Normalized lactate load as an independent prognostic indicator in patients with cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Early prognosis evaluation is crucial for decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients. Dynamic lactate assessment, for example, normalized lactate load, has been a better prognosis predictor than single lactate value in septic shock. Our objective was to investigate the correlation between normalized lactate load and in-hospital mortality in patients with CS. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database. The calculation of lactate load involved the determination of the cumulative area under the lactate curve, while normalized lactate load was computed by dividing the lactate load by the corresponding period. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed, and the evaluation of areas under the curves (AUC) for various parameters was performed using the DeLong test. RESULTS: Our study involved a cohort of 1932 CS patients, with 687 individuals (36.1%) experiencing mortality during their hospitalization. The AUC for normalized lactate load demonstrated significant superiority compared to the first lactate (0.675 vs. 0.646, P < 0.001), maximum lactate (0.675 vs. 0.651, P < 0.001), and mean lactate (0.675 vs. 0.669, P = 0.003). Notably, the AUC for normalized lactate load showed comparability to that of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (0.675 vs. 0.695, P = 0.175). CONCLUSION: The normalized lactate load was an independently associated with the in-hospital mortality among CS patients.

Single center outcomes after temporary mechanical circulatory assist device prior to Heartmate 3 implantation - a retrospective cohort study.

Objectives. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (TMCS) has become a component in the therapeutic strategy for treatment of cardiogenic shock as a bridge-to-decision. TMCS can facilitate recovery of cardiopulmonary function, end-organ function, and potentially reduce the surgical risk of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Despite the improvements of hemodynamics and end-organ function, post-LVAD operative morbidity might be increased in these high-risk patients. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes after Heartmate 3 (HM3) implantation in patients with and without TMCS prior to HM3 implant. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study of all HM3 patients in the period between November 2015 and October 2021, patients with and without prior TMCS were compared. Patients' demographics, baseline clinical characteristics, laboratory tests, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, and adverse events were collected from patient records. Results. The TMCS group showed an improvement in hemodynamics prior to LVAD implantation. Median TMCS duration was 19.5 (14-26) days. However, the TMCS group were more coagulopathic, had more wound infections, neurological complications, and more patients were on dialysis compared with patient without TMCS prior to HM3 implantation. Survival four years after HM3 implantation was 80 and 82% in the TMCS (N = 22) and non-TMCS group (N = 41), respectively. Conclusion. Patients on TMCS had an acceptable short and long-term survival and comparable to patients receiving HM3 without prior TMCS. However, they had a more complicated postoperative course.

Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been presented as a potential therapeutic option for patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction (CS-MI). We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of ECMO in CS-MI. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials obtained from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science until September 2023. We used the random-effects model to report dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio and continuous outcomes using mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. Finally, we implemented a trial sequential analysis to evaluate the reliability of our results. RESULTS: We included four trials with 611 patients. No significant difference was observed between ECMO and standard care groups in 30-day mortality with pooled RR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.81-1.13, p = 0.60), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.41-1.03, p = 0.07), stroke (RR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.38-3.57, p = 0.80), sepsis (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.77-1.47, p = 0.71), pneumonia (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.58-1.68, p = 0.96), and 30-day reinfarction (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.25-3.60, p = 0.94). However, the ECMO group had higher bleeding events (RR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.44-2.97, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: ECMO did not improve clinical outcomes compared to the standard of care in patients with CS-MI but increased the bleeding risk.

