Sex Disparities in the Management, Outcomes, and Transfer of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiogenic Shock.

Background: Previous studies have shown that women have worse outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) than men. Patients who receive care in CS "hubs" have also been shown to have improved outcomes when compared to those treated at "spokes." This study aimed to examine the presence of sex disparities in the outcomes of CS in relation to hospital type. Methods: Hospitalizations of adults with a diagnosis of CS were identified using data from the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. CS "hubs" were defined as any centers receiving at least 1 interhospital transfer with CS, while those without such transfers were classified as "spokes." Data were combined across years and multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the association of sex with in-hospital mortality, invasive procedures, and transfer to hubs. Results: There were a total of 618,411 CS hospitalizations (62.2% men) with CS related to acute myocardial infarction comprising 15.3 to 17.3% of women hospitalizations and 17.8 to 20.3% of men hospitalizations. In-hospital mortality was lower at hubs (34.5% for direct admissions, 31.6% for transfers) than at spokes (40.3%, all P < .01). Women underwent fewer invasive procedures (right heart catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support) and had higher mortality than men. Female sex was independently associated with decreased transfers to hubs (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and increased mortality (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12). Conclusions: Women with CS were less likely to be treated at a hub or transferred to a hub, had higher in-hospital mortality, and had a lower likelihood of receiving CS-related procedures than men. Further research is needed to understand sex-specific gaps in CS outcomes.

Impact of Advanced Therapy Centers on Characteristics and Outcomes of Heart Failure Admissions.

BACKGROUND: Although much attention has been paid to admission and transfer patterns for cardiogenic shock, contemporary data are lacking on decompensated heart failure (HF) admissions and transfers and the impact of advanced therapy centers (ATCs) on outcomes. METHODS: HF hospitalizations were obtained from the Nationwide Readmissions Database 2016 to 2019. Centers performing at least 1 heart transplant or left ventricular assist device were classified as ATCs. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and procedural volume were compared among 3 cohorts: admissions to non-ATCs, admissions to ATCs, and transfers to ATCs. A secondary analysis evaluated outcomes for severe HF hospitalizations (cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and mechanical ventilation). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for the presence of HF decompensations and significant clinical variables during univariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2 331 690 hospitalizations (81.2%) were admissions to non-ATCs (94.5% of centers), 525 037 (18.3%) were admissions to ATCs (5.5% of centers), and 15 541 (0.5%) were transferred to ATCs. Patients treated at ATCs (especially those transferred) had higher rates of HF decompensations, procedural frequency, lengths of stay, and costs. Unadjusted mortality was 2.6% at non-ATCs and was higher at ATCs, both for directly admitted (2.9%, P<0.001) and transferred (11.2%, P<0.001) patients. However, multivariable-adjusted mortality was significantly lower at ATCs, both for directly admitted (odds ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.78-0.87]; P<0.001) and transferred (odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.57-0.78]; P<0.001) patients. For severe HF admissions, unadjusted mortality was 37.2% at non-ATCs and was lower at ATCs, both for directly admitted (25.3%, P<0.001) and transferred (25.2%, P<0.001) patients, with similarly lower multivariable-adjusted mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HF treated at ATCs were sicker but associated with higher procedural volume and lower adjusted mortality.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Mechanical Circulatory Device Utilization and Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock.

Objectives: This study evaluates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices and outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS). Background: CS is associated with significant mortality. There is increasing use of temporary MCS devices in CS, and its impact on outcomes is currently under investigation. There is a lack of data on the effect of SES on the utilization of MCS devices in CS. Methods: CS hospitalizations were obtained from the State Inpatient Databases in 2016 from 9 states representing various regions in the United States. The study had exempt institutional review board status as the database includes deidentified data. Hospitalizations were separated into SES cohorts based on the median household income of the patient residence zip code. Utilization of MCS devices and revascularization procedures along with clinical outcomes with CS were compared across the quartiles. Results: There were 38,520 hospitalizations identified with CS, 42.6% of which were secondary to acute myocardial infarction. Patients from higher SES areas were significantly older but had lower burden of comorbidities. Utilization of temporary MCS devices was higher for hospitalizations from higher SES regions (frequency from the lowest SES quartile to the highest SES quartile: 21.3%, 21.5%, 23.5, and 24.1%, P < .01), though revascularization rates were similar. However, there was no significant difference in overall mortality from CS among the 4 quartiles. Patients from regions of higher SES experienced increased hospital costs. Conclusions: Higher SES regions had increased use of temporary MCS. There was no difference in mortality between SES cohorts.