Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39208447›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2024

Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions.

David D Berg, Erin A Bohula, Siddharth M Patel, Carlos E Alfonso, Carlos L Alviar, Vivian M Baird-Zars, Christopher F Barnett, Gregory W Barsness, Courtney E Bennett, Sunit-Preet Chaudhry and 17 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

David D BergLevine Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 60 Fenwood Road, Suite 7022, Boston, MA 02115, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0366-5492
Erin A BohulaLevine Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 60 Fenwood Road, Suite 7022, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Siddharth M PatelLevine Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 60 Fenwood Road, Suite 7022, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Carlos E AlfonsoDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Miami Hospital, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Carlos L AlviarLeon H Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Vivian M Baird-ZarsLevine Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 60 Fenwood Road, Suite 7022, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Christopher F BarnettDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Gregory W BarsnessDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Courtney E BennettLehigh Valley Heart Institute, Department of Cardiology, Allentown, PA, USA.
Sunit-Preet ChaudhryDepartment of Medicine, St Vincent Heart Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Christopher B FordyceDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital and The Centre for Cardiovascular Innovation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Shahab GhafghaziDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA.
Umesh K GidwaniDivision of Cardiology, Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Michael J GoldfarbDivision of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Jason N KatzLeon H Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Venu MenonDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4410-2677
P Elliott MillerSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
L Kristin NewbyDivision of Cardiology, Department of Medicine and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Alexander I PapolosDepartments of Cardiology and Critical Care, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Jeong-Gun ParkLevine Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 60 Fenwood Road, Suite 7022, Boston, MA 02115, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4615-1747
Matthew J PierceNorthwell Cardiovascular Institute, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
Alastair G ProudfootDepartment of Perioperative Medicine, Barts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Shashank S SinhaInova Schar Heart and Vascular, Inova Fairfax Medical Campus, Falls Church, VA, USA.
Lakshmi SridharanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Andrea D ThompsonDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Sean van DiepenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6688-828X
David A MorrowLevine Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 60 Fenwood Road, Suite 7022, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Pathogenic mechanisms of myosin binding protein C missense variants within hypertrophic cardiomyopathyK08HL163328 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Andrea Dooley Thompson · 2022 to 2026
$837k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL163328NIH-NHLBI K08HL163328
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. METHODS AND

resultsThe Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001).

conclusionSHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.

Indexed as

Shock, CardiogenicAgedConsensus Statements as TopicCoronary Care UnitsFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesRetrospective StudiesCardiac intensive care unitCardiogenic shockEpidemiology

Identifiers

PMID39208447
PMCPMC11518926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.