Abstract:Introduction Acute myocardial infarction is a well-known cause of cardiogenic shock for which early revascularization has shown to improve outcomes, However, recent data has suggested that cardiogenic shock is predominantly due to non-ischemic etiologies including decompensated heart failure, cardiac tamponade, myocarditis, arrhythmias, myocardial contusion and valvular heart disease. We aimed to study the trends and prognostic outcomes of ischemic cardiogenic shock (ICS) vs non-ischemic cardiogenic shock (NICS) using national-level database. Methods National Inpatient Sample 2016-2020 was used to conduct a retrospective analysis by identifying patients admitted for cardiogenic chock using ICD-10 codes. These cardiogenic shock patients were then divided into two cohorts: ischemic vs non-ischemic etiology. Primary outcome was the prognostic implications of ICS vs NICS in terms of mortality, use of mechanical circulatory support devices, pulmonary pressure monitoring and vasopressors. Multivariate logistic regression model was used for analysis. Results Out of 854685 patients admitted for cardiogenic shock, 40% patients had ischemic etiology (n=341165), and 60% had non-ischemic etiology (n=513520). Trends for the prevalence of ICS and NICS have been essentially stable with slight decrease in the prevalence of ICS from 2016 to 2020 i.e., 42% to 38.5% with the corresponding increase in the prevalence of NICS i.e., 58% to 61.5%. In terms of patient demographics, mean age of patients with ICS was greater than that of NICS (68 vs 64 years). Male white patients had higher prevalence of both ICS and NICS. Majority of the hospitalizations for both ICS and NICS were in large urban teaching hospitals in the southern US. On adjusted outcome analysis with multivariate logistic regression, we observed that ICS was associated with higher odds of mortality (OR 1.1, CI 1.08-1.14, p<0.001), MCSD placement including IABP and ECMO (OR 5.01, CI 4.86-5.2, p<0.001), and cardiac arrest (OR 1.24, CI 1.2-1.3, p<0.001) as compared to NICS. While we also reported that NICS was associated with higher odds of LVAD placement (OR 4.6, CI 4-5.3, p<0.001), pulmonary artery (PA) catheter monitoring (OR 1.2, CI 1.1-1.24, p<0.01), and vasopressor use (OR 1.1, CI 1.03-1.12, p<0.001) as compared to ICS. Mean length of stay was higher for NICS as compared to ICS (12.7 vs 9.7 days) while the difference in adjusted total charges was not statistically significant (p>0.5) Conclusion As compared to ICS, NICS has higher prevalence and it is associated with higher odds of LVAD placement, PA catheter monitoring and vasopressor use. While, ICS is associated with higher mortality, MCSD placement including IABP and ECMO, cardiac arrest, and longer length of stay as compared to NICS.

Five-year Trends In Outcomes Of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump Use In Non-ischemic Cardiogenic Shock

Intra‐aortic Balloon Pump on In‐hospital Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock: Findings from a Nationwide Registry, China

The Use of Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in a Real-World Setting: A Comparison between Survivors and Nonsurvivors from Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated with IABP. The Jakarta Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry

Contemporary trends in cardiogenic shock: Incidence, intra-aortic balloon pump utilisation and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group

A multivariate and retrospective analysis of the impact of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in Open-Heart surgery

Application of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating with acute myocardial infarction

US trends of in-hospital morbidity and mortality for acute myocardial infarctions complicated by cardiogenic shock

Use of intraaortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock patients

Abstract 18298: 10-Year Trends of In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients That Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Coronary Syndrome

Abstract 12617: Predictors of Mortality in African Americans Requiring Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction

EFFECT OF PULMONARY ARTERY CATHETERIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH NONISCHEMIC CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A NATIONWIDE ANALYSIS

Ischemic Vs Non-ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Comparison Of Prognostic Implications

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction: old and emerging indications

The Outcomes of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Usage in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: a Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of 33 Clinical Trials and 18,889 Patients.

Impact of Right Ventricular Dysfunction on Outcomes in Patients Requiring Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Placement: A Retrospective Nationwide Analysis (2016- 2020).

Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock

INTRA-AORTIC BALLOON PUMP REDUCES 30-DAY MORTALITY IN EARLY-STAGE CARDIOGENIC SHOCK COMPLICATING ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION ACCORDING TO SCAI CLASSIFICATION

Trends in Mechanical Circulatory Support Use and Outcomes of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock in Japan, 2010 to 2020 (from a Nationwide Inpatient Database Study)

Volume-outcome relationships for intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction

The Preference, Effect, and Prognosis of Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Effectiveness of intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions without cardiogenic shock:A Meta-Analysis