» Articles » PMID: 39527481

UNDERSTANDING HEMODYNAMIC INCOHERENCE: MECHANISMS, PHENOTYPES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENT

Overview
Journal Shock
Date 2024 Nov 11
PMID 39527481
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The reversal of microcirculation dysfunction is crucial for assessing the success of shock resuscitation and significantly influences patient prognosis. However, hemodynamic incoherence is observed when microcirculatory dysfunction persists despite the restoration of macrocirculatory function after resuscitation. Recent advancements in technology have enabled bedside assessment of microcirculation in shock patients, allowing for direct visualization of microcirculatory morphology and quantitative evaluation of its functional status. This article reviews the pathophysiological mechanisms that lead to hemodynamic incoherence. It also introduces the current understanding and classification framework for the different phenotypes of hemodynamic incoherence. Existing evidence indicates that the diverse mechanisms leading to microcirculatory disorders result in varied manifestations among patients experiencing hemodynamic incoherence, highlighting the heterogeneity of this population. Some classification frameworks have been proposed to enhance our understanding of these phenotypes. By integrating pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical symptoms, indicators of macrocirculation, microcirculation, tissue metabolism, and biomarkers, we can summarize certain clinical features of phenotypes in hemodynamic incoherence to form a conceptual framework. Additionally, strategies for creating targeted treatments based on different phenotypes require further validation.

References
1.
Yao Z, Chen Y, Li D, Li Y, Liu Y, Fan H . HEMORRHAGIC SHOCK ASSESSED BY TISSUE MICROCIRCULATORY MONITORING: A NARRATIVE REVIEW. Shock. 2023; 61(4):509-519. DOI: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000002242. View

2.
Hasan K, Manyonda I, Ng F, Singer D, Antonios T . Skin capillary density changes in normal pregnancy and pre-eclampsia. J Hypertens. 2002; 20(12):2439-43. DOI: 10.1097/00004872-200212000-00024. View

3.
Mosier M, DeChristopher P, Gamelli R . Use of therapeutic plasma exchange in the burn unit: a review of the literature. J Burn Care Res. 2013; 34(3):289-98. DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e318283d18c. View

4.
Chandrasekhar A, Padros-Valls R, Pallares-Lopez R, Palanques-Tost E, Houstis N, Sundt T . Tissue perfusion pressure enables continuous hemodynamic evaluation and risk prediction in the intensive care unit. Nat Med. 2023; 29(8):1998-2006. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-023-02474-6. View

5.
Bultinck J, Sips P, Vakaet L, Brouckaert P, Cauwels A . Systemic NO production during (septic) shock depends on parenchymal and not on hematopoietic cells: in vivo iNOS expression pattern in (septic) shock. FASEB J. 2006; 20(13):2363-5. DOI: 10.1096/fj.06-5798fje. View