Disparities in the management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a questionnaire survey in Beijing - Report - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Inequities in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Associated with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Findings from a Survey in Beijing

  • By

  • Yidan Ren

  • Yuwei Liu

  • Yaxin Xie

  • Chenxu Zhao

  • Xiaqiu Tian

  • Liangshan Wang

  • Zhongtao Du

  • Xing Hao

  • Chenglong Li

  • Xiaotong Hou

  • Hong Wang

  • September 25, 2026

Share

Inequities in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Associated with Acute Myocardial Infarction

Overview

This study evaluates the treatment capacity and management practices for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) across various hospitals in Beijing. It highlights significant disparities in resource distribution and management approaches among different healthcare institutions.

Background

Cardiogenic shock is a critical condition with high mortality rates, particularly when associated with acute myocardial infarction. Understanding the management practices and resource allocation in different healthcare settings is essential. This study aims to provide insights into the current state of AMI-CS management in Beijing.

Data Highlights

No numerical data provided in the source material.

Key Findings

  • Cardiogenic shock is predominantly caused by acute myocardial infarction, with a mortality rate of 40%-50%.
  • The study utilized a questionnaire adapted from an international survey to assess AMI-CS management practices.
  • Data were collected from 89 hospitals across Beijing, focusing on their capacity for emergency revascularization and multidisciplinary collaboration.
  • Significant inter-hospital differences in CS management were identified.

Clinical Implications

The disparities in treatment practices for AMI-CS across hospitals in Beijing highlight the necessity for standardized management protocols.

Conclusion

Further research is needed to develop effective treatment strategies based on these findings.

Related Resources & Content

  1. MDSpire News, 2023 -- Cardiogenic Shock in Women: Treatment Disparities Persist
  2. Clinical Research in Cardiology, 2026 -- Timing of IABP initiation and its impact on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: insights from a bi-center retrospective study
  3. Journal of Cardiac Failure, 2025 -- Mean Arterial Pressure and Mortality in Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Cardiac Arrest: A Meta-Analysis
  4. Frontiers in Neurology, 2026 -- Regional disparities and hospital performance patterns in acute stroke reperfusion: a multicenter study in Sichuan Province, China
  5. Cardiogenic Shock | New England Journal of Medicine, 2023
  6. 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes | JACC, 2024
  7. Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock | New England Journal of Medicine, 2023
  8. Cardiogenic Shock | New England Journal of Medicine
  9. 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines | JACC
  10. Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock | New England Journal of Medicine

Original Source(s)

Related Content