Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) . Despite technologic advancements and improvements in revascularization times, the mortality rates remain plateaued in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) developed a novel classification model (SCAI SHOCK Stage) in 2019 to identify and risk-stratify the wide spectrum of CS presentations and to escalate or deescalate care accordingly . Furthermore, the American Heart Association has endorsed the development of multidisciplinary CS centers that follow standardized protocols for rapid diagnosis and management of CS including mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Some of these platforms, such as the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI), have shown promising results, with improved mortality rates . Despite that, there is significant variability in practice patterns across different healthcare systems, and there are wide discrepancies, especially with the use of MCS across different institutions. Additionally, there is also a lack of consensus regarding the optimal timing of hemodynamic support initiation (e.g., before or after primary percutaneous coronary intervention [PPCI]) in patients with AMICS. The overall use of percutaneous MCS has been increasing primarily because of the robust hemodynamic support provided by these devices; however, unfortunately, this has failed to translate into clinical mortality benefit in randomized data.