Gage, Ann

Background The pathophysiology of CS is complex and is associated with increased inflammation and impaired vascular tone. Corticosteroids are recommended in septic shock and have been proposed as a potential treatment for other types of shock. Objectives We sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early corticosteroid use in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods Using a nationally representative database including over 1000 hospitals, we identified adults ≥18 years of age admitted from 2015–2023 with a diagnosis of CS. Patients with adrenal insufficiency, chronic rheumatologic conditions, COVID-19 infection and acute COPD exacerbation were excluded. Using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW), we assessed for the association of receiving early corticosteroids (within the first 2 days of admission) versus no early corticosteroids and in-hospital mortality. Results Of the 167,721 identified patients with CS, the mean (SD) age was 65.5 (±15.2) years and 35.0% were women. A total of 13.2% received any corticosteroid within the first 2 days of admission. The most common corticosteroid was hydrocortisone (73.9%). Mortality for those receiving and not receiving early corticosteroids was 48.8% and 29.6% ( p < 0.001), respectively. After IPTW, early corticosteroid use remained associated with a 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4% to 3.8%, p < 0.001) higher mortality. Among patients with CS and concomitant sepsis, 27.6% received early corticosteroids, which was similarly associated with a higher mortality (weighted mean 5.8% [95% CI: 4.6% to 7.0%, p < 0.001]). Conclusions Approximately 1 in 7 patients with CS received corticosteroids early during their admission, which was associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time‐sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well‐resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team‐based approach to care (the “shock team”) has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high‐volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative—akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium—with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.