[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-459459-105":59,"doc-detail-459459-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","effectiveness-of-the-shock-team-on-short-term-outcomes-in-patients-with-cardiogenic-shock-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis","Effectiveness of the Shock Team on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","","Systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether shock team management improves outcomes for adults with cardiogenic shock. Studies were identified from PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library and analyzed according to PRISMA. Seven retrospective cohorts met inclusion criteria, with three having no critical risk of bias. Shock team care was linked to lower short-term mortality and fewer bleeding complications, though certainty of evidence was very low due to bias and inconsistency. Further prospective studies are required to define optimal team composition and roles.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/effectiveness-of-the-shock-team-on-short-term-outcomes-in-patients-with-cardiogenic-shock-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/459459/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/effectiveness-of-the-shock-team-on-short-term-outcomes-in-patients-with-cardiogenic-shock-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/459459.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Ophelia","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What was the objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"To determine whether management by a shock team improves short-term outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What outcomes did the study evaluate?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The primary outcome was short-term mortality (cardiac intensive care unit, in-hospital, or 30-day mortality), and the secondary outcome was bleeding complications.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"Were randomized trials included, and how strong was the evidence?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"No randomized trials were included. The certainty of evidence was rated very low because of risk of bias and inconsistency.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},459459,1791032218,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":46,"preview_page_count":4},7971461741311,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/74000253aff267980c6?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779345379180704826","Circulation Reports  \nCirc Rep 2026; 8: 13–20 doi:10.1253/circrep.CR-25-0240  \nJCS/JRC EMERGENCY CARDIOVASCULAR CARE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SERIES 2025  \n\n| Effectiveness of the Shock Team on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock\u003Cbr>― Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis― |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Marina Arai, MD, PhD; Toru Kondo, MD, PhD; Takahiro Nakashima, MD, PhD; Hiroyuki Hanada, MD, PhD; Katsutaka Hashiba, MD; Takeshi Yamamoto, MD, PhD, FJCS; Naoki Nakayama, MD, MBA, PhD; Jin Kirigaya, MD, PhD; Tomoko Ishizu, MD, PhD, FJCS; Yumiko Hosoya, MD, PhD; Aya Katasako-Yabumoto, MD, PhD; Yusuke Okazaki, MD; Masahiro Yamamoto, MD, PhD; Kazuo Sakamoto, MD, PhD; Takumi Osawa, MD; Akihito Tanaka, MD, PhD; Kunihiro Matsuo, MD, PhD; Junichi Yamaguchi, MD, PhD; Toshiaki Mano, MD, PhD, FJCS; Sunao Kojima, MD, PhD, FJCS; Teruo Noguchi, MD, PhD, FJCS; Yasushi Tsujimoto, MD, PhD, MPH; Migaku Kikuchi, MD, PhD; Toshikazu Funazaki, MD, PhD; Yoshio Tahara, MD, PhD, FJCS; Hiroshi Nonogi, MD, PhD; Tetsuya Matoba, MD, PhD, FJCS;\u003Cbr>for the Japan Resuscitation Council (JRC) Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Cardiogenic Shock (CS) Task Force and the Guideline Editorial Committee on behalf of the Japanese Circulation Society (JCS) Emergency and Critical Care Committee\u003Cbr>Background: Recently, shock teams have been introduced to optimize cardiogenic shock (CS) care; however, their clinical benefits remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether management by a shock team improves outcomes in patients with CS.\u003Cbr>Methods and Results: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing adults with CS managed with or without a shock team were identified from the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The primary outcome was short-term mortality (cardiac intensive care unit, in-hospital, or 30-day mortality); the secondary outcome was bleeding. Of the 7 retrospective cohort studies that met the inclusion criteria, 3 without a critical risk of bias were included in the analysis. Shock team management was significantly associated with lower short-term mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32–0.85; P=0.010) and bleeding complications (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.91; P=0.010). Sensitivity analysis using crude data also supported the mortality benefit (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.54–0.85; P\u003C0.010) . However, no randomized trials were included, and the certainty of evidence was rated very low owing to the risk of bias and inconsistency.\u003Cbr>Conclusions: Shock team management may improve short-term outcomes in patients with CS; however, the level of evidence is very low. Further prospective studies are needed to evaluate optimal shock team composition and roles.\u003Cbr>Key Words: Acute myocardial infarction; Cardiogenic shock; Mechanical circulation support; Shock team |  |\n| C\u003Cbr>ardiogenic shock (CS) is a hemodynamically complex condition of the heart characterized by reduced cardiac output and resulting in life-threatening\u003Cbr>hypoperfusion of multiple organs.1,2 Despite advances in our understanding of the disease and its treatment, the mortality of patients with CS remains high.3–8 | Among the various causes of CS, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the most common, and primary percutaneous coronary intervention is a well-established treatment that improves the survival rate of patients with AMI-CS.9–12 However, previous studies have revealed that the mortality rate of AMI with CS is as high as 30–42% in |\n\nReceived September 30, 2025; accepted September 30, 2025; J-STAGE Advance Publication released online November 13, 2025 Time for primary review: 1 day  \nDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai (M.A.); Department of Cardiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya (T.K., A.T.); Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto (T. Nakashima, N.N., M","cbCaivSJkdGsv1N3","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaivSJkdGsv1N3","pdf",1516698,"English","# Background\n# Methods and Results\n## Study design and outcomes\n## Mortality and bleeding effects\n## Evidence certainty and limitations\n# Conclusions\n# Key words\n# Methods\n## Study design\n## Research question","[{\"question\":\"What was the objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis?\",\"answer\":\"To determine whether management by a shock team improves short-term outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock.\"},{\"question\":\"What outcomes did the study evaluate?\",\"answer\":\"The primary outcome was short-term mortality (cardiac intensive care unit, in-hospital, or 30-day mortality), and the secondary outcome was bleeding complications.\"},{\"question\":\"Were randomized trials included, and how strong was the evidence?\",\"answer\":\"No randomized trials were included. The certainty of evidence was rated very low because of risk of bias and inconsistency.\"}]","Effectiveness of the Shock Team on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | PDF",1790755978]