Implementation and outcomes of a regional cardiogenic shock network in the UK

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Heart
Published
2026-10-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2026-328637
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implementation and outcomes of a regional cardiogenic shock network in the UK

Clare Mellis, Alastair G. Proudfoot, Stephen J. Shepherd, Simon Woldman et al.
Heart
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Implementation and outcomes of a regional cardiogenic shock network in the UK

Clare Mellis, Alastair G. Proudfoot, Stephen J. Shepherd, Simon Woldman, Lucy Jenkins, Mick Ozkor, Sachin Shah, Alex Warren
article en

Abstract

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.

Heart
Queen Mary University of London (GB), Barts Health NHS Trust (GB)
Barts Charity
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.