Regional Variation in the Adoption of Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring for Cardiogenic Shock in the United States

The shock team: a multidisciplinary approach to early patient phenotyping and appropriate care escalation in cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a highly morbid condition with mortality remaining greater than 30% despite improved pathophysiologic understanding and access to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In response, shock teams modeled on successful multidisciplinary care structures for other diseases are being implemented nationwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

Primary data supporting a benefit of shock team implementation on patient outcomes are relatively limited and entirely observational. Four single-center before-and-after studies and one multicenter registry study have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with CS, potentially driven by increased pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) utilization and earlier (and more appropriate) initiation of MCS. Shock teams are also supported by a growing body of literature recognizing the independent benefit of the interventions they seek to implement, including patient phenotyping with PAC use and an algorithmic approach to CS care. Though debated, MCS is also highly likely to improve CS outcomes when applied appropriately, which further supports a multidisciplinary shock team approach to patient and device selection.

SUMMARY

Shock teams likely improve patient outcomes by facilitating early patient phenotyping and appropriate intervention. Institutions should strongly consider adopting a multidisciplinary shock team approach to CS care, though additional data supporting these interventions are needed.

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-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.

Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Lower In-Hospital Mortality

Background

There is increasing utilization of cardiogenic shock treatment algorithms. The cornerstone of these algorithms is the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring (IHM). We sought to compare the in‐hospital outcomes in patients who received IHM versus no IHM in a real‐world contemporary database.

Methods and Results

Patients with cardiogenic shock admitted during October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Among this group, we compared the outcomes among patients who received IHM versus no IHM. The primary end point was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary end points included vascular complications, major bleeding, need for renal replacement therapy, length of stay, cost of hospitalization, and rate of utilization of left ventricular assist devices and heart transplantation. Propensity score matching was used for covariate adjustment. A total of 394 635 (IHM=62 565; no IHM=332 070) patients were included. After propensity score matching, 2 well‐matched groups were compared (IHM=62 220; no IHM=62 220). The IHM group had lower in‐hospital mortality (24.1% versus 30.6%, P<0.01), higher percentages of left ventricular assist devices (4.4% versus 1.3%, P<0.01) and heart transplantation (1.3% versus 0.7%, P<0.01) utilization, longer length of hospitalization and higher costs. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of vascular complications, major bleeding, and the need for renal replacement therapy.

Conclusions

Among patients with cardiogenic shock, the use of IHM is associated with a reduction in in‐hospital mortality and increased utilization of advanced heart failure therapies. Due to the observational nature of the current study, the results should be considered hypothesis‐generating, and future prospective studies confirming these findings are needed.

Fifteen-Year Trends in Incidence of Cardiogenic Shock Hospitalization and In-Hospital Mortality in the United States

Background There is a lack of contemporary data on cardiogenic shock (CS) in-hospital mortality trends. Methods and Results Patients with CS admitted January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the US National Inpatient Sample. We reported the crude and adjusted trends of in-hospital mortality among the overall population and selected subgroups. Among a total of 563 949 644 hospitalizations during the period from January 1, 2004, to December 30, 2018, 1 254 358 (0.2%) were attributed to CS. There has been a steady increase in hospitalizations attributed to CS from 122 per 100 000 hospitalizations in 2004 to 408 per 100 000 hospitalizations in 2018 (P_trend<0.001). This was associated with a steady decline in the adjusted trends of in-hospital mortality during the study period in the overall population (from 49% in 2004 to 37% in 2018; P_trend<0.001), among patients with acute myocardial infarction CS (from 43% in 2004 to 34% in 2018; P_trend<0.001), and among patients with non-acute myocardial infarction CS (from 52% in 2004 to 37% in 2018; P_trend<0.001). Consistent trends of reduced mortality were seen among women, men, different racial/ethnic groups, different US regions, and different hospital sizes, regardless of the hospital teaching status. Conclusions Hospitalizations attributed to CS have tripled in the period from January 2004 to December 2018. However, there has been a slow decline in CS in-hospital mortality during the studied period. Further studies are necessary to determine if the recent adoption of treatment algorithms in treating patients with CS will further impact in-hospital mortality.