Presentation characteristics, use of treatments and outcomes in patients with ischaemic vs. non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock. (25th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schrage, B; Dabboura, S; Yan, I; Hilal, R; Weimann, J; Becher, P.M; Seiffert, M; Blankenberg, S; Westermann, D
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 41:(2020)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2020-11-25
• Subjects: Acute Cardiac Care - Cardiogenic Shock; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1845
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: Evidence on non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in presentation characteristics, use of treatments and outcomes in patients with ischaemic vs. non-ischaemic CS. Methods: Patients with CS admitted to a tertiary care hospital between October 2009 and October 2017 were identified and stratified as ischaemic CS/non-ischaemic CS based on the presence/absence of acute myocardial infarction. Missing data was handled by chained equation multiple imputation. Logistic and Cox regression models were fitted to investigate the association of non-ischaemic CS with presentation characteristics (adjusted for all baseline variables), and use of treatments as well as30-day in-hospital mortality (adjusted for relevant confounders including age, sex, prior cardiac arrest, haemodynamics, pH and lactate). Results: A total of 978 patients were enrolled in this study; median age was 70 (interquartile range 58, 79) years and 70% were male. 505 patients (43%) had non-ischaemic CS. Patients with non-ischaemic CS were more likely younger and female; were less likely to be active smokers or to have diabetes, but more likely to have chronic renal disease and history of myocardial infarction; and were more likely to present with unfavourable haemodynamics and with mechanical ventilation. Regarding use of treatments, patients with non-ischaemic CS were more likely to be treated with catecholamines [odds ratio (OR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–2.27, p0.01], but less likely to be treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.92, p=0.02) or percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (OR 0.51, 0.35–0.74, p<0.01). Unadjusted survival probabilities in patients with non-ischaemic vs. ischaemic CS were 36% (95% CI 32–42%) vs. 39% (95% CI 35–45%). After adjustment for multiple relevant confounders, non-ischaemic CS was associated with a significant increase in the risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.09–1.55, p<0.01, Figure 1). Conclusion: In this large study, non-ischaemic CS accounted for almost 50% of all CS cases. Non-ischaemic CS was not only associated with relevant differences in presentation characteristics and use of treatments, but also with a worse prognosis. These findings highlight the need for effective treatment strategies for patients with non-ischaemic CS. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding source: None