Sex differences in patients with cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Differences between female and male patients in clinical presentation, causes and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) are poorly understood. We aimed to investigate sex differences in presentation with and treatment of CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data of 978 patients presenting with CS to a tertiary care hospital between October 2009 and October 2017. Multivariable adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted to investigate the association between sex and clinical presentation, use of treatments and 30 day mortality. Median age was 70 years (interquartile range 58-79 years), and 295 (30.2%) patients were female. After adjustment for multiple relevant confounders, female patients were more likely to be older [odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.42, P = 0.027], but other relevant presentation characteristics did not differ between both sexes. Despite the similar presentation, female patients were less likely to be treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94, P = 0.010), but more likely to be treated with catecholamines (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.44, P = 0.033) or vasopressors (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.50, P = 0.012). A 30 day mortality risk in female patients was as high as in male patients (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.18, P = 0.091). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, contemporary cohort, clinical presentation was comparable in female and male patients, and both sexes were associated with a comparably high mortality risk. Nevertheless, female patients received different treatment for CS and were most importantly less likely to be treated with percutaneous left ventricular assist devices.

Patient Characteristics, Treatment and Outcome in Non-Ischemic vs. Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock.

: Aim: Evidence on non-ischemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in patient characteristics, use of treatments and outcomes in patients with non-ischemic vs. ischemic CS. METHODS: Patients with CS admitted between October 2009 and October 2017 were identified and stratified as non-ischemic/ischemic CS based on the absence/presence of acute myocardial infarction. Logistic/Cox regression models were fitted to investigate the association between non-ischemic CS and patient characteristics, use of treatments and 30-day in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 978 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 70 (interquartile range 58, 79) years and 70% were male. Of these, 505 patients (52%) had non-ischemic CS. Patients with non-ischemic CS were more likely to be younger and female; were less likely to be active smokers, to have diabetes or decreased renal function, but more likely to have a history of myocardial infarction; and they were more likely to present with unfavorable hemodynamics and with mechanical ventilation. Regarding treatments, patients with non-ischemic CS were more likely to be treated with catecholamines, but less likely to be treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or percutaneous left-ventricular assist devices. After adjustment for multiple relevant confounders, non-ischemic CS was associated with a significant increase in the risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.24, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this large study, non-ischemic CS accounted for more than 50% of all CS cases. Non-ischemic CS was not only associated with relevant differences in patient characteristics and use of treatments, but also with a worse prognosis. These findings highlight the need for effective treatment strategies for patients with non-ischemic CS.

Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have recently proposed a new classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) dividing patients into five subgroups. OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to apply the SCAI classification to a cohort of patients presenting with CS and to evaluate its ability to predict 30-day survival. METHODS: SCAI CS subgroups were interpreted based on the recent consensus statement and then applied to N = 1,007 consecutive patients presenting with CS or large myocardial infarction (MI) between October 2009 and October 2017. The association between SCAI classification and 30-day all-cause mortality was assessed by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Mean age in the study cohort was 67 (±15) years, 72% were male. Mean lactate at baseline was 6.05 (±5.13) mmol/l and 51% of the patients had prior cardiac arrest. Overall survival probability was 50.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.5-54.0%). In view of the SCAI classification, the survival probability was 96.4% (95% CI 93.7-99.0%) in class A, 66.1% (95% CI 50.2-87.1%) in class B, 46.1% (95% CI 40.6-52.4%) in class C, 33.1% (95% CI 26.6-41.1%) in class D, and 22.6% (95% CI 17.1-30.0%) in class E. Higher SCAI classification was significantly associated with lower 30-day survival (p < .01). CONCLUSION: In this large clinical cohort, the SCAI classification was significantly associated with 30-day survival. This finding supports the rationale of the SCAI CS classification and calls for a validation in a prospective trial.