Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 525

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock

Open access
Tehrani, Behnam N., Truesdell, Alexander G., Sherwood, Matthew W., Desai, Shashank, Tran, Henry A., Epps, Kelly C., Singh, Ramesh, Psotka, Mitchell, Shah, Palak, Cooper, Lauren B., Rosner, Carolyn, Raja, Anika, Barnett, Scott D., Saulino, Patricia, deFilippi, Christopher R., Gurbel, Paul A., Murphy, Charles E., O’Connor, Christopher M.·2019·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a multifactorial, hemodynamically complex syndrome associated with high mortality. Despite advances in reperfusion and mechanical circulatory support, management remains highly variable and outcomes poor. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether a standardized team-based approach can improve outcomes in CS and whether a risk score can guide clinical decision making. METHODS: A total of 204 consecutive patients with CS were identified. CS etiology, patient demographic characteristics, right heart catheterization, mechanical circulatory support use, and survival were determined. Cardiac power output (CPO) and pulmonary arterial pulsatility index (PAPi) were measured at baseline and 24 h after the CS diagnosis. Thresholds at 24 h for lactate (<3.0 mg/dl), CPO (>0.6 W), and PAPi (>1.0) were determined. Using logistic regression analysis, a validated risk stratification score was developed. RESULTS: Compared with 30-day survival of 47% in 2016, 30-day survival in 2017 and 2018 increased to 57.9% and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.01). Independent predictors of 30-day mortality were age ≥71 years, diabetes mellitus, dialysis, ≥36 h of vasopressor use at time of diagnosis, lactate levels ≥3.0 mg/dl, CPO <0.6 W, and PAPi <1.0 at 24 h after diagnosis and implementation of therapies. Either 1 or 2 points were assigned to each variable, and a 3-category risk score was determined: 0 to 1 (low), 2 to 4 (moderate), and ≥5 (high). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study suggests that a standardized team-based approach may improve CS outcomes. A score incorporating demographic, laboratory, and hemodynamic data may be used to quantify risk and guide clinical decision-making for all phenotypes of CS.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 525

Metadata

Authors
Tehrani, B. N., Truesdell, A. G., Sherwood, M. W., Desai, S., Tran, H. A., Epps, K. C., Singh, R., Psotka, M., Shah, P., Cooper, L. B., Rosner, C., Raja, A., Barnett, S. D., Saulino, P., deFilippi, C. R., Gurbel, P. A., Murphy, C. E., & O’Connor, C. M.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
73
Issue
13
Pages
1659-1669
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2925906209
Cited by
525
References
0
FWCI
20.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084
The paper
Tehrani, B. N., Truesdell, A. G., Sherwood, M. W., Desai, S., Tran, H. A., Epps, K. C., Singh, R., Psotka, M., Shah, P., Cooper, L. B., Rosner, C., Raja, A., Barnett, S. D., Saulino, P., deFilippi, C. R., Gurbel, P. A., Murphy, C. E., & O’Connor, C. M. (2019). Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.