Abstract
Introduction Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a critical cardiac condition characterized by low cardiac output leading to end-organ hypoperfusion and associated with high in-hospital mortality rates. It can manifest following acute myocardial infarction or acute exacerbation of chronic heart failure. Despite advancements, mortality rates remain elevated, prompting interest in multidisciplinary approaches to improve outcomes. This manuscript presents a review focused on the concept of a CS team and its potential impact on patient management and outcomes.
Methods A comprehensive search was performed on March 19th, 2023, covering PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included primary studies (prospective and retrospective) only and evaluated their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale. This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023440354).
Results Six relevant studies with 2066 CS patients were included, of which 1071 were managed by shock teams and 995 received standard care. Findings from the reviewed studies indicated the favorable outcomes associated with implementing CS teams. Patients managed by these teams exhibited higher 30-day and in-hospital survival rates compared to those without team intervention. The implementation of CS teams was linked to reduced in-hospital and ICU mortality rates. Additionally, shock team involvement was associated with shorter door-to-balloon times.
Conclusion This review highlighted the positive influence of CS teams on patient care, enabling early detection, timely interventions, and shorter ICU stays. Despite implementation challenges, CS teams hold promise for improving management outcomes, necessitating increased attention and ongoing research in multidisciplinary strategies to advance CS care.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
N/A
Funding Statement
No funds were received to complete this project
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a systematic review manuscript that didn't require IRB approval to conduct.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
All the data used to conduct this manuscript are included in tables, figures, and mentioned in the manuscript, including references.
