Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Undifferentiated Shock

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Evidence-Based Critical Care

  • 842 Accesses

  • The original version of this chapter was revised (Figures 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 that were incorrectly placed have now been updated with the correct figures). A correction to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26710-0_110

Abstract

Undifferentiated shock is commonly encountered in the critical care environment. Medically complex patients may have clinical features of and risk factors for multiple types of shock, and uncovering the etiology can be challenging. The three major types of shock are hypovolemic, distributive, and cardiogenic (including obstructive). Frequently, patients have more than one shock type occurring simultaneously. The most reliable means of guiding initial management of undifferentiated shock are to accurately determine volume responsiveness and to rapidly carry out focused point-of-care ultrasound, particularly bedside echocardiography. These steps will focus the clinician on the most likely type(s) of shock, influence the proper use of fluids, vasopressors and inotropes, and provide a starting point for an expedited work-up and early therapeutic interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

  • 29 December 2021

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26710-0_3

References

  1. Cecconi M, DeBacker D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring: task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1795–815.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Rivers E, Nguyen B, Havstad S, et al. Early goal-directed therapy in the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1368–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaieski DF, Band RA, Abella BS. Early goal-directed hemodynamic optimization combined with therapeutic hypothermia in comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2009;80(a4):418–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Omar S, Zedan A, Nugent K. Cardiac vasoplegia syndrome: pathophysiology, risk factors, treatment. Am J Med Sci. 2015;349(1):80–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vieillard-Barron A, Cecconi M. Understanding cardiac failure in sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1560–3.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thiele H, Ohman EM, Desch S, et al. Management of cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(20):1223–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Piazza G, Goldhaber SZ. The acutely decompensated right ventricle: pathways for diagnosis and management. Chest. 2005;128(3):1836–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Funk DJ, Jacobsohn E, Kumar A. Role of the venous return in critical illness and shock—part I: physiology. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:255–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Monnet X, Jobot J, Maizel J, et al. Norepinephrine increased cardiac preload and reduces preload dependency by passive leg raising in septic shock patients. Crit Care Med. 2011;39:689–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sharawy N. Vasoplegia in septic shock: do we really fight the right enemy? J Crit Care. 2014;29:83–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lo JCY, Darracq MA, Clark RF. A review of methylene blue treatment for cardiovascular collapse. J Emerg Med. 2014;46(5):670–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gidwani H, Gomez H. The crashing patient: hemodynamic collapse. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23(6):533–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar A, Anel R, Bunnell E, et al. Pulmonary artery occlusion pressure and central venous pressure fail to predict ventricular filling volume, cardiac performance, or the response to volume infusion in normal subjects. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(3):691–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marik PE, Cavallazze R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1774–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, et al. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(1):64–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rajaram SS, Desai NK, Kalra A, et al. Pulmonary artery catheters for adult patients in intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2:1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Richard C, Warszawski J, Anguel N, et al. Early use of the pulmonary artery catheter and outcomes in patients with shock and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290(20):2713–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ProCESS Investigators, Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, et al. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683–93.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ARISE Investigators, ANZICS Clinical Trials Group, Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, et al. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496–506.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boyd JH, Forbes J, Nakada TA, et al. Fluid resuscitation in septic shock: a positive fluid balance and elevated central venous pressure are associated with increased mortality. Crit Care Med. 2011;23(2):259–65.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marik PE, Cavallazzi R, Vasu T, et al. Dynamic changes in arterial waveform derived variables and fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients: a systematic review of the literature. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(9):2642–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sandroni C, Cavallaro F, Morano C, et al. Accuracy of plethysmographic indices as predictors of volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38:1429–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Monnet X, Osman D, Ridel C, et al. Predicting volume responsiveness by using the end-expiratory occlusion in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):951–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Feissel M, Michard F, Faller JP, et al. The respiratory variation in inferior vena cava diameter as a guide to fluid therapy. