Search

Background There is increasing utilization of cardiogenic shock treatment algorithms. The cornerstone of these algorithms is the use of invasive hemodynamic monitoring (IHM). We sought to compare the in-hospital outcomes in patients who received IHM versus no IHM in a real-world contemporary database. Methods and Results Patients with cardiogenic shock admitted during October 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the National Inpatient Sample. Among this group, we compared the outcomes among patients who received IHM versus no IHM. The primary end point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end points included vascular complications, major bleeding, need for renal replacement therapy, length of stay, cost of hospitalization, and rate of utilization of left ventricular assist devices and heart transplantation. Propensity score matching was used for covariate adjustment. A total of 394 635 (IHM=62 565; no IHM=332 070) patients were included. After propensity score matching, 2 well-matched groups were compared (IHM=62 220; no IHM=62 220). The IHM group had lower in-hospital mortality (24.1% versus 30.6%, P

Despite advances over the past decade, the incidence of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased, with an unchanged mortality near 50%. Recent trials have not clarified the best strategies in treatment. While dedicated cardiac shock centers are being established, there are no standardized agreements on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support and the timeliness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies. In some centers and prospective registries, outcomes after placement of advanced mechanical circulatory support prior to reperfusion therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention have been encouraging with improved survival. Here, we suggest systems of care with a treatment pathway for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]