CONTENTS
core considerations for every patient
- Bedside hemodynamic assessment
- Why is this patient presenting with heart failure?
- [Rx 1] Fix the lungs
- [Rx 2] Optimize the MAP/afterload
- [Rx 3] Optimize volume status
- [Rx 4] Consider inotrope for HFrEF (including digoxin)
- [Rx 5] Treat underlying etiology
- [Rx 6] Mechanical circulatory support
- [Rx 7] Things to avoid
related topics & background
- More on hemodynamic assessment & risk stratification
- Advanced investigations:
Basic hemodynamic assessment involves assessment of three variables: cardiac output, PCWP (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure) and CVP (central venous pressure).
[a] signs of inadequate cardiac output:
- [1] Cool extremities.
- [2] Delayed capillary refill.
- [3] Mottling (look at the knees).
- [4] Narrow pulse pressure (<25% SBP suggests poor cardiac output).
- [5] Shock index (HR/SBP) >0.8
- Only accurate in the presence of sinus rhythm without negative chronotropes.
- Other indicators of inadequate cardiac output:
- Oliguria.
- Acute kidney injury.
- Shock liver (markedly elevated AST/ALT).
- Lactate elevation.
- Delirium, poor mentation (but this is a very late indicator of cardiogenic shock).
[b] signs of PCWP elevation:
- Dyspnea, tachypnea.
- Lung POCUS shows B-lines (outstanding performance).
- CXR/CT shows pulmonary edema.
[c] signs of CVP elevation:
- Peripheral edema.
- Weight gain.
- JVP elevation.
- IVC distended & lacking respirophasic variation.
reminder of things to look for at the bedside:
- FOUR skin findings:
- Skin temperature.
- Capillary refill.
- Knee mottling.
- Peripheral edema.
- Cardiopulmonary POCUS:
- Cardiac exam.
- Lung exam (B lines vs. A lines).
causes of heart failure presentation
acute drop in LV ejection fraction
- Acute MI (the cause of ~75% of cardiogenic shock). (31262417)
- Takotsubo cardiomyopathy 📖, post-cardiac arrest stunning.
- Peripartum cardiomyopathy.
- Myocarditis (e.g., viral, SLE, giant-cell, eosinophilic, checkpoint inhibitors).
- Tachymyopathy.
volume alteration
- Acute volume overload (e.g., diuretic nonadherence, dietary indiscretion, iatrogenic volume administration).
- Acute hypovolemia (e.g., over-diuresis, reduced oral intake, gastroenteritis).
- Renal failure causing volume retention.
arrhythmia
- Bradyarrhythmia.
- Tachyarrhythmia (most often new-onset atrial fibrillation).
- Decreased cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing. (Irwin & Rippe, 9th ed.)
- Increased isolated right ventricle pacing. (Irwin & Rippe, 9th ed.)
valvular dysfunction
- LV outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO). 📖
- Prosthetic valve dysfunction (e.g., thrombosis).
- Native valve dysfunction (e.g., endocarditis, ruptured papillary muscle 📖).
medications/substances
- Nonadherence with heart failure therapies.
- Adverse medication effect:
- Negative inotropy due to excess beta-blocker, diltiazem, Class I antiarrhythmics, and some Class III antiarrhythmics (including dronedarone and sotalol). (Griffin 2021)
- Volume overload may be promoted by NSAIDs, steroid, or pioglitazone.
- Digoxin toxicity.
- Cardiotoxic chemotherapy.
- Sympathomimetic abuse.
other
- Uncontrolled hypertension.
- Uncontrolled sleep-disordered breathing.
- Hypophosphatemia.
- Iron deficiency (with or without anemia).
- Thyroid disease (hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism).
- Infection/sepsis.
evaluation of the patient presenting with heart failure
laboratory studies
- Core labs:
- CBC (consider transfusion for HgB <7-8 mg/dL).
- Electrolytes including Ca/Mg/Phos.
- Troponin.
- Liver function tests.
- Consider:
- Lactate, if shock is suspected.
- TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone).
- Digoxin level.
- Ferritin and transferrin saturation.
- BNP/proBNP (may be falsely low in obesity, HFpEF, or predominant RV failure). (Gaggin 2021)
imaging studies
- ECG.
- Formal echocardiogram.
- Chest radiography (for respiratory failure; exclude other causes).
BiPAP (noninvasive ventilation)
- Patients in respiratory distress due to heart failure often respond nicely to BiPAP. This is strongly supported by evidence in heart failure:
- BiPAP has been shown to reduce intubation and mortality.
- BiPAP reduces cardiac preload and afterload (physiologic effects similar to an ACE inhibitor).
- It's not merely enough to place the patient on BiPAP – for maximal benefit the pressures should be up-titrated as tolerated (figure below). The most important parameter is the expiratory pressure, which should be ramped up rapidly if possible. An alternative and equally effective strategy is simply to use CPAP.📖
- 🛑 Ongoing use of BiPAP is generally not advisable in patients with true cardiogenic shock and multiorgan failure (e.g., delirium, renal failure).
intubation
- Often needed for frank cardiogenic shock (especially patients with delirium due to brain hypoperfusion).
- Advantages:
- Provides full support for the work of breathing, which may allow shunting of blood away from the diaphragm and towards vital organs.
