Scholarlink

Purpose of Review <p>This review examines why substantial disparities persist in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) despite advances in therapy and the existence of clinical guidelines. We synthesize structural, clinical, and ethical mechanisms that shape access to timely and advanced care and highlight equity-oriented solutions.</p> Recent Findings <p>Across contemporary cohorts, women, older adults, racial/ethnic minorities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients remain less likely to receive early coronary angiography, revascularization, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and experience longer inter-hospital transfer delays. Reported gaps typically range from ~ 20–40% lower use of guideline-recommended therapies compared with reference groups, independent of comorbidity and presentation severity. Drivers include implicit bias, variable institutional resources, uneven protocol activation, and discretionary triage under time pressure.&#xa0;</p> Summary <p> Equity in CS care cannot be achieved by protocols alone. It requires deliberate measurement, culturally responsive decision-making, and system-level accountability. Equity-minded implementation of protocolized care, regionalized hub-and-spoke networks, multidisciplinary shock teams, and disparity-sensitive metrics shows promise. Success in CS should be defined not only as survival but also as equitable inclusion in the full spectrum of recognition, triage, escalation, and shared decision-making.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cardiogenic Shock and Equity: Uncovering Mechanisms, Addressing Disparities, and Advancing Care

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月19日

查看全文
  • Lourdes Vicent,
  • Rafael Salguero-Bodes,
  • Fernando Arribas Ynsaurriaga,
  • Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa,
  • Roberto Martín-Asenjo

摘要

Purpose of Review

This review examines why substantial disparities persist in the management of cardiogenic shock (CS) despite advances in therapy and the existence of clinical guidelines. We synthesize structural, clinical, and ethical mechanisms that shape access to timely and advanced care and highlight equity-oriented solutions.

Recent Findings

Across contemporary cohorts, women, older adults, racial/ethnic minorities, and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients remain less likely to receive early coronary angiography, revascularization, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and experience longer inter-hospital transfer delays. Reported gaps typically range from ~ 20–40% lower use of guideline-recommended therapies compared with reference groups, independent of comorbidity and presentation severity. Drivers include implicit bias, variable institutional resources, uneven protocol activation, and discretionary triage under time pressure. 

Summary

Equity in CS care cannot be achieved by protocols alone. It requires deliberate measurement, culturally responsive decision-making, and system-level accountability. Equity-minded implementation of protocolized care, regionalized hub-and-spoke networks, multidisciplinary shock teams, and disparity-sensitive metrics shows promise. Success in CS should be defined not only as survival but also as equitable inclusion in the full spectrum of recognition, triage, escalation, and shared decision-making.