statement of fact.
-
Shock can be associated with four underlying patterns, of which three are associated with a low flow state (hypovolemic, cardiogenic, obstructive) and one is associated with a hyperkinetic state (distributive). Statement of fact.
-
Shock can be due to a combination of processes. Statement of fact.
Diagnosis of shock
General considerations
-
Shock is typically associated with evidence of inadequate tissue perfusion on physical examination. The three organs readily accessible to clinical assessment of tissue perfusion are the:
-
skin (degree of cutaneous perfusion);
-
kidneys (urine output);
-
brain (mental status).
-
-
We recommend routine screening of patients at risk to allow earlier identification of impending shock and implementation of therapy. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
We recommend frequent measurement of heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature and physical examination variables (including signs of hypoperfusion, urine output and mental status) in patients with a history and with clinical findings suggestive of shock. Best practice.
Hypotension and shock
-
We recommend that the presence of arterial hypotension [defined as systolic blood pressure of <90 mmHg, or mean arterial pressure (MAP) of <65 mmHg, or a decrease of ≥40 mmHg from baseline], while commonly present, should not be required to define shock. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B).
Plasma lactate, mixed venous oxygen saturation and central venous oxygen saturation and other perfusion markers
-
We recommend measuring blood lactate levels in all cases where shock is suspected. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
Lactate levels are typically >2 mEq/L (or mmol/L) in shock states. Statement of fact.
-
We recommend serial measurements of blood lactate. The rationale is to guide, monitor and assess. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
In patients with a central venous catheter (CVC), we suggest measurements of central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) and venoarterial difference in PCO2 (V-ApCO2) to help assess the underlying pattern and the adequacy of cardiac output as well as to guide therapy. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE moderate (B).
How and when to monitor cardiac function and hemodynamics in shock
-
Identifying the type of shock.
-
Selecting the therapeutic intervention.
-
Evaluating the patient’s response to therapy.
Identification of the type of shock
-
We recommend efforts to identify the type of shock to better target causal and supportive therapies. Best practice.
-
We recommend further hemodynamic assessment (such as assessing cardiac function) to determine the type of shock if the clinical examination does not lead to a clear diagnosis. Best practice.
-
We suggest that, when hemodynamic assessment is needed, echocardiography is the preferred modality to initially evaluate the type of shock as opposed to more invasive technologies. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE (B).
-
We recommend not to use a single variable for the diagnosis and/or management of shock. Best Practice.
-
In complex patients we suggest to additionally use pulmonary artery catheterization or transpulmonary thermodilution to determine the type of shock. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE low (C).
Selection of the therapeutic intervention
Target for blood pressure in the management of shock
-
We recommend individualizing the target blood pressure during shock resuscitation. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B).
-
We recommend to initially target a MAP of ≥65 mmHg. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
We suggest to tolerate a lower level of blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled bleeding (i.e. bleeding patients from a road traffic accident) without severe head injury. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE low (C).
-
We suggest a higher MAP in septic patients with a history of hypertension and in patients who improve with higher blood pressure. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE moderate (B).
-
We recommend arterial and CVC insertion in cases of shock unresponsive to initial therapy and/or requiring vasopressor infusion. Best practice.
Therapeutic interventions to improve perfusion
-
We recommend early treatment, including hemodynamic stabilization (with fluid resuscitation and vasopressor treatment if needed) and treatment of the shock etiology. Best practice.
-
We suggest that inotropic agents should be added when the altered cardiac function is accompanied by a low or inadequate cardiac output and signs of tissue hypoperfusion persist after preload optimization. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE low (C).
-
We recommend not to give inotropes for isolated impaired cardiac function. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B).
-
We recommend not to target absolute values of oxygen delivery in patients with shock. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE high (A).
Evaluation of response to therapy
-
We do not recommend routine measurement of cardiac output for patients with shock responding to the initial therapy. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
We recommend measurements of cardiac output and stroke volume to evaluate the response to fluids or inotropes in patients that are not responding to initial therapy. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
We suggest sequential evaluation of hemodynamic status during shock. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE low (C).
Monitoring preload and fluid responsiveness
-
Optimal fluid management does improve patient outcome; hypovolemia and hypervolemia are harmful. Statement of fact.
-
We recommend to assess volume status and volume responsiveness. Best practice.
-
We recommend that immediate fluid resuscitation should be started in shock states associated with very low values of commonly used preload parameters. Best practice.
-
We recommend that commonly used preload measures (such as CVP or PAOP or global end diastolic volume or global end diastolic area) alone should not be used to guide fluid resuscitation. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B).
-
We recommend not to target any ventricular filling pressure or volume. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B).
-
We recommend that fluid resuscitation should be guided by more than one single hemodynamic variable. Best practice.
-
We recommend using dynamic over static variables to predict fluid responsiveness, when applicable. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE moderate (B).
-
When the decision for fluid administration is made, we recommend to perform a fluid challenge, unless in cases of obvious hypovolemia (such as overt bleeding in a ruptured aneurysm). Recommendation, Level 1; QoE low (C).
-
We recommend that even in the context of fluid-responsive patients, fluid management should be titrated carefully, especially in the presence of elevated intravascular filling pressures or extravascular lung water. Best practice.
Monitoring cardiac function and cardiac output
Echocardiography
Pulmonary artery catheter
Transpulmonary thermodilution devices
Lithium dilution monitor
Uncalibrated arterial pulse contour analysis monitors
Esophageal Doppler
Bioreactance
-
Echocardiography can be used for the sequential evaluation of cardiac function in shock Statement of fact.
-
We do not recommend the routine use of the pulmonary artery catheter for patients in shock. Recommendation. Level 1; QoE high (A).
-
We suggest PAC in patients with refractory shock and RV dysfunction. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE low (C).
-
We suggest the use of transpulmonary thermodilution or PAC in patients with severe shock especially in the case of associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE low (C).
-
We recommend that less invasive devices are used, instead of more invasive devices, only when they have been validated in the context of patients with shock. Best practice.
Monitoring the microcirculation
-
We suggest the techniques to assess regional circulation or microcirculation for research purposes only. Recommendation. Level 2; QoE low (C).