DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.15975 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 15975: Cardiogenic Shock Teams Are Associated With Lower Mortality, Bleeding and Vascular Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Carlos L Alviar, Muhammad H Maqsood, Behnam N Tehrani, Shashank Sinha, Sean Van Diepen, Jason N Katz, Samuel Bernard, Mireia Padilla-Lopez, Norma Keller, Sripal Bangalore
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
Show PDF Cite

Introduction: Short-term mortality and morbidity associated with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. However, observational studies suggest that CS teams improve outcomes. Our aim is to systematically evaluate the outcomes associated with CS team use by performing a meta-analysis of the published literature.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/EMBASE, Cochrane databases and published abstracts was performed from inception to 06/01/2023 including studies comparing CS outcomes before and after the implementation of CS teams (excluding case reports and pediatric studies). Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, bleeding, vascular complications, use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), and renal replacement therapy (RRT). Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using DerSimonian-Laird method. The Eggers test was used to assess publication bias; significant heterogeneity was considered if I 2 > 75%.

Results: Of 524 studies screened, 5 met inclusion criteria. This included 2,331 subjects (1091 managed with a CS team and 1270 without, mean age 62.5 years, 72.1% male, 41% non-white). The implementation of CS teams was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality ([OR] = 0.63 [95% CI 0.49 - 0.81]; I 2 =19%; p < 0.001) (Fig), major bleeding (OR = 0.69 [95% CI 0.48 - 0.99]; I 2 =0%; p = 0.042), and vascular complications (OR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.40 - 0.93]; I 2 =0%; p = 0.021) compared to management without CS teams. There were no differences in tMCS (OR = 0.81 [95% CI 0.56 - 1.17]; I 2 =52%; p = 0.26) or RRT use (OR = 0.74 [95% CI 0.44 - 1.25]; I 2 =78%; p = 0.26). There was no evidence of publication bias (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, CS team implementation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, major bleeding, and vascular complications, but no difference in the use of tMCS or RRT. These findings support further prospective studies to assess the impact of CS teams in improving outcomes.

More from our Archive