ReviewJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices.
Review in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct Comparison of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical application of point-of-care ultrasound during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock Centers and Protocols for Acute Cardiovascular Care: Bridging the Gap Between Spoke and Hub Sites.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Integrating bibliometric analysis and external validation of the SAVE score in VA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: insights from global trends and the MIMIC-IV database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- The Case for Regionalization: Standardizing the Hub-and-Spoke Model in Shock Care.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Advanced Cardiogenic-shock Team versus standard care in cardiogenic SHOCK: a single centre service evaluation project.Open heart · 2026Article
- Defining a Cardiogenic Shock Center and Its Relationship to Outcomes Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - A Scoping Review.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Experts' recommendations for the management of adult patients with cardiogenic shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Reveals Novel Pediatric Heart Failure Phenotypes with Distinct Mortality and Hospitalization Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- SCAI Door to Lactate Clearance (SCAI DLC) Cardiogenic Shock Initiative: Definition, Hypothesis, and Call to Action.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiogenic Shock: A Narrative Review in Light of Recent Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Application of the Updated Cardiogenic Shock Working Group SCAI Classification for Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Centre Analysis.The Canadian journal of cardiology · 2025Article
- Comparison of a directWorld journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Cardiogenic Shock: Current Evidence, Clinical Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
- The latest in the management of pulmonary embolism.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Review
- The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support in heart failure.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society 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
17 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.