Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Steven M. Hollenberg is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Steven M. Hollenberg.


Circulation | 2011

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions

Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Robert A. Guyton; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K. Nallamothu; Henry H. Ting; Alice K. Jacobs; Nancy M. Albert; Mark A. Creager; Steven M. Ettinger; Jonathan L. Halperin; Judith S. Hochman; Frederick G. Kushner; E. Magnus Ohman; William G. Stevenson; Clyde W. Yancy

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA


Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2011

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Robert A. Guyton; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K. Nallamothu; Henry H. Ting; Alice K. Jacobs; Jeffrey L. Anderson; Nancy M. Albert; Mark A. Creager; Steven M. Ettinger; Jonathan L. Halperin; Judith S. Hochman; Frederick G. Kushner; E. Magnus Ohman; William G. Stevenson; Clyde W. Yancy

The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can


Critical Care | 2007

How to evaluate the microcirculation: report of a round table conference

Daniel De Backer; Steven M. Hollenberg; Christiaan Boerma; Peter Goedhart; Gustavo Luiz Büchele; Gustavo Adolfo Ospina-Tascón; Iwan Dobbe; Can Ince

IntroductionMicrovascular alterations may play an important role in the development of organ failure in critically ill patients and especially in sepsis. Recent advances in technology have allowed visualization of the microcirculation, but several scoring systems have been used so it is sometimes difficult to compare studies. This paper reports the results of a round table conference that was organized in Amsterdam in November 2006 in order to achieve consensus on image acquisition and analysis.MethodsThe participants convened to discuss the various aspects of image acquisition and the different scores, and a consensus statement was drafted using the Delphi methodology.ResultsThe participants identified the following five key points for optimal image acquisition: five sites per organ, avoidance of pressure artifacts, elimination of secretions, adequate focus and contrast adjustment, and recording quality. The scores that can be used to describe numerically the microcirculatory images consist of the following: a measure of vessel density (total and perfused vessel density; two indices of perfusion of the vessels (proportion of perfused vessels and microcirculatory flow index); and a heterogeneity index. In addition, this information should be provided for all vessels and for small vessels (mostly capillaries) identified as smaller than 20 μm. Venular perfusion should be reported as a quality control index, because venules should always be perfused in the absence of pressure artifact. It is anticipated that although this information is currently obtained manually, it is likely that image analysis software will ease analysis in the future.ConclusionWe proposed that scoring of the microcirculation should include an index of vascular density, assessment of capillary perfusion and a heterogeneity index.


Critical Care Medicine | 2004

Practice parameters for hemodynamic support of sepsis in adult patients: 2004 update

Steven M. Hollenberg; Tom Ahrens; Djillali Annane; Mark E. Astiz; Donald B. Chalfin; Joseph F. Dasta; Stephen O. Heard; Claude Martin; Lena M. Napolitano; Gregory M. Susla; Richard Totaro; Jean Louis Vincent; Sergio Zanotti-Cavazzoni

Objective:To provide the American College of Critical Care Medicine with updated guidelines for hemodynamic support of adult patients with sepsis. Data Source:Publications relevant to hemodynamic support of septic patients were obtained from the medical literature, supplemented by the expertise and experience of members of an international task force convened from the membership of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Study Selection:Both human studies and relevant animal studies were considered. Data Synthesis:The experts articles reviewed the literature and classified the strength of evidence of human studies according to study design and scientific value. Recommendations were drafted and graded levels based on an evidence-based rating system described in the text. The recommendations were debated, and the task force chairman modified the document until <10% of the experts disagreed with the recommendations. Conclusions:An organized approach to the hemodynamic support of sepsis was formulated. The fundamental principle is that clinicians using hemodynamic therapies should define specific goals and end points, titrate therapies to those end points, and evaluate the results of their interventions on an ongoing basis by monitoring a combination of variables of global and regional perfusion. Using this approach, specific recommendations for fluid resuscitation, vasopressor therapy, and inotropic therapy of septic in adult patients were promulgated.


Circulation | 2011

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions

Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K. Nallamothu; Henry H. Ting; Alice K. Jacobs; Jeffrey L. Anderson; Nancy M. Albert; Mark A. Creager; Steven M. Ettinger; Jonathan L. Halperin; Judith S. Hochman; Frederick G. Kushner; E. Magnus Ohman; William G. Stevenson; Clyde W. Yancy

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA


Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2017

2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America

Clyde W. Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E. Casey; Monica Colvin; Mark H. Drazner; Gerasimos Filippatos; Gregg C. Fonarow; Michael M. Givertz; Steven M. Hollenberg; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Frederick A. Masoudi; Patrick E. McBride; Pamela N. Peterson; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Cheryl Westlake

Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [‡‡][1] Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA Ralph G. Brindis, MD,