Phenotypic clustering of patients hospitalized in intensive cardiac care units: Insights from the ADDICT-ICCU study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive cardiac care units (ICCUs) were created to manage ventricular arrhythmias after acute coronary syndromes, but have diversified to include a more heterogeneous population, the characteristics of which are not well depicted by conventional methods. AIMS: To identify ICCU patient subgroups by phenotypic unsupervised clustering integrating clinical, biological, and echocardiographic data to reveal pathophysiological differences. METHODS: During 7-22 April 2021, we recruited all consecutive patients admitted to ICCUs in 39 centers. The primary outcome was in-hospital major adverse events (MAEs; death, resuscitated cardiac arrest or cardiogenic shock). A cluster analysis was performed using a Kamila algorithm. RESULTS: Of 1499 patients admitted to the ICCU (69.6% male, mean age 63.3±14.9 years), 67 (4.5%) experienced MAEs. Four phenogroups were identified: PG1 (n=535), typically patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; PG2 (n=444), younger smokers with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; PG3 (n=273), elderly patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and conduction disturbances; PG4 (n=247), patients with acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Compared to PG1, multivariable analysis revealed a higher risk of MAEs in PG2 (odds ratio [OR] 3.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-10.0) and PG3 (OR 3.16, 95% CI 1.02-10.8), with the highest risk in PG4 (OR 20.5, 95% CI 8.7-60.8) (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cluster analysis of clinical, biological, and echocardiographic variables identified four phenogroups of patients admitted to the ICCU that were associated with distinct prognostic profiles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05063097.

American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry: Design and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is a morbid complication of heart disease that claims the lives of more than 1 in 3 patients presenting with this syndrome. Supporting a unique collaboration across clinical specialties, federal regulators, payors, and industry, the American Heart Association volunteers and staff have launched a quality improvement registry to better understand the clinical manifestations of shock phenotypes, and to benchmark the management patterns, and outcomes of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock to hospitals across the United States. METHODS: Participating hospitals will enroll consecutive hospitalized patients with cardiogenic shock, regardless of etiology or severity. Data are collected through individual reviews of medical records of sequential adult patients with cardiogenic shock. The electronic case record form was collaboratively designed with a core minimum data structure and aligned with Shock Academic Research Consortium definitions. This registry will allow participating health systems to evaluate patient-level data including diagnostic approaches, therapeutics, use of advanced monitoring and circulatory support, processes of care, complications, and in-hospital survival. Participating sites can leverage these data for onsite monitoring of outcomes and benchmarking versus other institutions. The registry was concomitantly designed to provide a high-quality longitudinal research infrastructure for pragmatic randomized trials as well as translational, clinical, and implementation research. An aggregate deidentified data set will be made available to the research community on the American Heart Association's Precision Medicine Platform. On March 31, 2022, the American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry received its first clinical records. At the time of this submission, 100 centers are participating. CONCLUSIONS: The American Heart Association Cardiogenic Shock Registry will serve as a resource using consistent data structure and definitions for the medical and research community to accelerate scientific advancement through shared learning and research resulting in improved quality of care and outcomes of shock patients.

What is cardiogenic shock? New clinical criteria urgently needed.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock is a clinical syndrome with different causes and a complex pathophysiology. Recent evidence from clinical trials evokes the urgent need for redefining clinical diagnostic criteria to be compliant with the definition of cardiogenic shock and current diagnostic methods. RECENT FINDINGS: Conflicting results from randomized clinical trials investigating mechanical circulatory support in patients with cardiogenic shock have elicited several extremely important questions. At minimum, it is questionable whether survivors of cardiac arrest should be included in trials focused on cardiogenic shock. Moreover, considering the wide availability of ultrasound and hemodynamic monitors capable of arterial pressure analysis, the current clinical diagnostic criteria based on the presence of hypotension and hypoperfusion have become insufficient. As such, new clinical criteria for the diagnosis of cardiogenic shock should include evidence of low cardiac output and appropriate ventricular filling pressure. SUMMARY: Clinical diagnostic criteria for cardiogenic shock should be revised to better define cardiac pump failure as a primary cause of hemodynamic compromise.

Fatal Systemic Capillary Leak Syndrome in a Patient with a COVID-19 Infection.

A 29-year-old Japanese woman was admitted to our hospital with a fever, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest. Laboratory data indicated multiple organ failure in addition to hemoconcentration, hypoalbuminemia, and myocardial damage. The coronary angiography findings were normal, and fulminant myocarditis was suspected. Venoarterial peripheral extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and an Impella CP left ventricular assist device were initiated, along with the administration of positive inotropic agents. However, hypovolemic shock and hypoalbuminemia progressed along with severe anemia, and the patient died 18 hours after admission. The patient was diagnosed with systemic capillary leak syndrome associated with coronavirus disease 2019.

