Key result
MCS links to ~28% lower 30-day mortality in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock only when LVEF ≤20%.
Why the study?
MCS use in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers rather than markers of cardiac function such as LVEF.
Does mechanical circulatory support reduce 30-day mortality in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=807)
Yes
Does mechanical circulatory support reduce 30-day mortality in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock?
In patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock, mechanical circulatory support may be associated with a lower 30-day mortality risk specifically in those with severely reduced LVEF (≤20%).
May inform MCS selection for non-ischaemic shock with LVEF ≤20%; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Background Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. Methods Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. Results N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5–72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6–8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15–30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85–2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction- p = 0.017). Conclusion This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit–risk ratio. Graphical abstract Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sundermeyer et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (n=807). Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) vs. No mechanical circulatory support was evaluated on 30-day mortality (MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20%) (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51-1.02, p=0.017 for interaction). Mechanical circulatory support use in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock was associated with a lower 30-day mortality risk only in those with severely reduced LVEF ≤ 20% (HR 0.72).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: