» Articles » PMID: 38456417

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Citing Articles

Sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock: controversies and evidence gaps in diagnosis and management.

Sato R, Hasegawa D, Guo S, Nuqali A, Pino Moreno J J Intensive Care. 2025; 13(1):1.

PMID: 39748440 PMC: 11694368. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-024-00770-y.


Future Training Pathways in Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: Interventional Critical Care, Complex Coronary Interventions, and Interventional Heart Failure.

Vallabhajosyula S, Alasnag M, Boudoulas K, Davidson L, Pyo R, Riley R JACC Adv. 2025; 3(11):101338.

PMID: 39741647 PMC: 11686056. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101338.


Mixed Cardiogenic-Vasodilatory Shock: Current Insights and Future Directions.

Jentzer J, Berg D, Chonde M, Dahiya G, Elliott A, Rampersad P JACC Adv. 2024; 4(1):101432.

PMID: 39720581 PMC: 11666941. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101432.


Blueprint for Building and Sustaining a Cardiogenic Shock Program: Qualitative Survey of 12 US Programs.

Yau R, Mitchell R, Afzal A, George T, Siddiqullah S, Bharadwaj A J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2024; 3(11):102288.

PMID: 39649821 PMC: 11624379. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102288.


The Price We Pay for Progression in Shock Care: Economic Burden, Accessibility, and Adoption of Shock-Teams and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Vallabhajosyula S, Sinha S, Kochar A, Pahuja M, Amico Jr F, Kapur N Curr Cardiol Rep. 2024; 26(10):1123-1134.

PMID: 39325244 DOI: 10.1007/s11886-024-02108-4.

References
1.
Korabathina R, Heffernan K, Paruchuri V, Patel A, Mudd J, Prutkin J . The pulmonary artery pulsatility index identifies severe right ventricular dysfunction in acute inferior myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 80(4):593-600. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.23309. View

2.
Vallabhajosyula S, Prasad A, Bell M, Sandhu G, Eleid M, Dunlay S . Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Use in Acute Myocardial Infarction in the United States, 2000 to 2014. Circ Heart Fail. 2019; 12(12):e005929. PMC: 7015104. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.005929. View

3.
Fernando S, Mathew R, Sadeghirad B, Brodie D, Belley-Cote E, Thiele H . Inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support for treatment of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2022; 69(12):1537-1553. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-022-02337-7. View

4.
Rab T, Ratanapo S, Kern K, Basir M, McDaniel M, Meraj P . Cardiac Shock Care Centers: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 72(16):1972-1980. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.074. View

5.
Baran D, Grines C, Bailey S, Burkhoff D, Hall S, Henry T . SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the.... Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(1):29-37. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28329. View