Towards an understanding of best practice: The good, the bad and the future of cardiogenic shock teams
Recommended Citation
Senman B, Sinha S, Truesdell AG, Safiriyu I, Drakos S, Dupont A, Basir MB, Miller PE, Rali AS, Bennett C, Tehrani B, Cowger J, Hall SA, Rosner C, Hackmann AE, Wang DE, Papolos AI, Kadosh BS, Vallabhajosyula S, Ferri M, Kochar A, Gage A, Horowitz JM, and Katz JN. Towards an Understanding of Best Practice - The Good, The Bad and the Future of Cardiogenic Shock Teams. Am Heart J 2025;293:107310.
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
3-1-2026
Publication Title
American heart journal
Keywords
Shock, Cardiogenic, Humans, Patient Care Team, Critical Care, Societies, Medical, Cardiology
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high-mortality condition that demands rapid diagnosis, coordinated multidisciplinary management, and timely initiation of mechanical circulatory support. As more institutions implement dedicated CS teams, substantial heterogeneity has emerged in how these teams are structured, activated, and sustained. To better characterize this variability and begin defining the components of an optimal CS team, the Society of Critical Care Cardiology (SoCCC), in partnership with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), convened the Inaugural Cardiogenic Shock Teams Think Tank. Held on October 17, 2024, as a preconference program to SCAI SHOCK 2024 in Washington, DC, the meeting brought together national leaders in CS care, mechanical circulatory support, and resuscitation to identify shared challenges and propose practical solutions. This manuscript summarizes key insights from this inaugural Think Tank, which represents the first in an ongoing series of collaborative efforts aimed at informing the standardization and optimization of CS teams nationwide. Specifically, we review the ideal composition and core competencies of a CS team; the rationale and emerging evidence supporting dedicated team-based CS care; activation algorithms and operational workflows; and common barriers to establishing and sustaining such teams. We also outline future directions and opportunities to strengthen collaborative infrastructure, refine clinical pathways, and enhance the reliability, responsiveness, and effectiveness of cardiogenic shock teams across diverse healthcare settings.
Medical Subject Headings
Shock, Cardiogenic; Humans; Patient Care Team; Critical Care; Societies, Medical; Cardiology
PubMed ID
41285212
Volume
293
First Page
107310
Last Page
107310