- Stabilizes patients for procedures that require lying flat (e.g. cardiac catheterization)
- Disadvantage: intubation in cardiogenic shock carries risks of hypotension/arrest, so be careful.
- When in doubt about the need for intubation: start BiPAP and optimize other factors as rapidly as possible. Then re-evaluate the patient's trajectory and need for BiPAP.
drainage of large effusions
- If the patient isn't in respiratory distress, then effusions should be managed with diuresis and optimization of heart failure. However, it can take large effusions a long time to resorb. If the patient has large effusion(s) and this is causing significant respiratory distress or hypoxemia, then therapeutic drainage may be beneficial.
- (Note that even if the effusion is drained, the underlying heart failure must still be optimized. If the effusion is drained without management of the underlying heart failure, it will soon recur. Draining the effusion doesn’t fix the heart failure, it just temporarily stabilizes respiratory function.)
HFrEF + (MAP >~75 mm) = consider afterload reduction
- Afterload reduction is greater for patients with HFrEF and sufficient blood pressure to tolerate it. Afterload reduction may improve cardiac output, decongest the lungs, and reduce the myocardial workload.
- ⚠️ Unfortunately, patients with preserved ejection fraction may benefit less from afterload reduction (with a higher risk of hypotension). (22281246) However, vasodilators may remain useful in such patients with the context of hypertensive emergency (i.e., SCAPE 📖).
- Options for afterload reduction:
- [a] High-dose nitroglycerine infusion 📖 (especially for SCAPE).
- [b] Nitroprusside infusion. 📖
- [c] Dobutamine infusion (discussed further below ⚡️).
- [d] Oral hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate (similar to ACE-i without nephrotoxicity). 📖 (3520315)
- [e] ACE-i/ARB (risk of renal failure; avoid in shocky patients or with aggressive diuresis).
hypotension (severe or with organ dysfunction): consider inopressor
- Norepinephrine is widely recommended as a front-line agent for cardiogenic shock. Norepinephrine will improve the blood pressure, but there is a risk that excessive afterload could drop the cardiac output.
- Epinephrine could be a reasonable choice for a patient with reduced ejection fraction, hypotension, and poor cardiac output. At low doses (e.g., 0-5 mcg/min) epinephrine acts predominantly as an inotrope. However, unlike dobutamine, epinephrine doesn't cause vasodilation.
- At very low doses, it seems that the epinephrine causes some vasodilation by acting on beta-2 receptors, but also some vasoconstriction by acting on alpha-receptors. The net effect on systemic vascular resistance seems to be relatively neutral. The net effect of low-dose epinephrine is often an improvement in blood pressure and cardiac output, without affecting systemic vascular resistance much.
- Epinephrine may be especially helpful in patients with bradycardia or inappropriately normal heart rates.
fluid administration
- Consider giving a fluid challenge if the following conditions are met:
- [1] There is insufficient end-organ perfusion (e.g., acute kidney injury).
- [2] No evidence of pulmonary congestion (e.g., no B-lines on lung ultrasonography).
- [3] Overall assessment suggests true hypovolemia (e.g., no systemic congestion).
- Monitor the effect of fluid administration carefully. If fluid isn't causing clinical improvement, don't give more.
- Be careful – static hemodynamic parameters (e.g., CVP, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure) do not predict fluid-responsiveness and should not be used as the primary determinant of fluid administration. (24286266)
fluid removal
- Consider diuresis if the following conditions are met:
- (1) There is significant pulmonary and/or systemic congestion.
- (2) Overall assessment suggests total body fluid overload.
- For patients who aren't responding adequately to furosemide, consider adding a thiazide diuretic (e.g., metolazone 5 mg q12hr-q24hr). This may enhance sodium excretion, with improved clearance of extravascular edema fluid. (23131078, 26948252, 31838029). Patients with severe systemic congestion may have reduced absorption of some diuretics, so they may require IV diuretics (e.g., IV furosemide plus IV chlorothiazide). More on diuresis: 📖.
- Patients with substantially elevated central venous pressure can experience an improvement in renal function with diuresis, because decreasing venous congestion will increase blood flow through the kidney. The driving pressure through the kidneys is equal to the MAP minus the CVP, so lowering the CVP may increase renal perfusion.
avoid catecholamine inotropes when possible
- Inotropes will cause a short-term improvement in hemodynamics. Unfortunately, available evidence indicates that inotrope use associates with worse outcomes. (28602370) Available prospective RCT data is scanty, but it likewise suggests that inotropes may be harmful. (11911756)
- Inotropes should be used only if necessary, for the following indications:(29806100)
- Hypoperfusion with low-normal blood pressure (e.g. acute kidney injury with poor urine output despite #1-3 above).
- Refractory cardiogenic pulmonary edema: Front-line therapies for cardiogenic pulmonary edema include #1-3 above: BiPAP, nitroglycerine (if blood pressure is adequate), and diuresis (if there is evidence of volume overload). Some patients will fail to respond to these treatments, especially hypotensive patients in whom nitroglycerine or diuresis are contraindicated. In such patients inotropes may be used with a goal of reducing the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and decongesting the lungs.
dobutamine vs milrinone?
