Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks
The mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevatio...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Radcliffe Medical Media
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | US Cardiology Review |
| Online Access: | https://www.uscjournal.com/articleindex/usc.2021.10 |
| _version_ | 1797200059755921408 |
|---|---|
| author | Alex F Warren Carolyn Rosner Raghav Gattani Alex G Truesdell Alastair G Proudfoot |
| author_facet | Alex F Warren Carolyn Rosner Raghav Gattani Alex G Truesdell Alastair G Proudfoot |
| author_sort | Alex F Warren |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevation MI and major trauma, institutions are increasingly advocating the use of a multidisciplinary ‘shock team’ approach to CS management. A volume–outcome relationship exists in CS, as with many other acute cardiovascular conditions, and the emergence of ‘shock hubs’ as experienced facilities with an interest in improving CS outcomes through a hub-and-spoke ‘shock network’ approach provides another opportunity to deliver improved CS care as widely and equitably as possible. This narrative review outlines improvements from a networked approach to care, discusses a team-based and protocolized approach to CS management, reviews the available evidence and discusses the potential benefits, challenges, and opportunities of such systems of care. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T17:41:08Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-8d57eed4939f4817b93ffd92df9fdc44 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1758-3896 1758-390X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T07:25:38Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | Radcliffe Medical Media |
| record_format | Article |
| series | US Cardiology Review |
| spelling | doaj.art-8d57eed4939f4817b93ffd92df9fdc442024-04-20T16:02:24ZengRadcliffe Medical MediaUS Cardiology Review1758-38961758-390X2021-10-011510.15420/usc.2021.10Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and NetworksAlex F Warren0Carolyn Rosner1Raghav Gattani2Alex G Truesdell3Alastair G Proudfoot4South-East Scotland School of Anaesthesia, Edinburgh, UK; Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UKInova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VAInova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VAInova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, VA; Virginia Heart, Falls Church, VADepartment of Perioperative Medicine, Barts Heart Centre, London, UK; Clinic for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, German Heart Centre Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Queen Mary University of London, London, UKThe mortality of cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Delays in the recognition of CS and access to disease-modifying or hemodynamically stabilizing interventions likely contribute to poor outcomes. In parallel to successful initiatives in other disease states, such as acute ST-elevation MI and major trauma, institutions are increasingly advocating the use of a multidisciplinary ‘shock team’ approach to CS management. A volume–outcome relationship exists in CS, as with many other acute cardiovascular conditions, and the emergence of ‘shock hubs’ as experienced facilities with an interest in improving CS outcomes through a hub-and-spoke ‘shock network’ approach provides another opportunity to deliver improved CS care as widely and equitably as possible. This narrative review outlines improvements from a networked approach to care, discusses a team-based and protocolized approach to CS management, reviews the available evidence and discusses the potential benefits, challenges, and opportunities of such systems of care.https://www.uscjournal.com/articleindex/usc.2021.10 |
| spellingShingle | Alex F Warren Carolyn Rosner Raghav Gattani Alex G Truesdell Alastair G Proudfoot Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks US Cardiology Review |
| title | Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks |
| title_full | Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks |
| title_fullStr | Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks |
| title_short | Cardiogenic Shock: Protocols, Teams, Centers, and Networks |
| title_sort | cardiogenic shock protocols teams centers and networks |
| url | https://www.uscjournal.com/articleindex/usc.2021.10 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alexfwarren cardiogenicshockprotocolsteamscentersandnetworks AT carolynrosner cardiogenicshockprotocolsteamscentersandnetworks AT raghavgattani cardiogenicshockprotocolsteamscentersandnetworks AT alexgtruesdell cardiogenicshockprotocolsteamscentersandnetworks AT alastairgproudfoot cardiogenicshockprotocolsteamscentersandnetworks |