Logo

American Heart Association

  84
  0


Final ID: MP274

Impact of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Approach on Outcomes in a Non-LVAD Center

Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here): Introduction: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a high-mortality clinical syndrome, with reported rates between 40–50%. Multidisciplinary shock teams have emerged to streamline care and improve outcomes. In our non-LVAD center, we implemented a structured shock team model involving interventional cardiology, advanced heart failure, and critical care physicians, with early decision-making led primarily by an interventional and transplant cardiologist. Standardized protocols guided management and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) selection.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of adult patients with cardiogenic shock admitted between 2024–2025. Inclusion required ≥2 of the following: MAP <60 mmHg or a ≥30 mmHg drop from baseline, SBP <90 mmHg or ≥30 mmHg drop from baseline, HR >100 bpm, cardiac index less than 2.2 L per min per m2, PAPI <1.0, cardiac power output <0.6 W, or vasopressor/MCS requirement. Clinical, hemodynamic, and echocardiographic data were extracted from electronic records. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included MCS use, escalation timing, and transfer rate.
Results: A total of 40 patients were included (mean age 59.3 ± 13.6 years). The leading etiology was acute decompensated heart failure (51.2%), followed by NSTEMI (20.9%) and STEMI (16.3%). Most patients presented in SCAI Stage E (50%), followed by C (30%), D (17.5%), and B (2.1%). Vasopressors were used in 97.5%, and 36.5% were transferred from outside facilities. Temporary MCS was utilized in 50%, with Impella CP (34.6%) most common, followed by Impella 5.5 (30.8%), IABP (26.9%), Impella RP (3.8%), and VA-ECMO (3.8%). The mean lactate level across the cohort was 4.2 mmol/L, and the mean ALT was 285.57 U/L, suggesting evidence of systemic hypoperfusion and hepatic congestion. The average left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) was 28.7%, consistent with moderate systolic dysfunction. Notably, 50% of patients underwent pulmonary artery (PA) catheter placement during their evaluation. Despite high transfer rates, in-hospital mortality was 35.7%, below national averages for non-LVAD centers.
Conclusion: Implementation of a structured, interdisciplinary shock team protocol at a resource-limited center led to favorable outcomes in cardiogenic shock. Timely escalation, protocol-driven MCS use, and coordinated care can enable non-LVAD centers to deliver high-quality shock management.
  • Kochhar, Gunjan  ( University of Oklahoma , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , United States )
  • Tarigonda, Sri Harshitha  ( University of Oklahoma , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , United States )
  • Pahuja, Mohit  ( University of Oklahoma COM , Nichols Hills , Oklahoma , United States )
  • Author Disclosures:
    Gunjan Kochhar: DO NOT have relevant financial relationships | Sri Harshitha Tarigonda: DO NOT have relevant financial relationships | Mohit Pahuja: No Answer
Meeting Info:

Scientific Sessions 2025

2025

New Orleans, Louisiana

Session Info:
More abstracts on this topic:
Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes with Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis: A Meta-Analysis

Jain Hritvik, Passey Siddhant, Odat Ramez, Pervez Neha, Goyal Aman, Jain Jyoti, Patel Nandan, Yadav Ashish, Shah Janhvi, Jha Jagriti

Comparable Outcomes in Direct Impella Use Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump-to-Impella Escalation Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock

Patel Aditi, Shah Keyur, Li Pengyang, Wahba Romani, Cai Peng, Khalil Omar, Ghoussaini Racha, Gabrah Kirollos, Tchoukina Inna, Smallfield Melissa, Kontos Michael

More abstracts from these authors:
You have to be authorized to contact abstract author. Please, Login
Not Available