Current heart failure reports · 2025
Cardiogenic Shock; Health Disparities; Equity; Mechanical Circulatory Support; Sex Differences; Multidisciplinary Care; Protocolized Care.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vicent Lourdes, Salguero-Bodes Rafael, Ynsaurriaga Fernando Arribas, Diaz-Arocutipa Carlos, Martín-Asenjo Roberto
Аннотация
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. 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.
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. 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.