ArticleCJC open2025
Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock Team in a Nonacademic Canadian Heart Centre: An Implementation Study.
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Admitted in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit with Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Center Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- AI-Based Predictive Models for Cardiogenic Shock in STEMI: Real-World Data for Early Risk Assessment and Prognostic Insights.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In this study we evaluated our ability to implement team-based cardiogenic shock (CS-Team), focussing on: 1) early screening; 2) CS-Team activation; and 3) use of invasive monitoring to guide therapy. Methods: All patients admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU) over 12 months were screened for CS. A diagnosis of CS was made when both hypotension and hypoperfusion were present. The CS-Team was composed of the CCU attending, an interventional cardiologist, and a cardiac surgeon. Multivariate analysis was carried out with mortality as the outcome of interest. Results: Screening was documented in 74% (1160 of 1562) of patients admitted to a critical care unit; of these, 1080 were not in CS. We identified 80 patients in CS (Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions [SCAI] stages C-E), which represented 6.9% of all screened patients. Patients in CS had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (35% vs 2%, Conclusions: We found that: 1) early screening by frontline staff was feasible but had limitations (26% screening failure); 2) CS-Team activation appeared discretionary (limited activation to 45% of patients); and 3) CS-Team activation resulted in a significant increase in the use of invasive monitoring that helped guide therapy.
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.