Abstract
Aims
Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment.Methods and results
In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%).Conclusion
In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.Full text links
Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2796
Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ejhf.2796
Citations & impact
Impact metrics
Citations of article over time
Alternative metrics
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/143038007
Article citations
Percutaneous Microaxial Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Nonacute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock.
J Am Heart Assoc, 13(11):e034645, 28 May 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38804220 | PMCID: PMC11255633
The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.
Crit Care, 28(1):105, 02 Apr 2024
Cited by: 0 articles | PMID: 38566212 | PMCID: PMC10988801
Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.
Clin Res Cardiol, 113(4):612-625, 14 Feb 2024
Cited by: 1 article | PMID: 38353681 | PMCID: PMC10954943
Left-Ventricular Unloading With Impella During Refractory Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Crit Care Med, 52(3):464-474, 05 Jan 2024
Cited by: 4 articles | PMID: 38180032 | PMCID: PMC10876179
Review Free full text in Europe PMC
Association of systemic inflammation with shock severity, 30-day mortality, and therapy response in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Clin Res Cardiol, 113(2):324-335, 20 Nov 2023
Cited by: 3 articles | PMID: 37982862 | PMCID: PMC10850174
Go to all (7) article citations
Similar Articles
To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.
Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.
Clin Res Cardiol, 113(4):570-580, 20 Nov 2023
Cited by: 2 articles | PMID: 37982863 | PMCID: PMC10954940
Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Eur Heart J, 38(47):3523-3531, 01 Dec 2017
Cited by: 115 articles | PMID: 29020341
Review
Safety and efficacy of mechanical circulatory support with Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and/or cardiogenic shock: Insights from a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 97(5):E636-E645, 07 Sep 2020
Cited by: 8 articles | PMID: 32894797