Evolution of Cardiogenic Shock Management and Development of a Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach: Ten Years Experience of a Single Center
- PMID: 38610866
- PMCID: PMC11012883
- DOI: 10.3390/jcm13072101
Evolution of Cardiogenic Shock Management and Development of a Multidisciplinary Team-Based Approach: Ten Years Experience of a Single Center
Abstract
Background: The management of cardiogenic shock (CS) after ACS has evolved over time, and the development of a multidisciplinary team-based approach has been shown to improve outcomes, although mortality remains high. Methods: All consecutive patients with ACS-CS admitted at our CICU from March 2012 to July 2021 were included in this single-center retrospective study. In 2019, we established a "shock team" consisting of a cardiac intensivist, an interventional cardiologist, an anesthetist, and a cardiac surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: We included 167 patients [males 67%; age 71 (61-80) years] with ischemic CS. The proportion of SCAI shock stages from A to E were 3.6%, 6.6%, 69.4%, 9.6%, and 10.8%, respectively, with a mean baseline serum lactate of 5.2 (3.1-8.8) mmol/L. Sixty-six percent of patients had severe LV dysfunction, and 76.1% needed ≥ 1 inotropic drug. Mechanical cardiac support (MCS) was pursued in 91.1% [65% IABP, 23% Impella CP, 4% VA-ECMO]. From March 2012 to July 2021, we observed a significative temporal trend in mortality reduction from 57% to 29% (OR = 0.90, p = 0.0015). Over time, CS management has changed, with a significant increase in Impella catheter use (p = 0.0005) and a greater use of dobutamine and levosimendan (p = 0.015 and p = 0.0001) as inotropic support. In-hospital mortality varied across SCAI shock stages, and the SCAI E profile was associated with a poor prognosis regardless of patient age (OR 28.50, p = 0.039). Conclusions: The temporal trend mortality reduction in CS patients is multifactorial, and it could be explained by the multidisciplinary care developed over the years.
Keywords: acute cardiovascular syndrome; acute heart failure; cardiogenic shock; mechanical cardiac support; multidisciplinary team.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Figures



References
-
- Chioncel O., Parissis J., Mebazaa A., Thiele H., Desch S., Bauersachs J., Harjola V., Antohi E., Arrigo M., Ben Gal T., et al. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock—A position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2020;22:1315–1341. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1922. - DOI - PubMed
-
- La Via L., Vasile F., Perna F., Zawadka M. Prediction of fluid responsiveness in critical care: Current evidence and future perspective. Trends Anaesth. Crit. Care. 2024;54:101316. doi: 10.1016/j.tacc.2023.101316. - DOI
-
- Marini M., Manfredi R., Battistoni I., Francioni M., Matassini M.V., Pongetti G., Angelini L., Shkoza M., Bontempo A., Belfioretti L., et al. Acute heart failure: Differential diagnosis and treatment. Eur. Heart J. Suppl. 2023;25((Suppl. C)):C276–C282. doi: 10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suad027. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous