Official journal of the Slovak Society of Cardiology,
Slovak Society of Hypertension and Slovak Association for Cardiac Arrhythmias

Cardiology Letters 2026, 35(2):99-112

Current approach to cardiogenic shock management

Elena Teringová
Oddelenie akútnej kardiológie, Kardiologická klinika LF UK a NÚSCH, a. s., Bratislava, Slovenská republika

Cardiogenic shock is a severe syndrome that continues to be associated with high mortality despite advances in diagnostics and treatment. In recent years, significant progress has been made in establishing relevant definitions, classifications, and refining therapeutic approaches. The introduction of the SCAI staging systwem, the SHARC etiological classification, and hemodynamic phenotyping has enabled more accurate risk stratification and more effective therapeutic decision-making. Early diagnosis based on clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters is essential for the prompt initiation of treatment. Management consists of a combination of initial hemodynamic stabilization and causal therapy, with the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in selected cases. The role of temporary mechanical circulatory support is evolving dynamically as new evidence emerges. While routine use is not recommended, its application in a selected group of patients has been associated with improved clinical outcomes. Careful patient selection, appropriate timing, and adequate choice of support modality are essential. The results from recent observational studies also support the use of advanced invasive monitoring with a pulmonary artery catheter. A multidisciplinary approach through dedicated shock teams has shown benefit in improving the organization of care, increasing the use of advanced diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, and improving clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the current recommendations of professional societies for the diagnosis and management of cardiogenic shock, emphasizing the need for individualized approach. At the same time, it highlights the need for further high-quality randomized studies to optimize the treatment of this heterogenous condition.

Keywords: cardiogenic shock; shock team; pulmonary artery catheter; vasoactive drugs temporary mechanical circulatory support

Published: February 1, 2026  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Teringová E. Current approach to cardiogenic shock management. Cardiology Letters. 2026;35(2):99-112.
Download citation

References

  1. Waksman R, Pahuja M, van Diepen S, et al. Standardized definitions for cardiogenic shock research and mechanical circulatory support devices: scientific expert panel from the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC). Circulation. 2023;148:1113-1126. Go to original source...
  2. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2017;377:2419-2432. Go to original source...
  3. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 2021;42:3599-3726. Go to original source...
  4. Jentzer JC, Burstein B, Van Diepen S, et al. Defining shock and preshock for mortality risk stratification in cardiac intensive care unit patients. Circ Heart Fail. 2021;14:e007678. Go to original source...
  5. Patel SM, Berg DD, Bohula EA, et al. Continuum of preshock to classic cardiogenic shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry. JACC Heart Fail. 2024;12:1625-1635. Go to original source...
  6. Kapur NK, Kanwar M, Sinha SS, et al. Criteria for defining stages of cardiogenic shock severity. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80:185-198. Go to original source...
  7. Naidu SS, Baran DA, Jentzer JC, et al. SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies: this statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in December 2021. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79:933-946. Go to original source...
  8. Zweck E, Thayer KL, Helgestad OKL, et al. Phenotyping Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e020085. Go to original source...
  9. Zweck E, Kanwar M, Li S, et al. Clinical course of patients in cardiogenic shock stratified by phenotype. JACC Heart Fail. 2023;11:1304-1315. Go to original source...
  10. Zeymer U, Bueno H, Granger CB, et al. Acute Cardiovascular Care Association position statement for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a document of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2020;9:183-197. Go to original source...
  11. Polyzogopoulou E, Bezati S, Karamasis G, et al. Early recognition and risk stratification in cardiogenic shock: well begun is half done. J Clin Med. 2023;12:2643. Go to original source...
  12. Kanwar MK, Billia F, Randhawa V, et al. Heart failure related cardiogenic shock: an ISHLT consensus conference content summary. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2024;43:189-203. Go to original source...
  13. van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136:e232e268. Go to original source...
  14. Jentzer JC, Kashani KB, Wiley BM, et al. Laboratory markers of acidosis and mortality in cardiogenic shock: developing a definition of hemometabolic shock. Shock 2022;57:31-40. Go to original source...
  15. Chioncel O, Parissis J, Mebazaa A, et al. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail 2020;22:1315-1341. Go to original source...
  16. Mercado P, Maizel J, Beyls C, et al. Transthoracic echocardiography: an accurate and precise method for estimating cardiac output in the critically ill patient. Crit Care 2017;21:136. Go to original source...
  17. Jentzer JC, Tabi M, Burstein B. Managing the first 120min of cardiogenic shock: from resuscitation to diagnosis. Curr Opin Crit Care 2021;27:416-425. Go to original source...
  18. Ostadal P, Belohlavek J. What is cardiogenic shock? New clinical criteria urgently needed. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2024;30:319323. Go to original source...
  19. Ostadal P, Vondrakova D, Rokyta R, et al. Cardiac index, SvO2 or pCO2 gap may determine benefit from ECMO in cardiogenic shock: post-hoc analysis of the multicenter, randomized ECMO-CS trial. Crit Care. 2025;29:303. Go to original source...
  20. Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Sherwood MW, et al. Standardized team-based care for cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:1659-1669. Go to original source...
  21. Taleb I, Koliopoulou AG, Tandar A, et al. Shock team approach in refractory cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: a proof of concept. Circulation. 2019;140:98-100. Go to original source...
  22. Papolos AI, Kenigsberg BB, Berg DD, et al. Management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in cardiac ICUs with versus without shock teams. J Am Coll Car-diol. 2021;78:1309-1317. Go to original source...
  23. Auffret V, Cottin Y, Leurent G, et al. Predicting the development of in-hospital cardiogenic shock in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the ORBI risk score. Eur Heart J 2018;39:2090-2102. Go to original source...
  24. Cyrille-Superville N, Rao SD, Feliberti JP, et al. PREDICT HF: Risk stratification in advanced heart failure using novel hemodynamic parameters. Clin Cardiol. 2024;47:e24277. Go to original source...
  25. Grinstein J, Sinha SS, Goswami RM, et al. Variation in hemodynamic assessment and interpretation: a call to standardize the right heart catheterization. J Card Fail. 2023;29:15071518. Go to original source...
  26. Binanay C, Califf RM, Hasselblad V, et al. ESCAPE Investigators and ESCAPE Study Coordinators. Evaluation study of congestive heart failure and pulmonary artery catheterization effectiveness: the ESCAPE trial. JAMA. 2005;294:1625-1633. Go to original source...
  27. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e895-e1032. Go to original source...
  28. Garan AR, Kanwar M, Thayer KL, et al. Complete hemodynamic profiling with pulmonary artery catheters in cardiogenic shock is associated with lower in-hospital mortality. JACC Heart Fail. 2020;8:903-913. Go to original source...
  29. Kanwar MK, Blumer V, Zhang Y, et al. Pulmonary artery catheter use and risk of in-hospital death in heart failure cardiogenic shock. J Card Fail. 2023;29:1234-1244. Go to original source...
  30. Osman M, Syed M, Patel B, et al. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring in cardiogenic shock is associated with lower in-hospital mortality. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e021808. Go to original source...
  31. Ranka S, Mastoris I, Kapur NK, et al. Right heart catheterization in cardiogenic shock is associated with improved outcomes: insights from the nationwide readmissions database. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10:e019843. Go to original source...
  32. Thayer KL, Zweck E, Ayouty M, et al. Invasive hemodynamic assessment and classification of in-hospital mortality risk among patients with cardiogenic shock. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13:e007099. Go to original source...
  33. ClinicalTrials.gov. Pulmonary Artery Catheter in Cardiogenic Shock Trial (PACCS). NCT05485376.
  34. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e895-e1032. Go to original source...
  35. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Godfrey E, et al. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK: an international randomized trial of emergency PTCA/ CABG-trial design. The SHOCK Trial Study Group. Am Heart J 1999;137:313-321. Go to original source...
  36. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006;295:2511-2515. Go to original source...
  37. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1699-1710. Go to original source...
  38. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 1999;341:625-634. Go to original source...
  39. Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2023;44:3720-3826. Go to original source...
  40. Riccardi M, Pagnesi M, Chioncel O, et al. Medical therapy of cardiogenic shock: contemporary use of inotropes and vasopressors. Eur J Heart Fail. 2024;26:411-431. Go to original source...
  41. Blumer V, Marbach J, Veasey T, et al. Role of medical management of cardiogenic shock in the era of mechanical circulatory support. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2022;37:250-260. Go to original source...