- An RCT comparing dobutamine vs. milrinone in patients with cardiogenic shock found no difference between the two agents. (34347952) Dobutamine has a shorter half-life which makes it more easily titratable, which arguably makes it the preferred agent. Alternatively, milrinone is renally cleared so it may exhibit erratic pharmacokinetics in shocked patients (e.g., accumulating unexpectedly if there is a reduction in renal function). Even with normal renal function, the half-life of milrinone is long (2.3 hours) – making rapid titration impossible.
- Both agents may cause hypotension, so they shouldn't be used in profoundly hypotensive patients. Thus, it's generally preferable to start with blood pressure control (step #2 above).
- Home inotropic therapy may be beneficial for patients with severe heart failure symptoms who aren't candidates for mechanical support devices. (Sadu 2023)
digoxin
- Digoxin is the only positive inotropic agent whose use doesn't correlate with increased mortality. Digoxin isn't a particularly powerful inotrope, but it might be the safest (with close monitoring of digoxin levels).
- Digoxin can be considered for patients with long-standing atrial fibrillation and systolic heart failure. (Patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation might benefit from cardioversion to sinus rhythm instead of digoxin.) Further discussion regarding which patients are optimal candidates for digitization is here: 💉
arrhythmia treatment
- If shock is caused by new-onset tachyarrhythmia (e.g. atrial fibrillation), then reversion to sinus rhythm may be beneficial. However, if the heart rate isn't very high then be careful – slowing down the heart rate may actually aggravate matters.
- If shock is caused or aggravated by bradycardia, this should be treated accordingly.📖
cardiogenic shock due to MI
- Treat with medical therapies for type-I MI (e.g. aspirin, P2Y12 inhibitor, anticoagulation).
- Revascularization is essential. This is beneficial even at delayed time points. (10460813) Thrombolysis works poorly in cardiogenic shock, so PCI or CABG is generally necessary.
anemia
- Although heart failure patients are often anemic, this usually isn't the cause of their decompensation. As a general rule, treatment of the dyspneic patient with blood transfusion in the expectation that this will improve pulmonary status is disappointing.
- Patients should be transfused to standard transfusion targets (>7 mg/dL, or >8 mg/dL if there is evidence of active myocardial ischemia).
Mechanical support is indicated for patients refractory to #1-5 above. Perhaps the most important end-organ to support is the kidneys. If the patient develops severe renal failure, this aggravates matters greatly. Commonly utilized options include:
IABP (intra-aortic balloon pump)
- Intra-aortic balloon pumps may augment cardiac output by 0.3-0.5 liters/minute. (31374209) However, RCTs consistently fail to show improvement in patient-centered outcomes with IABP therapy. (22920912, 21878431)
- Limitations:
- Less effective in the context of tachycardia or irregular rhythms. (32469155)
- Contraindications:
- Severe peripheral artery disease.
- Moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation.
- Aortic disease (e.g., aortic dissection).
impella
- Evidentiary basis: DanGer Shock trial demonstrated improved outcomes among patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. 🌊
- Contraindications: (31374209)
- Aortic valve pathologies including: mechanical aortic valve, severe aortic stenosis, moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation.
- LV thrombus.
- Severe peripheral arterial disease.
- Inability to tolerate anticoagulation.
- Ventricular septal defect (VSD).
VA-ECMO
- VA-ECMO reflects the greatest level of support for the sickest patients (e.g., patients with respiratory failure and/or biventricular heart failure). (29655828)
- Candidacy for VA-ECMO is discussed here: 📖
- Nephrotoxic medications (e.g. NSAIDs, ACEi/ARB) 📖.
- Don't try to suppress a sinus tachycardia. This is often a compensatory mechanism that may be keeping the patient alive.
- Avoid using diltiazem for rate control in AF patients with decompensated heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (the negative inotropic effects may be problematic).📖
- Don't treat mild, stable hyponatremia with an infusion of 3% saline or salt tablets. Patients with heart failure commonly have mild hyponatremia. This will generally tend to resolve with treatment of the underlying heart failure (e.g. diuresis with furosemide).
- Fluid and sodium restriction haven't shown benefit in RCTs. (23689381, 17395053) Hospital food often isn't great, so the must humane thing is probably to provide a regular diet. Follow fluid balance and use diuretics if needed.
be very careful with beta blockers in decompensated heart failure
- Beta-blockers are fantastic for chronic, compensated heart failure, but potentially dangerous in decompensated heart failure (negative inotropy may further impair cardiac function).
- Beta-blockers shouldn't be started in the context of decompensated heart failure.
- It is controversial whether beta-blockers should be continued among patients who were previously taking them.
- Beta-blockers should be held in patients with cardiogenic shock.
- For patients who aren't in shock, beta-blockers may be continued (perhaps at a reduced dose initially).
- Please note that a beta-blocker is the opposite to giving an inotrope. So any enthusiasm for using dobutamine in heart failure should translate into an equal and opposite aversion towards beta-blockers.
Forrester classifications
- Based on the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and the cardiac index, patients may be categorized as shown above. These categorizations have direct implications for prognosis and treatment. (790191)
- First, imagine overlaying cardiac output curves over this classification system (shown below).
- Green curve: normal cardiac output function
- Orange curve: moderate heart failure
- Red curve: severe heart failure
- Patients who are warm/wet may often be managed with volume removal and/or vasodilation to reduce their afterload (vasodilation shifts fluid out of the lungs without affecting the total body volume).
- Patients who are cold/dry may often be managed by fluid administration:
classic presentation of cardiogenic shock: patients who are cold & wet
- Cardiogenic shock may be roughly conceptualized as requiring two components:
- (1) Systemic hypoperfusion due to low cardiac output (cold).
- (2) Filling pressures are elevated (wet).
- Patients in cardiogenic shock cannot be fixed with volume administration or removal.
- Giving volume will worsen their pulmonary congestion (making them wetter).
- Removing volume will worsen their systemic hypoperfusion (making them colder).
- Management of cardiogenic shock usually requires interventions to improve cardiac function (e.g., inotropic medications, revascularization, or a mechanical support).
- Cardiogenic shock patients may look deceptively OK, but they are indeed critically ill.
- Early recognition facilitates appropriate ICU management.
- The patient with unrecognized cardiogenic shock will generally fail to respond to non-intensive therapy, running in circles (typically the patient is initially diuresed, then develops worsening renal failure, then is given fluid back, then develops pulmonary edema, then transferred to ICU).
vasodilated cardiogenic shock
- To make things confusing, cardiogenic shock may trigger a systemic inflammatory response with elevated cytokine levels and reduced systemic vascular resistance. This may occur later in the course of cardiogenic shock, possibly due to ischemic tissue damage. This condition will mimic septic shock. (28923988)
- To add further to the confusion, some patients with septic shock will develop a sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy. So, advanced-stage septic shock and advanced-stage cardiogenic shock can look clinically quite similar (e.g., shock, vasodilation, reduced systolic heart failure, systemic inflammation).
- This may represent a final common pathway of the dying patient.
HFpEF vs. HFrEF
- Heart failure patients may be classified as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%, HFrEF, a.k.a “systolic failure”) vs. heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, a.k.a. “diastolic dysfunction”).
- Differentiating HFpEF vs. HFrEF can be done with bedside echocardiography.
- HFrEF: reduced ejection fraction.
- HFpEF: preserved ejection fraction. Presence of heart failure is suggested by dilated left atrium, left ventricular hypertrophy, and pulmonary congestion (B-lines on lung ultrasonography). Doppler measurements can also be used to diagnose diastolic dysfunction (E/E’, etc). In most cases, however, the diagnosis of diastolic HF can be made based on history, physical exam, EKG, CXR, and basic 2-dimensional ultrasonography of the heart and lungs.
- Treatment of these disorders is generally similar, with a few differences:
- HFpEF patients shouldn't be treated with inotropes.
- HFpEF patients may be more preload-dependent, thus at higher risk for hypotension following diuresis.
interpretation of PA catheter data
⚠️ beware of the normalization fallacy
- Shock is defined in a relative fashion, as a state wherein cardiac output is insufficient to provide adequate tissue oxygenation. Thus:
- Some patients with chronic heart failure adapt to having a low cardiac output, allowing them to avoid shock despite having a cardiac output below “normal” values.
- There is no specific cardiac output that should necessarily be targeted.
- When approaching hemodynamic data, beware of the normalization fallacy (the incorrect belief that any values should be adjusted towards normal). For example, a patient with chronic compensated heart failure may be doing well clinically with an elevated systemic vascular resistance (SVR). The elevated systemic vascular resistance functions here as a compensatory mechanism, allowing maintenance of an adequate blood pressure. Aggressive intervention to “normalize” the systemic vascular resistance could destabilize the patient by causing hypotension.
PA catheter normative data
- CVP (central venous pressure): 2-6 cm.
- PAP (Pulmonary artery pressure):
- 15-30 mm / 4-12 mm.
- mPAP 8-20 mm (>20 defines PH).
- PCWP (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure): <15 mm
- CO (cardiac output): 4-8 L/min.
- CI (cardiac index):
- CI = CO/Body Surface Area
- Normal range: 2.5-4 L/min/m2.
- SVR (systemic vascular resistance):
- SVR = (MAP-CVP)/(CO*80)
- Normal range: 800-1200 dyne-s/cm5
- SVRi (systemic vascular resistance index):
- SVRi = (MAP-CVP)/(CI*80)
- Normal range: 1900-2400 dyne-s/cm5
- PVR (pulmonary vascular resistance):
- PVR = 80(mPAP-PCWP)/(CO)
- Normal range: 24-160 dyne-sec/cm5
- Normal range: 0.3-2.0 Wood Units (=PVR/80)
- PVRi (pulmonary vascular resistance index):
- PVRi = 80(mPAP-PCWP)/(CI)
- Normal range: 240-280 dyne-s/cm5
- Normal range: 3-3.5 Wood Units (=PVRi/80)
- PAPi (pulmonary artery pulsatility index):
- PAPi = (PA pulse pressure)/CVP
- Normal range: >0.9
- CPO (cardiac power output):
- CPO = (MAP*CO)/451
- Normal CPO: ~0.8-1.1 Watts
- CPOi (cardiac power output index)
- CPOi = (MAP*CI)/451
- Normal CPOi: ~0.5-0.7 Watts/m2
- SV (stroke volume): 60-100 ml
- SVi (stroke volume index): 33-47 ml/m2
mixed venous oxygen saturation
- The mixed venous oxygen saturation is potentially the most accurate way to assess the cardiac output. This is particularly true in patients in whom PA catheter thermodilution measurements may be limited (e.g., due to tricuspid regurgitation).🌊
- The Fick Equation 🧮 allows for estimation of the cardiac output using the mixed venous oxygen saturation. This is reasonably accurate for most cardiac patients, but it does require estimations regarding the metabolic rate. For patients with unusual metabolic rates (e.g., due to hypothermia or systemic inflammation), the estimated cardiac output may be inaccurate.
