Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here): Background: Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach to achieve optimal outcomes.
Aims: This study evaluated the impact of a multi-component, multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock program on clinical outcomes.
Methods: In 2021, we initiated a cardiogenic shock program incorporating several key components: monthly meetings within the entirety of the heart and vascular service line for patient review and dissemination of protocols and initiatives; formation of a core leadership group comprising representatives from cardiac surgery, heart failure, interventional cardiology, cardiac intensivists, and shock nursing coordinators; implementation of a shock paging system for real-time multidisciplinary discussions; appointment of two nursing coordinators for protocol development, education, and data tracking; development of a temporary MCS quality scorecard; and establishment of a program to transition Impella patients to a stepdown unit for bed optimization. Patient outcomes were compared between the inaugural year and the subsequent year of the shock program.
Results: 143 patients in cardiogenic shock were activated through our shock paging system during the study period. Patient age averaged 54.5 years. 51.1% of patients were located at our institution and 48.9% were located at an outside hospital upon shock call initiation. The most common etiology for shock was decompensated HF (33.6%), followed by acute MI (25.2%), arrhythmia (14%), and other (27.3%). The majority of patients presented with a SCAI shock stage of C (41.3%), followed by D (25.9%) and E (20.3%). 78.3% of patients received an MCS device as a result of the shock call, with 33.6% receiving an Impella CP, 16.8% receiving an Impella 5.5, 29.4% receiving an IABP, and 27.3% requiring VA ECMO. Prior to the shock team initiation, historical hospital survival rates in cardiogenic shock patients approached 30% at our institution. After initiation of the shock program, survival to hospital discharge improved to 67.8% and 1-year survival was 53.2%. 30-day survival improved in the second year of the program compared to the inaugural year (70.1% vs. 53.6%, p=0.0447).
Conclusion: Implementation of a multi-component multidisciplinary shock program facilitates a systematic approach to cardiogenic shock and is associated with improved hospital culture and collaboration and excellent outcomes in a challenging patient subset.