EM Vivas · Acute decompensated heart failure
Cardiogenic shock vs pulmonary oedema
A clinical viva on distinguishing acute pulmonary oedema from cardiogenic shock, and the divergent evidence-based management.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
Interpretation
Reveal interpretationShowHide
Acute pulmonary oedema (ESC 2021): rapid onset over hours, driven by increased afterload and/or predominant LV diastolic dysfunction or valve disease; wet and warm; treated with diuretics and vasodilators — IV vasodilators may be considered when SBP is over 110 mmHg.[1] Cardiogenic shock (ESC 2021): diagnosis requires hypoperfusion — cold sweated extremities, oliguria, mental confusion, dizziness, narrow pulse pressure — with raised creatinine, metabolic acidosis and lactate; wet and cold; treated with inotropes/vasopressors, short-term MCS and RRT. Inotropes are reserved for LV systolic dysfunction, low output and low SBP (for example under 90 mmHg) with poor perfusion. SCAI stages run A to E, with hypoperfusion separating B from C.[1][4] The bedside discriminator is the Nohria profile — congestion and perfusion. In 452 admissions, wet-cold was 91 and wet-warm 222; congested profiles predicted death or urgent transplantation.[2] Vasopressor: noradrenaline over dopamine (SOAP II: more arrhythmia and more cardiogenic-shock deaths with dopamine) and over adrenaline (OptimaCC: more refractory shock with adrenaline, 37 vs 7 percent).[3][8] Mechanical support: IABP-SHOCK II and ECLS-SHOCK showed no 30-day mortality benefit; DanGer Shock found a microaxial flow pump lowered 180-day death in STEMI shock with more adverse events. ESC 2021: unselected MCS use is not supported.[5][6][7][1]
References8ShowHide
- [1]McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. European heart journal, 2021.PMID 34447992
- [2]Nohria A, Tsang SW, Fang JC, et al. Clinical assessment identifies hemodynamic profiles that predict outcomes in patients admitted with heart failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2003.PMID 12767667
- [3]De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. The New England journal of medicine, 2010.PMID 20200382
- [4]Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2019.PMID 31104355
- [5]Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. The New England journal of medicine, 2012.PMID 22920912
- [6]Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, et al. Extracorporeal Life Support in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock. The New England journal of medicine, 2023.PMID 37634145
- [7]Møller JE, Engstrøm T, Jensen LO, et al. Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock. The New England journal of medicine, 2024.PMID 38587239
- [8]Levy B, Clere-Jehl R, Legras A, et al. Epinephrine Versus Norepinephrine for Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2018.PMID 29976291