- Note that there are numerous factors which affect the mixed venous oxygen saturation. Random flux in these factors may cause the mixed venous oxygen saturation to vary over time. Avoid assuming that changes in the mixed venous oxygen saturation necessarily reflects an improvement or decrement in the cardiac output. 🌊
- A normal mixed venous oxygen saturation might be ~65-80%.
decision to insert a PA catheter
is a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) helpful?
- Hemodynamic assessment can generally be made non-invasively as described above. Furthermore, high-quality echocardiographic images with doppler can provide substantial hemodynamic information (e.g. cardiac output based on the velocity-time integral). (28595621)
- Reasons for avoiding a PA catheter include:(29796916)
- [1] PA catheterization is an invasive procedure which carries risk of pneumothorax, line infection, arrhythmia, pulmonary artery perforation, and heart block.
- [2] PA catheterization will always reveal abnormal numbers, but it's unknown what we should do with this data. (7555127) Specifically, there is no defined goal for cardiac output or systemic vascular resistance. A cardiac index which may be adequate for one patient will leave another patient in cardiogenic shock.
- [3] PA catheterization encourages fluid management based on static filling pressures. Unfortunately, these pressures don't not predict fluid-responsiveness. (24286266)
- [4] Numerous studies have failed to show benefit from Swan-Ganz catheterization both in critically ill patients overall and also specifically in heart failure patients. (14645314, 12510037, 16714768, 16084255) The ESCAPE trial, a multicenter RCT in heart failure, showed that Swan-Ganz catheterization increased adverse events without offering benefit. (16204662)
- [5] Over time, there has been steady improvement in echocardiography. Meanwhile, physicians and nurses are becoming less skilled at insertion and troubleshooting of PA catheters. Altogether, this means that the added value of PA catheter beyond echocardiography is continuously declining. Given that the Swan-Ganz catheter had dubious value in its heyday (the 1990s), it's even less beneficial currently.
- Routine use of PA catheterization is not recommended by AHA guidelines, even in cardiogenic shock. (28923988) Reasons to consider PA catheterization may include:
- [1] Documentation of hemodynamics to determine candidacy for cardiac transplantation or ventricular assist device.
- [2] Uncertain nature of shock with no alternative source of hemodynamic information (e.g., poor transthoracic echocardiographic windows and inability to perform a transesophageal echocardiogram).
contraindications to PA catheter insertion include:
- Bundle branch block (especially left bundle branch block), since PA catheterization may cause right bundle branch block. (30947630)
- Arrhythmia or hyperkalemia (insertion may trigger arrhythmias).
- Risk of displacing other devices (e.g., transvenous pacemaker, pacemaker inserted within <1 month). (36017548)
- Mechanical right heart valve, or status post tricuspid valve clip (TriClip).
- Significant stenosis of the tricuspid or pulmonic valves.
- Known thrombus or tumor in the RV or RA.
CT scan isn't generally used as a diagnostic test for heart failure. Consequently, we often don't think much about what heart failure looks like on CT scan. However, this becomes important, because heart failure may mimic a variety of other disorders on CT scan.
#1/3: CT scan findings in heart failure
direct findings reflective of hydrostatic pulmonary edema
- Septal thickening (generally smooth and bilateral).
- Kerley B-lines.
- Thickening of the interlobar fissures (may be more easily discernible on chest X-ray).
- Airway filling:
- Initially: GGO (ground glass opacities).
- Severe edema may eventually cause bilateral consolidation.
- This tends to be distributed in a central (e.g., perihilar) and/or gravitational fashion (favoring the lower lung zones).
- Central (“batwing”) distribution tends to occur in acute left ventricular failure, or renal failure. (Muller 2019)
- Pleural effusion(s) may be seen.
- The presence of bilateral effusions may be especially suggestive of heart failure.
indirect findings which may be seen (depending on the etiology):
- Dilation of cardiac chambers:
- Left ventricular dilation suggests chronic systolic heart failure.
- Left atrial dilation may occur with various etiologies of chronic left ventricular failure (including systolic or diastolic dysfunction).
- Engorgement of the inferior vena cava.
![](https://i0.wp.com/emcrit.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/chsctscan.jpg?resize=400%2C266&ssl=1)
#2/3: radiologic findings in sympathetic crashing acute pulmonary edema (SCAPE)
- Normally, interstitial pulmonary edema (i.e., septal thickening) occurs early and precedes the development of alveolar edema (i.e., ground glass opacities). Thus, ground glass opacities should be accompanied by septal thickening.
