Key result
Tertiary or quaternary spoke transfer is linked to ~52% lower native heart survival.
Why the study?
Clinical factors associated with successful outcomes for patients developing cardiogenic shock at an outside facility and transferred to a quaternary center were not well defined.
What clinical factors are associated with native heart survival in patients developing cardiogenic shock at a spoke and transferred to a hub?
Cohort (n=412)
No
What clinical factors are associated with native heart survival in patients developing cardiogenic shock at a spoke and transferred to a hub?
Odds Ratio: 0.48 (95% CI 0.24–0.98)
p-value: p=0.045
Early transfer to a comprehensive cardiogenic shock management center and early deployment of temporary mechanical circulatory support over escalation of pharmacotherapy may improve outcomes.
Rapid mechanical support over vasoactive escalation may aid native survival after spoke transfer; leaves open optimal hub-and-spoke regionalization strategies.
BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary teams and regionalized care systems have been suggested to improve cardiogenic shock (CS) outcomes. We sought to identify clinical factors associated with successful outcomes for patients developing CS at an outside healthcare facility (spoke) and being transferred to a quaternary medical center (hub). METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with CS were evaluated (N=1162). Our study cohort comprised 412 patients developing CS at a spoke. Our primary end point was native heart survival (NHS) defined as survival to discharge without receiving advanced heart failure therapies. Secondary end points were survival to discharge, 30-day and 1-year survival after discharge, and adverse events. Association of clinical data with NHS was analyzed using logistic regression. Overall, 246 (59.7%) patients achieved NHS, 125 (30.3%) died, and 41 (10.0%) were discharged after advanced heart failure therapies. Of the 287 patients who were discharged (69.7%), 276 (67.0%) were alive at 30 days, and 250 (60.7%) at 1 year. Patients with NHS less commonly had bleeding or vascular complications or acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy compared with patients who died or received advanced heart failure therapies. Significant multivariable factors associated with NHS likelihood included younger age; shorter length of stay and transfer from a secondary compared with a tertiary/quaternary level of care spoke; absence of cardiac arrest, intubation, or type 3 bleeding; lower vasoactive-inotropic score; higher left ventricular ejection fraction at admission to the hub; and shorter CS onset-to-temporary mechanical circulatory support deployment time. CONCLUSIONS: We identified clinical factors reflecting disease severity and management practices including length of stay and spoke level of care, inotrope/vasopressor utilization, and CS onset-to-temporary mechanical circulatory support deployment time, that might inform the management of patients developing CS at a spoke.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kyriakopoulos et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cardiogenic shock (n=412). Transfer from a tertiary/quaternary spoke vs. Transfer from a secondary spoke was evaluated on Native heart survival (survival to discharge without receiving advanced heart failure therapies) (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24-0.98, p=0.045). Transfer from a tertiary or quaternary spoke compared to a secondary spoke was associated with a lower likelihood of native heart survival (OR 0.48), while shorter shock onset-to-mechanical circulatory support time and lower vasoactive-inotropic score improved outcomes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: