Talk:Cardiogenic shock

My
My mother passed recently from cardiogenic shock. I'm just curious to know if cardiogenic shock is severly painfull?


 * It depends, but the symptoms of cardiogenic shock are severe heart failure and low blood pressure. This causes shortness of breath which may be severe, but the symptoms are not typically painful. JFW | T@lk  18:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge
Keep this should anybody want to see what it was. Nomen Nescio 01:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cardiogenic shock results from the inability of the heart to pump blood through the body. It is the most serious consequence of myocardial infarction, but can also result from other cardiac emergencies, such as extrinsic compression (cardiac tamponade), ventricular arrhythmias, or outflow obstruction (e.g., pulmonary embolism). Prognosis of cardiogenic shock is usually poor since it is associated with extensive myocardial infarction (approximately 40% of the heart is dead). Mortality rates may be as high as 75%.

Signs

 * cold clammy skin
 * pulmonary congestion otherwise known as pulmonary edema.
 * distended neck veins and jugular venous pressure (JVP)
 * alternations in consciousness
 * decreasing blood pressure

Are cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest the same thing?
Are cardiogenicc shock and cardiac arrest the same thing, or is it possible to be diagnosed with one condition but not the other? It would be helpful if th article either made clear that the terms are synonomous or explained the distinction. Also, the article uses "cardiigenic shock" for the first few paragraphs, then typically refers to "cardiac arrest." If they're the same thing, maybe the article should use a single term. Thanks, TheronJ 14:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not a health care professional, so I don't know, but I note that the ICD-10 codes at the WHO state that the "cardiac arrest" code, I46, "excludes: Cardiac shock". Is anyone in a position to explain why the code excludes cardiac shock and in what circumstances a HCP should code a condition as one or the other?  Thanks again,TheronJ 14:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out and helping out. Crdiac arrest and cardiogenic shock are not equal but extremely similar. Both result in loss of circulation due to failure of the heart to adequately pump blood for whatever reason. Technically arrest means acute cessation of circulation, this immediately leads to lack of oxygen in the tissues which constitutes shock ("the tissue perfusion is insufficient to meet the required supply of oxygen and nutrients").


 * Coding is more an administrative reference. So, those concerned (docters, biling office, "government" agencies as in CDC, etc) know what a patient was treated for, even 10 years from now. The doctor would use a medical chart to read about previous, or document curent findings and therapies.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 14:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cardiac Arrest is when your heart stops beating ( Astystole ). Cardiogenic shock is when your heart is not beating efficientley. Cardiogenic shock is one of form of shock ( Shock is also called hypoperfusion, meaning insufficient perfusion AKA blood flow to the vital organs ).  It is insufficient blood flow due to the heart ( Cardio ).  The are other forms of shock such as neurogenic, septic and hypovolemic.  Eithor way, shock is when your vital organs aren't recieving enough blood flow to stay alive.  Shock will lead to cariac arrest if it isn't fixed but they are definitley not the same thing.

Superfluous?
After including some info from cardiac arrest I do feel that listing all causes of hypixemia (indirect?) could be taken out. It is a bit over the top. Nomen Nescio 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Cardiac Arrest & Cardiogenic Shock
We seem to have cleared up the confusion between the two terms now on the Cardiac arrest page, but great confusion still seems to exist here. Propose a major re-write to remove this and to clear up the rest of the page; or merge with Shock - the article as it stands is really a mess.--John24601 09:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You could suggest what part you think needs improving and why it is "really a mess." Merging however is a premature idea.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Shock trial
While dated, the shock trial should be mentioned, since it's still the basis for who undergoes revascularization for shock and what medical therapy of shock entails.

I'll keep this article on my radar to work on after myocardial infarction. Ksheka 03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidence
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/149/9/618 - cardiogenic shock is becoming less common. JFW | T@lk  00:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

cardiogenic shock and sinus bradycardia?
how to diffentiate between the two symptom wise... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drashishvyas (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Medicine Edits
Hello Everyone. I'm a UNT Internal Medicine Resident Physician. I will be making edits to this article. I will be adding information and editing existing information to inform and clarify about CS. Please free to comment, ask questions, and add your own edits. Javeria927 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Javeria927 The refs you have used are not very good for Wikipedia.
 * This bar url does not lead to anything supporting the content in question. https://mksap17.acponline.org/login?url=%2Fapp%2Fgroups%2Fpm%2Ftopics%2Fmk17_b_pm_s10%2Fsections%2Fmk17_b_pm_s10_3_2
 * Uptodate does not link to a specific version and it is not possible to archive Uptodate pages. Ie Uptodate changes their articles as they wish.
 * Please see WP:MEDRS Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WikiMed Fall 2023
— Assignment last updated by Anesthesiastudent2024 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Review of Recent Changes by Anesthesiastudent2024
Anesthesiastudent2024 has a fantastic start to editing the draft. The user outlined the changes with the following: deleting dobutamine mention due to redundancy, clean up pharmacotherapy section, and section as well as augment the treatment section.

First and foremost, the three proposed major changes were completed. Regarding the first change, I agree that deleting this helped with the redundancy. This change was made in the sandbox draft I am reviewing and think it reflects things in a better way.

Secondly, the pharmacotherapy section was cleaned up and became much easier to read. More plain language was used and the logic and content was easier to follow.

Thirdly, the breakdown of treatment was nice. The subsections are logical into the following categories: medication, pump, LVAD, and VA-ECMO. I wish I had this source when studying cardiogenic shock!

I personally think the lead paragraphs of cardiogenic shock are a bit all over the place and work could be done there to approach the issue from a physiology point of view. If I was a non-medical viewer, I would think "what the heck is shock." May be helpful to approach the issue very broadly and zero in logically.

With the proposed change above to lead paragraph and the newly drafted changes by anesthesia student on treatment subtypes, there is a clear structure to the page. With that, I believe there is nicely balanced coverage. With cardiogenic shock, treatment is very important and this section has been expounded upon very well. The content is neutral and the sources are reliable.

The most important thing that could be done with the article is to add more citations. Cardiogenic shock has many sources in the literature, and adding more for people to follow along with the augmented treatment sections would drastically improve the article.

I like the flow of the article and will take this style in mind when I continue to edit my own.

Amazing work! Swk152419 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)