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

Papolos, Alexander; Kenigsberg, Benjamin; Berg, David D.; Alviar, Carlos L.; Bohula, Erin A.; Burke, James A.; Carnicelli, Anthony P.; Chaudhry, Sunit‐Preet; Drakos, Stavros G.; Gerber, Daniel; Guo, Jianping; Horowitz, James; Katz, Jason N.; Keeley, Ellen C.; Metkus, Thomas S.; Nativi-Nicolau, José; Snell, Jeffrey; Sinha, Shashank S.; Tymchak, Wayne; Diepen, Sean van; Morrow, David A.; Barnett, Christopher F.

doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.07.044

Cited by 126 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While current and ongoing research efforts have greatly informed our understanding of the hemometabolic complexities associated with CS, prior efforts have focused primarily on patients with AMI-CS, with a device-based approach. Alternatively, existing studies have been limited primarily to centers without dedicated shock teams, or the studies have not prospectively enrolled patients across the full spectrum of CS (Figure 2) (10,28,29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design

Tehrani¹,

Drakos²,

Billia³

et al. 2022

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design

Tehrani¹,

Drakos²,

Billia³

et al. 2022

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In-hospital multidisciplinary shock teams in high-volume centers and regional systems of care are now proposed as a possible solution to improve prognosis. Indeed, although optimal protocols and structures for CS management have not been outlined so far, emerging data have suggested that the establishment of a shock team of multiple specialists (i.e., critical care cardiology, advanced HF cardiology, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery) might impact on CS outcomes [ 20 , 90 , 91 ]. Moreover, initial studies suggested that the implementation of a CS regional network with standardized referral protocols might improve patients’ survival, allowing a faster management of this critical life-threatening status [ 12 ].…”

Section: Role Of Shock Teams and Medical Care System Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Masiero

Cardaioli

Rodinò

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening condition frequently encountered in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Despite prompt revascularization, in particular, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and therapeutic and technological advances, the mortality rate for patients with CS related to AMI remains unacceptably high. Differently form a hemodynamically stable setting, a culprit lesion-only (CLO) revascularization strategy is currently suggested for AMI–CS patients, based on the results of recent randomized evidence burdened by several limitations and conflicting results from non-randomized studies. Furthermore, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have emerged as a key therapeutic option in CS, especially in the case of their early implantation without delaying revascularization and before irreversible organ damage has occurred. We provide an in-depth review of the current evidence on optimal revascularization strategies of multivessel CAD in infarct-related CS, assessing the role of different types of MCS devices and highlighting the importance of shock teams and medical care system networks to effectively impact on clinical outcomes.

show abstract

“…8 Retrospective analyses from C3TN have examined contemporary insights of cardiogenic shock, 23 patterns of temporary mechanical circulatory support, 24 and the comparative use of cardiogenic shock teams in cardiac ICUs. 25 Prospective trials from networks such as C3TN, in addition to ongoing registry data from others such as the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group offer an exciting future for the study of critically ill cardiac intensive care patients. Combining this infrastructure with highly trained and motivated individuals with mutual backgrounds in critical care and cardiovascular medicine are key elements in advancing scientific knowledge.…”

Section: Research In the Cardiac Icumentioning

confidence: 99%

Cardiac Critical Care: The Evolution of a Novel Subspecialty

Gage

Higgins

Lee

2022

Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driven by evolving patient demographics and disease burdens over the past several decades, the demands placed on the cardiac intensive care unit have steadily increased. Originally born out of the need for post-infarction arrhythmia monitoring, the modern cardiac intensive care space is now encountering progressively more complex patients with multisystem organ failure and, increasingly, complex mechanical circulatory support. This complexity has fueled a demand for specifically trained cardiac intensivists, and many different training pathways have emerged nationwide. In this article, we provide an overview of the evolution, landscape, training, and future of the subspecialty of cardiac critical care.

show abstract

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

Cited by 126 publications

References 17 publications

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design

The Multicenter Collaborative to Enhance Biologic Understanding, Quality, and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock (VANQUISH Shock): Rationale and Design

When to Achieve Complete Revascularization in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Cardiac Critical Care: The Evolution of a Novel Subspecialty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About