- Very abrupt pulmonary edema may produce ground glass opacities without septal thickening. This occurs if alveolar filling rapidly occurs, before enough time has passed for interstitial edema to develop. (Fishman 2023)
#3/3: asymmetric pulmonary edema
![](https://i0.wp.com/emcrit.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/asympulmede.jpg?resize=400%2C371&ssl=1)
causes of asymmetric pulmonary edema
- (1) Patient sleeps on their side, creating a gravitational gradient.
- (2) Underlying parenchymal lung disease (e.g., due to asymmetric COPD or sarcoidosis).
- (3) Mitral regurgitation:
- Usually right-sided (may involve upper right, middle/lower right, or entire right side).
- Rarely, left-sided pulmonary edema can occur. (36566029)
- (4) Focal disease of the pulmonary veins:
- Pulmonary vein stenosis following AF ablation.
- Compression by aortic dissection, tumor, or granulomatous infection. (36566029)
radiological differential diagnosis
causes of hydrostatic pulmonary edema include:
- Left ventricular failure:
- Systolic or diastolic dysfunction.
- Valvular heart disease.
- Fluid overload.
- Iatrogenic fluid administration.
- Renal failure (often in combination with heart failure).
- Obstruction of the pulmonary veins:
- Fibrosing mediastinitis.
- Status post AF ablation.
- Pulmonary vein compression by malignancy.
- Pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (PVOD).
- Neurogenic pulmonary edema. 📖
heart failure mimics on CT scan
- Heart failure mimic may be suggested by:
- (1) Findings suggestive of heart failure (e.g., septal thickening, pleural effusions, ground glass opacities).
- (2) Findings inconsistent with heart failure:
- Normal left atrial size. 📖
- Age and/or clinical context inconsistent with heart failure.
- Diagnostic considerations include:
- Acute heart failure (left atrium has not yet dilated, for example due to acute valvular regurgitation).
- Heart failure mimics, especially:
- Infections, such as:
- Hantavirus.
- Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia.
- AEP (acute eosinophilic pneumonia).
- Pulmonary veno-occlusive disease (suggested by findings of pulmonary hypertension).
- Pulmonary vein stenosis s/p atrial fibrillation ablation.
- Lymphangitic carcinomatosis.
- Infections, such as:
- Related differential diagnoses:
- Full differential diagnosis of septal thickening: 📖
- Other causes of hydrostatic pulmonary edema are listed above ☝️.
Follow us on iTunes
The Podcast Episode
Want to Download the Episode?
Right Click Here and Choose Save-As
To keep this page small and fast, questions & discussion about this post can be found on another page here.
- Failure to identify a patient who is cold and wet (Forrester class IV). These patients may not look terrible, but they have cardiogenic shock and generally require ICU admission.
- Treatment plan that focuses on a single intervention (e.g. diuresis), without optimizing other aspects of the patient (e.g. afterload reduction).
- Delayed management of respiratory distress (e.g. with BiPAP, effusion drainage, or intubation).
- Application of an outpatient-style management (e.g. beta-blocker and ACEi/ARB initiation) in a critically ill patient with cardiogenic shock.
Guide to emoji hyperlinks ![🔗](https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/13.1.0/svg/1f517.svg)
= Link to online calculator.
= Link to Medscape monograph about a drug.
= Link to IBCC section about a drug.
= Link to IBCC section covering that topic.
= Link to FOAMed site with related information.
= Link to supplemental media.
References
- 00790191 Forrester JS, Diamond G, Chatterjee K, Swan HJ. Medical therapy of acute myocardial infarction by application of hemodynamic subsets (first of two parts). N Engl J Med. 1976 Dec 9;295(24):1356-62. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197612092952406 [PubMed]
- 03520315 Cohn JN, Archibald DG, Ziesche S, Franciosa JA, Harston WE, Tristani FE, Dunkman WB, Jacobs W, Francis GS, Flohr KH, et al. Effect of vasodilator therapy on mortality in chronic congestive heart failure. Results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative Study. N Engl J Med. 1986 Jun 12;314(24):1547-52. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198606123142404 [PubMed]
- 07555127 Bartlett RH. Alice in intensiveland. Being an essay on nonsense and common sense in the ICU, after the manner of Lewis Carroll. Chest. 1995 Oct;108(4):1129-39. doi: 10.1378/chest.108.4.1129 [PubMed]
- 10460813 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, Buller CE, Jacobs AK, Slater JN, Col J, McKinlay SM, LeJemtel TH. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug 26;341(9):625-34. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199908263410901 [PubMed]
- 11911756 Cuffe MS, Califf RM, Adams KF Jr, Benza R, Bourge R, Colucci WS, Massie BM, O'Connor CM, Pina I, Quigg R, Silver MA, Gheorghiade M; Outcomes of a Prospective Trial of Intravenous Milrinone for Exacerbations of Chronic Heart Failure (OPTIME-CHF) Investigators. Short-term intravenous milrinone for acute exacerbation of chronic heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002 Mar 27;287(12):1541-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.12.1541 [PubMed]
- 12510037 Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, Knox L, Pineo GF, Doig CJ, Laporta DP, Viner S, Passerini L, Devitt H, Kirby A, Jacka M; Canadian Critical Care Clinical Trials Group. A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med. 2003 Jan 2;348(1):5-14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa021108 [PubMed]
- 14645314 Richard C, Warszawski J, Anguel N, Deye N, Combes A, Barnoud D, Boulain T, Lefort Y, Fartoukh M, Baud F, Boyer A, Brochard L, Teboul JL; French Pulmonary Artery Catheter Study Group. Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003 Nov 26;290(20):2713-20. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.20.2713 [PubMed]
- 16084255 Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, Elbourne D, Brampton W, Williams D, Young D, Rowan K; PAC-Man study collaboration. Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005 Aug 6-12;366(9484):472-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67061-4 [PubMed]
- 16204662 Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, O'Connor CM, Shah MR, Sopko G, Stevenson LW, Francis GS, Leier CV, Miller LW; ESCAPE Investigators and ESCAPE Study Coordinators. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005 Oct 5;294(13):1625-33. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.13.1625 [PubMed]
- 16714768 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network, Wheeler AP, Bernard GR, Thompson BT, Schoenfeld D, Wiedemann HP, deBoisblanc B, Connors AF Jr, Hite RD, Harabin AL. Pulmonary-artery versus central venous catheter to guide treatment of acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006 May 25;354(21):2213-24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa061895 [PubMed]
- 17395053 Travers B, O'Loughlin C, Murphy NF, Ryder M, Conlon C, Ledwidge M, McDonald K. Fluid restriction in the management of decompensated heart failure: no impact on time to clinical stability. J Card Fail. 2007 Mar;13(2):128-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2006.10.012 [PubMed]
- 17447137 Hollenberg SM. Vasodilators in acute heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2007 Jun;12(2):143-7. doi: 10.1007/s10741-007-9017-2 [PubMed]
- 18158484 Elkayam U, Janmohamed M, Habib M, Hatamizadeh P. Vasodilators in the management of acute heart failure. Crit Care Med. 2008 Jan;36(1 Suppl):S95-105. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000297161.41559.93 [PubMed]
- 19723460 Opasich C, Cioffi G, Gualco A. Nitroprusside in decompensated heart failure: what should a clinician really know? Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2009 Sep;6(3):182-90. doi: 10.1007/s11897-009-0026-4 [PubMed]
- 20200382 De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, Madl C, Chochrad D, Aldecoa C, Brasseur A, Defrance P, Gottignies P, Vincent JL; SOAP II Investigators. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 4;362(9):779-89. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907118 [PubMed]
- 21878431 Patel MR, Smalling RW, Thiele H, Barnhart HX, Zhou Y, Chandra P, Chew D, Cohen M, French J, Perera D, Ohman EM. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation and infarct size in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction without shock: the CRISP AMI randomized trial. JAMA. 2011 Sep 28;306(12):1329-37. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1280 [PubMed]
- 22920912 Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J, Richardt G, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Fuernau G, Desch S, Eitel I, Hambrecht R, Fuhrmann J, Böhm M, Ebelt H, Schneider S, Schuler G, Werdan K; IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012 Oct 4;367(14):1287-96. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1208410 [PubMed]
- 23131078 Bart BA, Goldsmith SR, Lee KL, Givertz MM, O'Connor CM, Bull DA, Redfield MM, Deswal A, Rouleau JL, LeWinter MM, Ofili EO, Stevenson LW, Semigran MJ, Felker GM, Chen HH, Hernandez AF, Anstrom KJ, McNulty SE, Velazquez EJ, Ibarra JC, Mascette AM, Braunwald E; Heart Failure Clinical Research Network. Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367(24):2296-304. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210357 [PubMed]
- 23689381 Aliti GB, Rabelo ER, Clausell N, Rohde LE, Biolo A, Beck-da-Silva L. Aggressive fluid and sodium restriction in acute decompensated heart failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 24;173(12):1058-64. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.552 [PubMed]
- 24286266 Marik PE. Obituary: pulmonary artery catheter 1970 to 2013. Ann Intensive Care. 2013 Nov 28;3(1):38. doi: 10.1186/2110-5820-3-38 [PubMed]
- 26948252 Bihari S, Holt AW, Prakash S, Bersten AD. Addition of indapamide to frusemide increases natriuresis and creatinine clearance, but not diuresis, in fluid overloaded ICU patients. J Crit Care. 2016 Jun;33:200-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.01.017 [PubMed]
- 27810347 Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, van Dongen IM, Hirsch A, Packer EJ, Vis MM, Wykrzykowska JJ, Koch KT, Baan J, de Winter RJ, Piek JJ, Lagrand WK, de Mol BA, Tijssen JG, Henriques JP. Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Jan 24;69(3):278-287. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.022 [PubMed]
- 28595621 Mercado P, Maizel J, Beyls C, Titeca-Beauport D, Joris M, Kontar L, Riviere A, Bonef O, Soupison T, Tribouilloy C, de Cagny B, Slama M. Transthoracic echocardiography: an accurate and precise method for estimating cardiac output in the critically ill patient. Crit Care. 2017 Jun 9;21(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1737-7 [PubMed]