Critical Care Medicine | 2004

Vasopressor and inotropic support in septic shock: An evidence- based review

Richard Beale; Steven M. Hollenberg; Jean Louis Vincent; Joseph E. Parrillo

Objective:In 2003, critical care and infectious disease experts representing 11 international organizations developed management guidelines for vasopressor and inotropic support in septic shock that would be of practical use for the bedside clinician, under the auspices of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, an international effort to increase awareness and to improve outcome in severe sepsis. Design:The process included a modified Delphi method, a consensus conference, several subsequent smaller meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. Methods:The modified Delphi methodology used for grading recommendations built on a 2001 publication sponsored by the International Sepsis Forum. We undertook a systematic review of the literature graded along five levels to create recommendation grades from A to E, with A being the highest grade. Pediatric considerations to contrast adult and pediatric management are in the article by Parker et al. on p. S591. Conclusion:An arterial catheter should be placed as soon as possible in patients with septic shock. Vasopressors are indicated to maintain mean arterial pressure of <65 mm Hg, both during and following adequate fluid resuscitation. Norepinephrine or dopamine are the vasopressors of choice in the treatment of septic shock. Norepinephrine may be combined with dobutamine when cardiac output is being measured. Epinephrine, phenylephrine, and vasopressin are not recommended as first-line agents in the treatment of septic shock. Vasopressin may be considered for salvage therapy. Low-dose dopamine is not recommended for the purpose of renal protection. Dobutamine is recommended as the agent of choice to increase cardiac output but should not be used for the purpose of increasing cardiac output above physiologic levels.


Journal of the American College of Cardiology | 2016

2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Robert A. Guyton; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Henry H. Ting; Patrick T. O'Gara; Frederick G. Kushner; Deborah D. Ascheim; Ralph G. Brindis; Donald E. Casey; Mina K. Chung; James A. de Lemos; Deborah B. Diercks; James C. Fang; Barry A. Franklin; Christopher B. Granger; Harlan M. Krumholz; Jane A. Linderbaum

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [∗∗][1] Nancy M. Albert, PhD, RN, FAHA[∗∗][1] Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD


Current Opinion in Critical Care | 2009

Cardiac dysfunction in severe sepsis and septic shock.

Sergio Zanotti-Cavazzoni; Steven M. Hollenberg

Purpose of reviewSevere sepsis and septic shock are among the most important causes of morbidity and mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit. The purpose of this review is to review current understanding of sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction and discuss pertinent findings regarding its clinical presentation, underlying mechanisms of disease, and therapy. Recent findingsCardiac dysfunction in sepsis is characterized by decreased contractility, impaired ventricular response to fluid therapy, and in some patients ventricular dilatation. Current data support a complex underlying physiopathology with a host of potential pathways leading to myocardial depression. Circulating factors such as cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β), lysozyme c, endothelin-1 have direct inhibitory actions on myocyte contractility. Nitric oxide has a complex role in sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction. Current data suggest a combination of deleterious and positive effects on the myocardium determined by the specific type of nitric oxide expressed. Recent studies have shown that mitochondrial dysfunction and apoptosis also play a role in the development of sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction. Current treatment for sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction is based on appropriate treatment for the infectious focus (antibiotics and source control) and hemodynamic support (fluids, vasopressors, and inotropes). SummaryCardiac dysfunction is common in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Current understanding of the underlying mechanisms responsible is rapidly evolving and future novel therapeutic targets may be soon available. Present therapy for sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction is based on treatment of underlying sepsis with antibiotics and hemodynamic support.


Circulation | 2016

2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI Focused Update on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

Glenn N. Levine; Eric R. Bates; James C. Blankenship; Steven R. Bailey; John A. Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E. Chambers; Stephen G. Ellis; Robert A. Guyton; Steven M. Hollenberg; Umesh N. Khot; Richard A. Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Henry H. Ting; Patrick T. O’Gara; Frederick G. Kushner; Ralph G. Brindis; Donald E. Casey; Mina K. Chung; James A. de Lemos; Deborah B. Diercks; James C. Fang; Barry A. Franklin; Christopher B. Granger; Harlan M. Krumholz; Jane A. Linderbaum; David A. Morrow

To ensure that guidelines reflect current knowledge, available treatment options, and optimum medical care, existing clinical practice guideline recommendations are modified and new recommendations are added in response to new data, medications or devices. To keep pace with evolving evidence, the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines (“Task Force”) has issued this focused update to revise guideline recommendations on the basis of recently published data. This update is not based on a complete literature review from the date of previous guideline publications, but it has been subject to rigorous, multilevel review and approval, similar to the full guidelines. For specific focused update criteria and additional methodological details, please see the ACC/AHA guideline methodology manual.1 ### Modernization In response to published reports from the Institute of Medicine2,3 and ACC/AHA mandates,4–7 processes have changed leading to adoption of a “knowledge byte” format. This entails delineation of recommendations addressing specific clinical questions, followed by concise text, with hyperlinks to supportive evidence. This approach better accommodates time constraints on busy clinicians, facilitates easier access to recommendations via electronic search engines and other evolving technology (eg, smart phone apps), and supports the evolution of guidelines as “living documents” that can be …

Collaboration


Dive into the Steven M. Hollenberg's collaboration.

Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge