AI Article Synopsis

  • Cardiogenic shock remains a critical health issue with high mortality rates, and no significant new treatments have emerged in decades, making management difficult.
  • A collaborative, multidisciplinary approach involving specialized "shock teams" is being promoted to improve patient outcomes in high-volume clinical settings.
  • The proposal aims to establish a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative to enhance care protocols, education, and overall performance, similar to successful initiatives in other medical areas.

Article 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11009990PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.031979DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cardiogenic shock
20
shock team
12
patient outcomes
8
care
6
cardiogenic
5
shock
5
team
4
team collaborative-promoting
4
collaborative-promoting team-based
4
team-based model
4

Similar Publications

Purpose Of Review: This article discusses a tailored approach to managing cardiogenic shock and temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). We also outline specific mobilization strategies for patients with different tMCS devices and configurations, which can be enabled by this tailored approach to cardiogenic shock management.

Recent Findings: Safe and effective mobilization of patients with cardiogenic shock receiving tMCS can be accomplished.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Cardiogenic shock represents a critical condition in which the heart is unable to maintain adequate circulation leading to insufficient tissue perfusion and end-organ failure. Temporary mechanical circulatory support offers the potential to stabilize patients, provide a bridge-to-recovery, provide a bridge-to-decision, or facilitate definitive heart replacement therapies. Although randomized controlled trials have been performed in infarct-related cardiogenic shock and refractory cardiac arrest, the optimal timing, appropriate patient selection, and optimal implementation of these devices remain complex and predominantly based on observational data and expert consensus, especially in non-ischaemic shock.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: The use of mechanical circulatory support devices for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased over the past decade despite limited data of benefit. We sought to examine the association between intravascular microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) versus intra-aortic balloon pump use in patients without cardiogenic shock (CS) undergoing PCI.

Methods And Results: This retrospective study analyzed claims data from a large, insured population who underwent PCI without CS from April 1, 2016 to July 31, 2022.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

The mortality rate of postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock after cardiovascular surgery is quite high, and the only way to avoid this serious complication is to initiate a preemptive strategy during surgery. The Impella 5.5 device with the SmartAssist system (Abiomed) is mainly used to prevent or to treat cardiogenic shock in cardiac surgery, but it is not often used in aortic surgery.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Direct mechanical ventricular actuation (DMVA) with the Anstadt cup is effective for non-blood-contacting biventricular support. Pneumatic regulation of a silicone device augments ventricular pump function. Vacuum attachment facilitates diastolic augmentation critical for biventricular support.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!