Skip to main content
Search
Search
Quick Search anywhere
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search in Journals
Skip main navigation
JACC Journals › JACC › Archives › Vol. 78 No. 13
Previous
Next

Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Cardiac ICUs With Versus Without Shock TeamsFree Access

Original Investigation

JACC. 2021 Sep, 78 (13) 1309–1317
Editorial Comment: Cardiogenic Shock Management Should Be a Team Sport∗
Sections

Central Illustration

Abstract

Background

Single-center studies suggest that implementation of multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) teams is associated with improved CS survival.

Objectives

The aim was to characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of CS across multiple centers with versus without shock teams.

Methods

The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. All consecutive medical admissions to each CICU (n = 24) were captured during annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019; n = 6,872). Shock management and CICU mortality among centers with versus without shock teams were compared using inverse probability weighting.

Results

Ten of the 24 centers had shock teams. Among 1,242 CS admissions, 44% were at shock team centers. The groups were well-balanced with respect to demographics, shock etiology, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, biochemical markers of end organ dysfunction, and invasive hemodynamics. Centers with shock teams used more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs 49%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.47-2.35; P < 0.001), less overall mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (35% vs 43%; adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; P = 0.016), and more advanced types of MCS (53% vs 43% of all MCS; adjusted OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.19-2.51; P = 0.005) rather than intra-aortic balloon pumps. The presence of a shock team was independently associated with lower CICU mortality (23% vs 29%; adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94; P = 0.016).

Conclusions

In this multicenter observational study, centers with shock teams were more likely to obtain invasive hemodynamics, use advanced types of MCS, and have lower risk-adjusted mortality. A standardized multidisciplinary shock team approach may improve outcomes in CS.

References

  • 1. Berg D.D., Bohula E.A., van Diepen S., et al. "Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units". Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2019;12:e005618

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 2. Hochman J.S. "Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: expanding the paradigm". Circulation 2003;107:2998-3002.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 3. Hochman J.S., Sleeper L.A., Webb J.G., et al. "Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock". N Engl J Med 1999;341:625-634.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 4. Lawler P.R., Bohula E.A., Park J.-G., Katz J., Diepen S.V., Morrow D.A. "Clinical staging in cardiogenic shock discriminates survival: data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry". J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:11 suppl 1: 1127.

    View ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • 5. Taleb I., Koliopoulou A.G., Tandar A., et al. "Shock team approach in refractory cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: a proof of concept". Circulation 2019;140:98-100.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 6. Tehrani B.N., Truesdell A.G., Sherwood M.W., et al. "Standardized team-based care for cardiogenic shock". J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:1659-1669.

    View ArticleGoogle Scholar

  • 7. Basir M.B., Schreiber T., Dixon S., et al. "Feasibility of early mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the Detroit cardiogenic shock initiative". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2018;91:454-461.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 8. Lee F., Hutson J.H., Boodhwani M., et al. "Multidisciplinary code shock team in cardiogenic shock: a Canadian centre experience". CJC Open 2020;2:249-257.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 9. Morrow D.A., Fang J.C., Fintel D.J., et al. "Evolution of critical care cardiology: transformation of the cardiovascular intensive care unit and the emerging need for new medical staffing and training models: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association". Circulation 2012;126:1408-1428.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 10. Berg D.D., Barnett C.F., Kenigsberg B.B., et al. "Clinical practice patterns in temporary mechanical circulatory support for shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry". Circ Heart Fail 2019;12:e006635

    CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11. Basir M.B., Schreiber T.L., Grines C.L., et al. "Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock". Am J Cardiol 2017;119:845-851.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 12. Sotomi Y., Sato N., Kajimoto K., et al. "Impact of pulmonary artery catheter on outcome in patients with acute heart failure syndromes with hypotension or receiving inotropes: from the ATTEND Registry". Int J Cardiol 2014;172:165-172.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 13. Binanay C., Califf R.M., Hasselblad V., et al. "Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial". JAMA 2005;294:1625-1633.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 14. Garan A.R., Kanwar M., Thayer K.L., et al. "Complete hemodynamic profiling with pulmonary artery catheters in cardiogenic shock is associated with lower in-hospital mortality". J Am Coll Cardiol HF 2020;8:903-913.

    Google Scholar

  • 15. Hernandez G.A., Lemor A., Blumer V., et al. "Trends in utilization and outcomes of pulmonary artery catheterization in heart failure with and without cardiogenic shock". J Card Fail 2019;25:364-371.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 16. O’Neill W.W., Grines C., Schreiber T., et al. "Analysis of outcomes for 15,259 US patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS) supported with the Impella device". Am Heart J 2018;202:33-38.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 17. Saxena A., Garan A.R., Kapur N.K., et al. "Value of hemodynamic monitoring in patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing mechanical circulatory support". Circulation 2020;141:1184-1197.

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 18. Thayer K.L., Zweck E., Ayouty M., et al. "Invasive hemodynamic assessment and classification of in-hospital mortality risk among patients with cardiogenic shock". Circ Heart Fail 2020;13:e007099

    CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar

  • 19. Tehrani B.N., Truesdell A.G., Psotka M.A., et al. "A standardized and comprehensive approach to the management of cardiogenic shock". J Am Coll Cardiol HF 2020;8:879-891.

    Google Scholar