Cardiogenic shock and chronic kidney disease: Dangerous liaisons.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, closely interrelated with cardiovascular diseases, ultimately leading to the failure of both organs - the so-called "cardiorenal syndrome". Despite this burden, data related to cardiogenic shock outcomes in CKD patients are scarce. METHODS: FRENSHOCK (NCT02703038) was a prospective registry involving 772 patients with cardiogenic shock from 49 centres. One-year outcomes (rehospitalization, death, heart transplantation, ventricular assist device) were analysed according to history of CKD at admission and were adjusted on independent predictive factors. RESULTS: CKD was present in 164 of 771 patients (21.3%) with cardiogenic shock; these patients were older (72.7 vs. 63.9years) and had more comorbidities than those without CKD. CKD was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality at 1month (36.6% vs. 23.2%; hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.9; P=0.04) and 1year (62.8% vs. 40.5%, hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.77; P<0.01). Patients with CKD were less likely to be treated with norepinephrine/epinephrine or undergo invasive ventilation or receive mechanical circulatory support, but were more likely to receive renal replacement therapy (RRT). RRT was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death at 1month and 1year regardless of baseline CKD status. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiogenic shock and CKD are frequent "cross-talking" conditions with limited therapeutic options, resulting in higher rates of death at 1month and 1year. RRT is a strong predictor of death, regardless of preexisting CKD. Multidisciplinary teams involving cardiac and kidney physicians are required to provide integrated care for patients with failure of both organs.

Development and external validation of a dynamic risk score for early prediction of cardiogenic shock in cardiac intensive care units using machine learning.

AIMS: Myocardial infarction and heart failure are major cardiovascular diseases that affect millions of people in the USA with morbidity and mortality being highest among patients who develop cardiogenic shock. Early recognition of cardiogenic shock allows prompt implementation of treatment measures. Our objective is to develop a new dynamic risk score, called CShock, to improve early detection of cardiogenic shock in the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS AND RESULTS: We developed and externally validated a deep learning-based risk stratification tool, called CShock, for patients admitted into the cardiac ICU with acute decompensated heart failure and/or myocardial infarction to predict the onset of cardiogenic shock. We prepared a cardiac ICU dataset using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III database by annotating with physician-adjudicated outcomes. This dataset which consisted of 1500 patients with 204 having cardiogenic/mixed shock was then used to train CShock. The features used to train the model for CShock included patient demographics, cardiac ICU admission diagnoses, routinely measured laboratory values and vital signs, and relevant features manually extracted from echocardiogram and left heart catheterization reports. We externally validated the risk model on the New York University (NYU) Langone Health cardiac ICU database which was also annotated with physician-adjudicated outcomes. The external validation cohort consisted of 131 patients with 25 patients experiencing cardiogenic/mixed shock. CShock achieved an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.821 (95% CI 0.792-0.850). CShock was externally validated in the more contemporary NYU cohort and achieved an AUROC of 0.800 (95% CI 0.717-0.884), demonstrating its generalizability in other cardiac ICUs. Having an elevated heart rate is most predictive of cardiogenic shock development based on Shapley values. The other top 10 predictors are having an admission diagnosis of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation, having an admission diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure, Braden Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, blood urea nitrogen, systolic blood pressure, serum chloride, serum sodium, and arterial blood pH. CONCLUSION: The novel CShock score has the potential to provide automated detection and early warning for cardiogenic shock and improve the outcomes for millions of patients who suffer from myocardial infarction and heart failure.