- 28602370 Dooley DJ, Lam PH, Ahmed A, Aronow WS. The Role of Positive Inotropic Drugs in the Treatment of Older Adults with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. Heart Fail Clin. 2017 Jul;13(3):527-534. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2017.02.008 [PubMed]
- 28923988 van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, Henry TD, Jacobs AK, Kapur NK, Kilic A, Menon V, Ohman EM, Sweitzer NK, Thiele H, Washam JB, Cohen MG; American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Mission: Lifeline. Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017 Oct 17;136(16):e232-e268. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000525 [PubMed]
- 29478105 Patel H, Nazeer H, Yager N, Schulman-Marcus J. Cardiogenic Shock: Recent Developments and Significant Knowledge Gaps. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med. 2018 Feb 24;20(2):15. doi: 10.1007/s11936-018-0606-2 [PubMed]
- 29655828 Keebler ME, Haddad EV, Choi CW, McGrane S, Zalawadiya S, Schlendorf KH, Brinkley DM, Danter MR, Wigger M, Menachem JN, Shah A, Lindenfeld J. Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock. JACC Heart Fail. 2018 Jun;6(6):503-516. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.11.017 [PubMed]
- 29796916 Teboul JL, Cecconi M, Scheeren TWL. Is there still a place for the Swan-Ganz catheter? No. Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jun;44(6):957-959. doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5110-3 [PubMed]
- 29806100 Crespo-Leiro MG, Metra M, Lund LH, Milicic D, Costanzo MR, Filippatos G, Gustafsson F, Tsui S, Barge-Caballero E, De Jonge N, Frigerio M, Hamdan R, Hasin T, Hülsmann M, Nalbantgil S, Potena L, Bauersachs J, Gkouziouta A, Ruhparwar A, Ristic AD, Straburzynska-Migaj E, McDonagh T, Seferovic P, Ruschitzka F. Advanced heart failure: a position statement of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2018 Nov;20(11):1505-1535. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1236 [PubMed]
- 29907274 Chakravarthy M, Tsukashita M, Murali S. A Targeted Management Approach to Cardiogenic Shock. Crit Care Clin. 2018 Jul;34(3):423-437. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2018.03.009 [PubMed]
- 30072134 Bellumkonda L, Gul B, Masri SC. Evolving Concepts in Diagnosis and Management of Cardiogenic Shock. Am J Cardiol. 2018 Sep 15;122(6):1104-1110. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.05.040 [PubMed]
- 30586755 Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, Pieri M, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, Westenfeld R, Horn P, Pauschinger M, Eckner D, Twerenbold R, Nordbeck P, Salinger T, Abel P, Empen K, Busch MC, Felix SB, Sieweke JT, Møller JE, Pareek N, Hill J, MacCarthy P, Bergmann MW, Henriques JPS, Möbius-Winkler S, Schulze PC, Ouarrak T, Zeymer U, Schneider S, Blankenberg S, Thiele H, Schäfer A, Westermann D. Impella Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock. Circulation. 2019 Mar 5;139(10):1249-1258. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.036614 [PubMed]
- 30947630 Vahdatpour C, Collins D, Goldberg S. Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Apr 16;8(8):e011991. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.119.011991 [PubMed]
- 31262417 Wilcox SR. Nonischemic Causes of Cardiogenic Shock. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2019 Aug;37(3):493-509. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2019.03.007 [PubMed]
- 31374209 Fryer ML, Balsam LB. Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock in the Critically Ill. Chest. 2019 Nov;156(5):1008-1021. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.009 [PubMed]
- 31838029 Cox ZL, Hung R, Lenihan DJ, Testani JM. Diuretic Strategies for Loop Diuretic Resistance in Acute Heart Failure: The 3T Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2020 Mar;8(3):157-168. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2019.09.012 [PubMed]
- 32280416 Kim JH, Sunkara A, Varnado S. Management of Cardiogenic Shock in a Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2020 Jan-Mar;16(1):36-42. doi: 10.14797/mdcj-16-1-36 [PubMed]
- 32469155 Chioncel O, Parissis J, Mebazaa A, Thiele H, Desch S, Bauersachs J, Harjola VP, Antohi EL, Arrigo M, Gal TB, Celutkiene J, Collins SP, DeBacker D, Iliescu VA, Jankowska E, Jaarsma T, Keramida K, Lainscak M, Lund LH, Lyon AR, Masip J, Metra M, Miro O, Mortara A, Mueller C, Mullens W, Nikolaou M, Piepoli M, Price S, Rosano G, Vieillard-Baron A, Weinstein JM, Anker SD, Filippatos G, Ruschitzka F, Coats AJS, Seferovic P. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock – a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020 Aug;22(8):1315-1341. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1922 [PubMed]
- 33967208 Jentzer JC, Tabi M, Burstein B. Managing the first 120 min of cardiogenic shock: from resuscitation to diagnosis. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2021 Aug 1;27(4):416-425. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000839 [PubMed]
- 34347952 Mathew R, Di Santo P, Jung RG, Marbach JA, Hutson J, Simard T, Ramirez FD, Harnett DT, Merdad A, Almufleh A, Weng W, Abdel-Razek O, Fernando SM, Kyeremanteng K, Bernick J, Wells GA, Chan V, Froeschl M, Labinaz M, Le May MR, Russo JJ, Hibbert B. Milrinone as Compared with Dobutamine in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 5;385(6):516-525. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2026845 [PubMed]