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

Bilal Hussain,Mohit Pahuja
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.157
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
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.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems
What problem does this paper attempt to address?