  42. Follath F, Yilmaz MB, Delgado JF, et al. Clinical presentation, management and outcomes in the Acute Heart Failure Global Survey of Standard Treatment (ALARM-HF). Intensive Care Med 2011;37:619-626. Go to original source...
  43. Basir MB, Lemor A, Gorgis S, et al. Vasopressors independently associated with mortality in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2022;99:650657. Go to original source...
  44. Lu X, Wang X, Gao Y, et al. Norepinephrine use in cardiogenic shock patients is associated with increased 30day mortality. ESC Heart Fail 2022;9:1875-1883. Go to original source...
  45. Maack C, Eschenhagen T, Hamdani N, et al. Treatments targeting inotropy. Eur Heart J 2019;40:3626-3644. Go to original source...
  46. De Backer D, Biston P, Devriendt J, et al. Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock. N Engl J Med 2010;362:779-789. Go to original source...
  47. Levy B, Meziani F, Leone M, et al. Comparison of epinephrine and norepinephrine for the treatment of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction. OPTIMA CC study. Annals Intensive Care 2018;8(Suppl 1):CO-65.
  48. Leopold V, Gayat E, Pirracchio R, et al. Epinephrine and short-term survival in cardiogenic shock: an individual data meta-analysis of 2583 patients. Intensive Care Med 2018;44:847-856. Go to original source...
  49. Uhlig K, Efremov L, Tongers J, et al. Inotropic agents and vasodilator strategies for the treatment of cardiogenic shock or low cardiac output syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;11:Cd009669. Go to original source...
  50. Jentzer JC, Poss J, Schaubroeck H, et al. Advances in the management of cardiogenic shock. Crit Care Med 2023;51:1222-1233. Go to original source...
  51. Mathew R, Di Santo P, Jung RG, et al. Milrinone as compared with dobutamine in the treatment of cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2021;385:516-525. Go to original source...
  52. Mebazaa A, Nieminen MS, Packer M, et al. Levosimendan vs dobutamine for patients with acute decompensated heart failure. The SURVIVE Randomized Trial. JAMA 2007;297:1883-1891. Go to original source...
  53. Schaubroeck H, Rossberg M, Thiele H, et al. ICU management of cardiogenic shock before mechanical support. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2024;30:362-370. Go to original source...
  54. Sinha SS, Morrow DA, Kapur NK, et al. 2025 Concise Clinical Guidance: An ACC Expert Consensus Statement on the Evaluation and Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;85:1618-1641. Go to original source...
  55. Vallabhajosyula S, Prasad A, Sandhu GS, et al. Ten-year trends, predictors and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. EuroIntervention 2021;16:e1254-e1261. Go to original source...
  56. Moller JE, Engstrom T, Jensen LO, et al. Microaxial flow pump or standard care in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2024;390:1382-1393. Go to original source...
  57. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, et al. Extracorporeal life support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2023;389:1286-1297. Go to original source...
  58. Morici N, Sacco A, Frea S, et al. Early intra-aortic balloon support for heart failure-related cardiogenic shock: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2025;85:1587-1597. Go to original source...
  59. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1287-1296. Go to original source...
  60. Schlotter F, Huber K, Hassager C, et al. Ventricular septal defect complicating acute myocardial infarction: diagnosis and management. A Clinical Consensus Statement of the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC) of the ESC, the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) of the ESC and the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery. Eur Heart J 2024;45:2478-2492. Go to original source...
  61. O'Brien CG, Brusca SB, Barnett CF, et al. Using selection criteria from the DanGer Shock trial in a contemporary cohort with cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;84:2490-2493. Go to original source...
  62. Rao SV, O'Donoghue ML, Ruel M, et al. 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. Circulation. 2025;151:e771-e862.
  63. Klein A, Beske RP, Hassager C, et al. Treating Older Patients in Cardiogenic Shock With a Microaxial Flow Pump: Is it DANGERous? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;85:595-603. Go to original source...
  64. Mikkelsen AD, Beske RP, Jensen LO, et al. Systolic Blood Pressure and Microaxial Flow Pump-Associated Survival in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock: A Post Hoc Analysis of the DanGer Shock Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2025;10:1157-1165. Go to original source...
  65. Zweck E, Beske RP, Hassager C, et al. Microaxial Flow Pump Use in Different Phenotypes of Cardiogenic Shock - a Secondary Analysis of the DanGer Shock Trial. J Card Fail. 2026:S10719164:00083-7. Go to original source...
  66. Desch S, Zeymer U, Akin I, et al. Routine extracorporeal life support in infarct- related cardiogenic shock: 1-year results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Eur Heart J 2024;45:4200. Go to original source...
  67. Thiele H, Moller JE, Henriques JPS, et al. Temporary mechanical circulatory support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials with 6-month follow-up. Lancet 2024;404:1019-1028. Go to original source...
  68. Perman SM, Elmer J, Maciel CB, et al. 2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on Adult Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support: An Update to the American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2024;149:e254-e273. Go to original source...
  69. Yannopoulos D, Bartos J, Raveendran G, et al. Advanced reperfusion strategies for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and refractory ventricular fibrillation (ARREST): a phase 2, single centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396:1807-1816. Go to original source...
  70. Suverein MM, Delnoij TSR, Lorusso R, et al. Early Extracorporeal CPR for Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:299-309. Go to original source...
  71. Belohlavek J, Smalcova J, Rob D, et al. Effect of Intra-arrest Transport, Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, and Immediate Invasive Assessment and Treatment on Functional Neurologic Outcome in Refractory Out-ofHospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022;327:737-747. Go to original source...
  72. Low CJW, Ling RR, Ramanathan K, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional CPR in cardiac arrest: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Crit Care. 2024;28:57. Go to original source...
  73. Potapov EV, Whitman G, John R, et al. EACTS/STS/AATS Guidelines on temporary mechanical circulatory support in adult cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2025:S0003-4975:00949-X. Go to original source...
  74. Møller JE, Hassager C, Proudfoot A, et al. Cardiogenic shock: diagnosis, phenotyping and management. Intensive Care Med. 2025;51:1651-1663. Go to original source...
  75. Grant MC, Brudney CS, Hernandez-Montfort J, et al. PeriOperative Quality Initiative (POQI) and the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Cardiac Society workgroup. Definitions of Cardiogenic Shock and Indications for Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support: Joint Consensus Report of the PeriOperative Quality Initiative and the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Cardiac Society. Ann Thorac Surg. 2025;120:202-212. Go to original source...
  76. Jentzer JC, Coons JC, Link CB, et al. Pharmacotherapy update on the use of vasopressors and inotropes in the intensive care unit. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2015;20:249-260. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.