A patient in cardiogenic shock has a pulmonary artery cathet… | 마이메르시 MyMerci
마이메르시 — 문제와 상세 해설까지 전부 무료 무료로 시작하기
Adult Health
문제

A patient in cardiogenic shock has a pulmonary artery catheter inserted for hemodynamic monitoring. The nurse observes the following readings: CVP 16 mmHg, PAWP 20 mmHg, cardiac output 3.0 L/min, and SVR 1900 dynes/sec/cm⁻⁵. Which nursing action should be the priority?

문제 이미지
해설
Elevated CVP and PAWP with low cardiac output indicate cardiogenic shock, prioritizing inotropic support to improve contractility. Increasing IV fluids would worsen preload, vasodilators are secondary to contractility improvement, and Trendelenburg position increases venous return, exacerbating congestion.
같은 주제 다음 문제A nurse is caring for a patient with cardiogenic shock who has a pulmonary artery catheter…

심화 해설

Understanding the Hemodynamic Profile
The data presented reflects a classic hemodynamic pattern of cardiogenic shock with significant congestion and poor forward flow. The central venous pressure (CVP) of 16 mmHg (normal 2–6 mmHg) and pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) of 20 mmHg (normal 6–12 mmHg) indicate severely elevated filling pressures, confirming volume overload and pulmonary congestion. Simultaneously, the cardiac output (CO) is critically low at 3.0 L/min (normal 4–8 L/min), and the systemic vascular resistance (SVR) is markedly elevated at 1900 dynes/sec/cm⁻⁵ (normal 800–1200 dynes/sec/cm⁻⁵), which represents intense compensatory vasoconstriction [1,2].

Why Increasing IV Fluids (Option 1) is Harmful
Administering a fluid bolus in this scenario directly contradicts the hemodynamic data. The PAWP is already at 20 mmHg, a level at which hydrostatic pressure forces fluid into the pulmonary interstitium, worsening pulmonary edema and respiratory distress. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock is specifically used to phenotype the shock state and avoid such empiric, potentially deleterious interventions [1]. The elevated CVP and PAWP confirm that the primary problem is not a lack of preload, but rather the failing ventricle's inability to pump the existing volume forward.

Why Reducing Afterload (Option 2) is Not the First Priority
While the SVR of 1900 dynes/sec/cm⁻⁵ represents excessive afterload that further strains the failing left ventricle, vasodilators are not the immediate priority. In the acute "Rescue" phase of cardiogenic shock management, the initial goal is to restore adequate perfusion pressure and cardiac output [2]. A vasodilator, by rapidly dropping SVR in a patient with a fixed, low stroke volume, can precipitate profound hypotension and coronary hypoperfusion. Afterload reduction is a critical strategy in the later "Optimization" phase once perfusion is stabilized, typically after inotropic or temporary mechanical circulatory support is initiated [2].

Why Inotropic Support (Option 3) is the Priority
The core defect in this presentation is pump failure, evidenced by the critically low CO of 3.0 L/min despite sky-high filling pressures. The body's compensatory vasoconstriction (high SVR) is an attempt to maintain blood pressure in the face of a failing pump. The priority nursing action is to prepare for inotropic support, such as dobutamine or milrinone, which directly improves myocardial contractility. By augmenting stroke volume, inotropes address the root cause: they increase cardiac output, which in turn promotes forward flow, reduces the compensatory sympathetic surge, and can secondarily lower the elevated SVR and help decongest the lungs by improving renal perfusion [1,3]. This aligns with the "Rescue" phase of the R-O-S-E framework, which focuses on restoring hemodynamic stability [2].

Why Trendelenburg Position (Option 4) is Contraindicated
Placing a patient with a PAWP of 20 mmHg in the Trendelenburg position is dangerous. This position shifts blood from the lower extremities to the central circulation, further increasing preload and CVP. In a patient already struggling with pulmonary venous congestion, this can acutely worsen respiratory failure by increasing hydrostatic pressure in the pulmonary capillaries. Hemodynamic monitoring data should guide positioning, and in this case, an upright or semi-Fowler's position would be more appropriate to reduce venous return and ease the work of breathing.
References (research sources)
  • [1]
    Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Acute Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.Research articleBaldetti L, Cosenza M, Galdieri C, Gallone G, Ricchetti G, Gaspardone C, Peveri B, Gramegna M, Cianfanelli L, Calvo F, Pazzanese V, Pieri M, Sacchi S, Ajello S, Scandroglio AM. (2025) · DOI: 10.31083/rcm27034
  • [2]
    Hemodynamic management of cardiogenic shock in the intensive care unit.Research articleLim HS, González-Costello J, Belohlavek J, Zweck E, Blumer V, Schrage B, Hanff TC. (2024) · DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2024.03.009

임상 시나리오

Cardiogenic Shock Hemodynamic ManagementPrioritizing Inotropic Support

A PAWP of 20 mmHg and CVP of 16 mmHg confirm severe pulmonary congestion and volume overload, ruling out a preload deficit.

The critically low cardiac output of 3.0 L/min indicates the primary problem is pump failure, making inotropic support the priority to improve contractility and forward flow.

Caution

Do not administer fluid boluses when filling pressures are already elevated, as this will worsen pulmonary edema. Trendelenburg positioning is also contraindicated.

핵심 개념

NCLEX Question Bank 엔클렉스 3,445 문제 · 로그인 없이 바로 볼 수 있어요

마이메르시로 국가고시 완벽 대비

기출문제와 상세 해설을 무료로. 내 약점을 분석하고 진도를 관리하며 더 똑똑하게 공부하세요.

무료로 시작하기

학습 참고용입니다. 실제 임상은 최신 지침과 소속 기관 프로토콜을 따르세요.