Why the study?
Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated within a standardized team-based approach.
Does female sex affect outcomes compared to male sex in patients with cardiogenic shock treated within a standardized team-based approach?
Does female sex affect outcomes compared to male sex in patients with cardiogenic shock treated within a standardized team-based approach?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
When managed with a standardized team-based approach, women with cardiogenic shock have similar in-hospital and 1-year survival to men despite presenting with higher acuity.
Background: Little is known about sex-related differences in outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) treated within a standardized team-based approach (STBA). Methods: We evaluated 520 consecutive patients (151 women and 369 men) with CS due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) in a single-center registry (January 2017-December 2019) and examined outcomes according to sex and CS phenotype. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, major bleeding, vascular complications, and stroke. However, female sex was not an independent predictor of these complications. No sex differences in survival were noted at 1 year. Conclusions: Within an STBA, although women with AMI-CS and HF-CS presented with higher acuity, they experienced similar in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac events, 30-day mortality, stroke, and 30-day readmissions as men. Further research is needed to better understand the extent to which historical differences in CS outcomes can be mitigated by an STBA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Epps et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: