ArticleOpen heart2026
Advanced Cardiogenic-shock Team versus standard care in cardiogenic SHOCK: a single centre service evaluation project.
Article in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) carries high mortality. Early revascularisation improves survival, but the effect of structured multidisciplinary care on outcomes remains underexplored. METHODS AND
resultsACT-SHOCK is a service evaluation at a UK tertiary cardiac centre. Between May 2023 and May 2024, 82 patients with AMI-related CS requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were identified using protocolised physiological criteria and managed by an Advanced Cardiogenic-Shock Team (ACT). The ACT comprised interventional cardiologists, intensivists, anaesthetists, critical care staff and cardiac physiologists, coordinating PCI and ongoing care. Outcomes were compared with 83 historical controls from the year preceding ACT roll-out, who received standard care without ACT activation. Primary endpoints were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes included predictors of 30-day mortality.Within the ACT cohort, elevated lactate, critical care admission, invasive ventilation, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Shock Stage E at first medical contact predicted 1-year mortality. Adjusted analyses showed ACT management was associated with lower 1-year mortality compared with standard care (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.92; p=0.026). Although 30-day mortality was lower in the ACT group, this did not reach statistical significance (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.29; p=0.26). Escalation from coronary care to critical care during the recovery phase occurred more promptly in the ACT group (9.7% vs 2.4%, p=0.09). At 24 hours, a smaller proportion of ACT patients remained in SCAI stages D/E compared with standard care (42% vs 48%; p=0.003).
conclusionsImplementation of physiological criteria to identify CS and activation of a multidisciplinary ACT in a UK tertiary centre was associated with earlier detection and improved 1-year survival in AMI-related CS. These pilot data support further study across multiple UK centres to inform national policy and standardise care pathways.
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.