Cardiogenic shock diagnosis and management in general intensive care: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: the epidemiology of cardiogenic shock has evolved over the years: in the last decades an increasing prevalence of cardiogenic shock related to acute decompensated heart failure was observed. Therefore, treatment bundles should be updated according to the underlying pathophysiology. No data exist regarding the diagnostic/therapeutic strategies in general intensive care units. METHODS: A 27-questions survey was spread through the GiViTi (Italian Group for the Evaluation of Interventions in Intensive Care Medicine). The results were then divided according to level of hospitals (1st-2nd versus 3rd). RESULTS: Sixty-nine general intensive care units replied to the survey. The shock team is present in 13% of institutions; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock classification is applied only in 18.8%. Among the ICUs, 94.2% routinely use a cardiac output monitoring device (pulmonary artery catheter more frequently in 3rd level centers). The first-line adrenergic drug are vasopressors in 27.5%, inotrope in 21.7% or their combination in 50.7%; 79.7% applies fluid challenge. The first vasopressor of choice is norepinephrine (95.7%) (maximum dosage tolerated higher than 0.5 mcg/kg/min in 29%); the first line inotrope is dobutamine (52.2%), followed by epinephrine in 36.2%. The most frequently used mechanical circulatory supports are intra-aortic balloon pump (71%), Impella (34.8%) and VA-ECMO (33.3%); VA-ECMO is the first line strategy in refractory cardiogenic shock (60.8%). CONCLUSIONS: According to this survey, there is no standardized approach to cardiogenic shock amongst Italian general intensive care units. The application of shock severity stratification and the treatment bundles may play a key role in improving the outcome.

Electrocardiographic patterns and clinical outcomes of acute coronary syndrome cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention - A propensity score analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of presenting electrocardiographic (ECG) changes on prognosis in acute coronary syndrome cardiogenic shock (ACS-CS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary angiography (PCI). BACKGROUND: The effect of initial ECG changes such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) versus non-STEMI among patients ACS-CS on prognosis remains unclear. METHODS: We analysed data from consecutive patients with ACS-CS enrolled in the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes registry between 2014 and 2020. Inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis (IPTW) was used to assess the effect of ECG changes on 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 1564 patients with ACS-CS who underwent PCI, 161 had non-STEMI and 1403 had STEMI on ECG. The mean age was 66 ± 13 years, and 74 % (1152) were males. Patients with non-STEMI compared to STEMI were older (70 ± 12 vs 65 ± 13 years), had higher rates of diabetes (34 % vs 21 %), prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (14 % vs 3.3 %), peripheral arterial disease (10.6 % vs 4.1 %, p < 0.01), and lower baseline eGFR (53.8 [37.1, 75.4] vs 65.3 [46.3, 87.8] ml/min/1.73m2), all p ≤ 0.01. Non-STEMI patients were more likely to have a culprit left circumflex artery (29 % vs 20 %) and more often underwent multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (30 % vs 20 %) but had lower rates of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (21 % vs 39 %), all p ≤ 0.01. Propensity score analysis with IPTW confirmed that non-STEMI ECG was associated with lower odds for 30-day all-cause mortality (OR 0.47 [0.32, 0.69], p < 0.001), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.48 [0.33, 0.70]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PCI, Non-STEMI as compared to STEMI on index ECG was associated with approximately half the relative risk of both 30-day mortality and 30-day MACCE and could be a useful variable to integrate in ACS-CS risk scores.

Scrutinizing the Role of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: Has Clinical Practice Outpaced the Evidence?

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

Prognostic Utility of Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Shock Stage Approach for Classifying Cardiogenic Shock Severity in Takotsubo Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a significant complication of Takotsubo syndrome (TTS), contributing to heightened mortality and morbidity. Despite this, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) staging system for CS severity lacks validation in patients with TTS and CS. This study aimed to characterize a patient cohort with TTS using the SCAI staging system and assess its utility in cases of TTS complicated by CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a TTS national registry, 1591 consecutive patients were initially enrolled and stratified into 5 SCAI stages (A through E). Primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality; secondary end points were TTS-related in-hospital complications and 1-year all-cause mortality. After exclusions, the final cohort comprised 1163 patients, mean age 71.0±11.8 years, and 87% were female. Patients were categorized across SCAI shock stages as follows: A 72.1%, B 12.2%, C 11.2%, D 2.7%, and E 1.8%. Significant variations in baseline demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentations, and in-hospital courses were observed across SCAI shock stages. After multivariable adjustment, each higher SCAI shock stage showed a significant association with increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.77-29.31) compared with SCAI shock stage A. Higher SCAI shock stages were also associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter patient cohort with TTS, the functional SCAI shock stage classification effectively stratified mortality risk, revealing a continuum of escalating shock severity with higher stages correlating with increased in-hospital mortality. This study highlights the applicability and prognostic value of the SCAI staging system in TTS-related CS.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS. METHODS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS. RESULTS: N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.