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1834–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barbier C, Loubieres Y, Schmit C, et al. Respiratory changes in inferior vena cava diameter are helpful in predicting fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30(9):1740–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mandeville JC, Colebourn CL. Can transthoracic echocardiography be used to predict fluid responsiveness in the critically ill patient? A systematic review. Crit Care Res Prac. 2012;2012:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Monnet X, Bleibtreu A, Ferre A, et al. Passive leg raising and end-expiratory occlusion tests perform better than pulse pressure variation in patients with low respiratory system compliance. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(1):152–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Silva S, Jazwiak M, Teboul JL, et al. End-expiratory occlusion test predicts preload responsiveness independently of positive end-expiratory pressure during acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(7):1692–701.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cavallaro F, Sandroni C, Marano C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of passive leg raising for prediction of fluid responsiveness in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. In: Pinsky ME, Brochard L, Mancebo J, editors. Applied physiology in intensive care medicine. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lamia B, Ochagavia A, Monnet X, et al. Echocardiographic prediction of volume responsiveness in critically ill patients with spontaneous breathing activity. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1125–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Monnet X, Bataille A, Magalhoes E, et al. End-tidal carbon dioxide is better than arterial pressure for predicting volume responsiveness by the passive leg raising test. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:93–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vignon P, Repesse X, Begot E, et al. Comparison of echocardiographic indices used to predict fluid responsiveness in ventilated patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(8):1022–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jones AE, Tayal VS, Sullivan DM, et al. Randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed goal-directed ultrasound to identify the cause of non-traumatic hypotension in emergency department patients. Crit Care Med. 2004;32(8):1703–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Volpicelli G, Lamorte A, Tullio M, et al. Point-of-care multiorgan ultrasonography for the evaluation of undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1290–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones AE, Craddock PA, Tayal VS, et al. Prognostic accuracy of left ventricular function for identifying sepsis among emergency department patients with non-traumatic symptoms of undifferentiated hypotension. Shock. 2005;24(6):513–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ghane MR, Gharib M, Ebrahimi A, et al. Accuracy of early rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) examination performed by emergency physicians for diagnosis of shock etiology in critically ill patients. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2015;8(1):5–10.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Shokoohi H, Boniface KS, Pourmand A, et al. Bedside ultrasound reduces diagnostic uncertainty and guides resuscitation in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):2562–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kanji HD, McCallum J, Sirounis D, et al. Limited echocardiography-guided therapy in subacute shock is associated with change in management and improved outcomes. J Crit Care. 2014;29:700–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bouferrache K, Amiel JB, Chimot L, et al. Initial resuscitation guided by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommendations and early echocardiographic assessment of hemodynamics in intensive care unit septic patients: a pilot study. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(10):2821–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Shillcutt SK, Markin NW, Montzingo CR, et al. Use of rapid “rescue” perioperative echocardiography to improve outcomes after hemodynamic instability in non-cardiac surgical patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2012;26(3):362–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Maltais S, Costello WT, Billings FT. Episodic monoplane transesophageal echocardiography impacts postoperative management of the cardiac surgery patient. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2013;27(4):655–9.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Marcelino PA, Marum SM, Fernandes APM, et al. Routine transthoracic echocardiography in a general intensive care unit: an 18 month survey in 704 patients. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20:e37–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Atkinson P, Milne J, Diegelmann L, et al. Does point-of-care ultrasonography improve clinical outcomes in emergency department patients with undifferentiated hypotension? An International Randomized Controlled Trial from the SHoC-ED Investigators. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72(4):478–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Atkinson PRT, McAuley DJ, Kendall RJ, et al. Abdominal and cardiac evaluation with sonography in shock (ACES): an approach by emergency physicians for the use of ultrasound in patients with undifferentiated hypotension. Emerg Med J. 2009;26:87–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Perera P, Mailhot T, Riley D, et al. The RUSH exam: rapid ultrasound in shock in the evaluation of the critically ill. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2010;28:29–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Emergency Critical Care, Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Russell G. Day & Sage P. Whitmore

  2. Tristar Centennial Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Sage P. Whitmore

Authors
  1. Russell G. Day
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sage P. Whitmore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell G. Day .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Robert C. Hyzy

  2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Jakob McSparron

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Day, R.G., Whitmore, S.P. (2020). Undifferentiated Shock. In: Hyzy, R.C., McSparron, J. (eds) Evidence-Based Critical Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26710-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26710-0_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26709-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26710-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation