Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 426

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry

Open access
Berg, David D., Bohula, Erin A., van Diepen, Sean, Katz, Jason N., Alviar, Carlos L., Baird-Zars, Vivian M., Barnett, Christopher F., Barsness, Gregory W., Burke, James A., Cremer, Paul C., Cruz, Jennifer, Daniels, Lori B., DeFilippis, Andrew P., Haleem, Affan, Hollenberg, Steven M., Horowitz, James M., Keller, Norma, Kontos, Michael C., Lawler, Patrick R., Menon, Venu, Metkus, Thomas S., Ng, Jason, Orgel, Ryan, Overgaard, Christopher B., Park, Jeong-Gun, Phreaner, Nicholas, Roswell, Robert O., Schulman, Steven P., Jeffrey Snell, R., Solomon, Michael A., Ternus, Bradley, Tymchak, Wayne, Vikram, Fnu, Morrow, David A.·2019·Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

Abstract

Background: Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg with end-organ dysfunction ascribed to the hypotension. Shock type was classified by site investigators as cardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5–8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1–8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9–10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0–3.6) for patients without shock ( P <0.01 for each). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were higher in patients with mixed shock (10; IQR, 6–13) versus AMICS (8; IQR, 5–11) or CS without AMI (7; IQR, 5–11; each P <0.01). In-hospital mortality rates were 36% (95% CI, 28%–45%), 31% (95% CI, 26%–36%), and 39% (95% CI, 31%–48%) in AMICS, CS without AMI, and mixed shock, respectively. Conclusions: The epidemiology of shock in contemporary advanced CICUs is varied, and AMICS now represents less than one-third of all CS. Despite advanced therapies, mortality in CS and mixed shock remains high. Investigation of management strategies and new therapies to treat shock in the CICU should take this epidemiology into account.

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 · 10.1161/circoutcomes.119.005618

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 426

Metadata

Authors
Berg, D. D., Bohula, E. A., van Diepen, S., Katz, J. N., Alviar, C. L., Baird-Zars, V. M., Barnett, C. F., Barsness, G. W., Burke, J. A., Cremer, P. C., Cruz, J., Daniels, L. B., DeFilippis, A. P., Haleem, A., Hollenberg, S. M., Horowitz, J. M., Keller, N., Kontos, M. C., Lawler, P. R., Menon, V., Metkus, T. S., Ng, J., Orgel, R., Overgaard, C. B., Park, J.-G., Phreaner, N., Roswell, R. O., Schulman, S. P., Jeffrey Snell, R., Solomon, M. A., Ternus, B., Tymchak, W., Vikram, F., & Morrow, D. A.
Venue
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Published
2019-03
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
e005618-e005618
ISSN
  • 1941-7705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7713
OpenAlex
W2922103361
Cited by
426
References
21
FWCI
13.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circoutcomes.119.005618
The paper
Berg, D. D., Bohula, E. A., van Diepen, S., Katz, J. N., Alviar, C. L., Baird-Zars, V. M., Barnett, C. F., Barsness, G. W., Burke, J. A., Cremer, P. C., Cruz, J., Daniels, L. B., DeFilippis, A. P., Haleem, A., Hollenberg, S. M., Horowitz, J. M., Keller, N., Kontos, M. C., Lawler, P. R., . . . Morrow, D. A. (2019). Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: Data From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1161/circoutcomes.119.005618

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.