Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether a standardized team-based approach can improve outcomes in CS and whether a risk score can guide clinical decision making. METHODS: A total of 204 consecutive patients with CS were identified. CS etiology, patient demographic characteristics, right heart catheterization, mechanical circulatory support use, and survival were determined. Cardiac power output (CPO) and pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (PAPi) were measured at baseline and 24 h after the CS diagnosis. Thresholds at 24 h for lactate (<3.0 mg/dl), CPO (>0.6 W), and PAPi (>1.0) were determined. Using logistic regression analysis, a validated risk stratification score was developed. RESULTS: Compared with 30-day survival of 47% in 2016, 30-day survival in 2017 and 2018 increased to 57.9% and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were age ≥71 years, diabetes mellitus, dialysis, ≥36 h of vasopressor use at time of diagnosis, lactate levels ≥3.0 mg/dl, CPO <0.6 W, and PAPi <1.0 at 24 h after diagnosis and implementation of therapies. Either 1 or 2 points were assigned to each variable, and a 3-category risk score was determined: 0 to 1 (low), 2 to 4 (moderate), and ≥5 (high). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study suggests that a standardized team-based approach may improve CS outcomes. A score incorporating demographic, laboratory, and hemodynamic data may be used to quantify risk and guide clinical decision-making for all phenotypes of CS.

Implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team and Clinical Outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): Observational and Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies. METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI. RESULTS: Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd).

'Combat' Approach to Cardiogenic Shock.

The incidence of cardiogenic shock is rising, patient complexity is increasing and patient survival has plateaued. Mirroring organisational innovations of elite military units, our multidisciplinary medical specialists at the INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute aim to combine the adaptability, agility and cohesion of small teams across our large healthcare system. We advocate for widespread adoption of our 'combat' methodology focused on: increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary shock team activation, group decision-making, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support (as appropriate), haemodynamic-guided management, strict protocol adherence, complete data capture and regular after action reviews, with a goal of ending preventable death from cardiogenic shock.