ArticleJACC. Heart failure2022
A Standardized and Regionalized Network of Care for Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in JACC. Heart failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06475456 (SPOKE-HUB SHOCK PROTOCOL MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO SCAI CLASS IN TURIN AND MILAN AREA), which is not on this map. Cited by 41 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Spoke-hub shock protocol management according to scai class in turin and milan area
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiogenic Shock Centers and Protocols for Acute Cardiovascular Care: Bridging the Gap Between Spoke and Hub Sites.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in Intra-aortic Balloon Pump-Supported Cardiogenic Shock Among Patients Transferred to Tertiary Care Centers.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- The Challenge of Cardiogenic Shock Transfers: The Devil in the Details.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- CalShock: beyond the shock team, building on California's cardiogenic shock system of care.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Optimizing Heart Failure-Specific Disease Management Programs and Patient Care in Saudi Arabia: A Saudi Heart Association Position Statement.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2026Article
- Factors associated with native heart survival and intermediate-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Systems of Care Best Practices. Part 2: The Shock Team and Inpatient Management.US cardiology · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Impact of standardized team-based care on cardiogenic shock outcomes over time.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Cardiogenic shock: a review of contemporary approaches and ongoing challenges.Future cardiology · 2025Review
- Cardiogenic Shock; Health Disparities; Equity; Mechanical Circulatory Support; Sex Differences; Multidisciplinary Care; Protocolized Care.Current heart failure reports · 2025Review
- Barriers to Cardiogenic Shock Recognition: A Qualitative Analysis.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Application of the Updated Cardiogenic Shock Working Group SCAI Classification for Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Centre Analysis.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Expert consensus statement on the evaluation, treatment, and transfer of cardiogenic shock using a Delphi method approach: a report of the Japan Critical Care Cardiology Committee (J4 CS).Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Evolution of Critical Care Cardiology: An Update on Structure, Care Delivery, Training, and Research Paradigms: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Phase-Specific Hemodynamic Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- ANMCO position paper: functional reorganization of Intensive Cardiac Care Units (ICCUs) in Italy: Evolution of ICCUs: Growing Needs and the Necessity of a Network With Varying Levels of Care Complexity.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Patient Characteristics, Management and Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock at a Large Safety Net Hospital.The American journal of cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of standardized care for cardiogenic shock (CS) across regional care networks are poorly understood.
objectivesThe authors compared the management and outcomes of CS patients initially presenting to hub versus spoke hospitals within a regional care network.
methodsThe authors stratified consecutive patients enrolled in their CS registry (January 2017 to December 2019) by presentation to a spoke versus the hub hospital. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints included bleeding, stroke, or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events.
resultsOf 520 CS patients, 286 (55%) initially presented to 34 spoke hospitals. No difference in mean age (62 years vs 61 years; P = 0.38), sex (25% vs 32% women; P = 0.10), and race (54% vs 52% white; P = 0.82) between spoke and hub patients was noted. Spoke patients more often presented with acute myocardial infarction (50% vs 32%; P < 0.01), received vasopressors (74% vs 66%; P = 0.04), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (88% vs 37%; P < 0.01). Hub patients were more often supported with percutaneous ventricular assist devices (44% vs 11%; P < 0.01) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (13% vs 0%; P < 0.01). Initial presentation to a spoke was not associated with increased risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.49-1.55]; P = 0.64), bleeding (adjusted OR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.49-1.62]; P = 0.70), stroke (adjusted OR: 0.74 [95% CI: 0.31-1.75]; P = 0.49), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI: 0.50-1.35]; P = 0.44).
conclusionsSpoke and hub patients experienced similar short-term outcomes within a regionalized CS network. The optimal strategy to promote standardized care and improved outcomes across regional CS networks merits further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.