Key result
Regional cardiogenic shock network transfer is linked to ~36% 30-day mortality versus 21% with local management.
Why the study?
There are no UK-specific data describing patients managed within regional cardiogenic shock networks despite recommendations to create such networks.
What are the outcomes and implementation metrics of a regional cardiogenic shock network for managing patients with cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=411)
Yes
What are the outcomes and implementation metrics of a regional cardiogenic shock network for managing patients with cardiogenic shock?
Absolute Event Rate: 36% vs 21%
The implementation of a regional cardiogenic shock network successfully facilitated the rapid triage and transfer of selected shock patients, particularly addressing care gaps for those without ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Background A recent UK society-endorsed consensus document recommended the creation of regional cardiogenic shock networks to facilitate transfer of patients to high-volume tertiary shock centres; there are currently no UK-specific data describing patients managed within such networks. Methods In this observational cohort study, we describe the implementation of a regional cardiogenic shock network covering a population of 3.5 million in North and East London. We analysed two cohorts: (1) all patients with cardiogenic shock admitted to a tertiary shock centre intensive care unit from 1 May 2023 to 31 May 2025 and (2) all patients referred from referring hospitals via the shock network from 1 April 2024 to 30 November 2025. Results Among 266 patients in the intensive care unit admissions cohort, 82% were admitted via nationally commissioned cardiovascular pathways and 18% via local cardiogenic shock network pathways. The most common aetiology was acute myocardial infarction (52%), followed by heart failure (30%) and secondary cardiogenic shock (18%). Mortality was 45% at 30 days and 52% at ultimate hospital discharge. Among 145 patients in the shock network referrals cohort, the most common aetiology was heart failure (46%) followed by acute myocardial infarction and secondary cardiogenic shock (both 22%). 49% of referrals were out-of-hours. 45 patients (31%) were transferred with a median time from decision to accept to patient arrival of 3.2 hours. Mortality at 30 days was 36% in patients transferred successfully, 21% in patients managed locally with advice and 74% in patients not transferred on the basis of perceived lack of benefit. Conclusions Implementation of a cardiogenic shock network facilitated rapid triage and transfer of select patients and may address gaps in access to specialist cardiac care for patients with cardiogenic shock not due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Prospective multicentre evaluation is needed to determine effects on patient outcomes and resource use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mellis et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Cardiogenic shock (n=411). Regional cardiogenic shock network vs. Locally managed or not transferred was evaluated on Mortality at 30 days. Implementation of a regional cardiogenic shock network facilitated transfer of select patients, with a 30-day mortality of 36% in transferred patients versus 21% in those managed locally with advice.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: