Key result
Patients with acute cardiogenic shock had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with acute on chronic heart failure (31.4% vs. 9.8%, P<0.01).
Why the study?
Considerably less is understood about cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure compared to acute cardiogenic shock.
Does in-hospital mortality differ between patients presenting with acute cardiogenic shock versus acute on chronic heart failure cardiogenic shock?
Cohort (n=235)
No
Does in-hospital mortality differ between patients presenting with acute cardiogenic shock versus acute on chronic heart failure cardiogenic shock?
Absolute Event Rate: 31.4% vs 9.8%
p-value: p=<0.01
Patients presenting with acute cardiogenic shock have significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those with acute on chronic heart failure, despite similar standard hemodynamic parameters of shock.
Acute cardiogenic shock signals higher in-hospital mortality risk than acute-on-chronic; this cohort study leaves open whether etiology-specific strategies improve outcomes.
Aims Despite advances in coronary reperfusion and percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, mortality among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unacceptably high. Clinical trials and risk stratification tools have largely focused on acute CS, particularly secondary to acute coronary syndrome. Considerably less is understood about CS in the setting of acute decompensation in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). We sought to compare outcomes between patients with acute CS and patients with acute on chronic decompensated HF presenting with laboratory and haemodynamic features consistent with CS. Methods and results Sequential patients admitted with CS at a single quaternary centre between January 2014 and August 2017 were identified. Acute on chronic CS was defined by having a prior diagnosis of HF. Initial haemodynamic and laboratory data were collected for analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were use of temporary mechanical circulatory support, durable ventricular assist device implantation, total artificial heart implantation, or heart transplantation. Comparison of continuous variables was performed using Student's t-test. For categorical variables, the χ2 statistic was used. A total of 235 patients were identified: 51 patients (32.8%) had acute CS, and 184 patients (64.3%) had acute decompensation of chronic HF with no differences in age (52 ± 22 vs. 55 ± 14 years, P = 0.28) or gender (26% vs. 23%, P = 0.75) between the two groups. Patients with acute CS were more likely to suffer in-hospital death (31.4% vs. 9.8%, P < 0.01) despite higher usage of temporary mechanical circulatory support (52% vs. 25%, P < 0.01) compared with patients presenting with acute on chronic HF. The only clinically significant haemodynamic differences at admission were a higher heart rate (101 ± 29 vs. 82 ± 17 b.p.m., P < 0.01) and wider pulse pressure (34 ± 19 vs. 29 ± 10 mmHg, P < 0.01) in the acute CS group. There were no significant differences in degree of shock based on commonly used CS parameters including mean arterial pressure (72 ± 12 vs. 74 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.23), cardiac output (3.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.8 ± 1.2 L/min, P = 0.70), or cardiac power index (0.32 ± 0.09 vs. 0.30 ± 0.09 W/m2, P = 0.24) between the two groups. Conclusions Current definitions and risk stratification models for CS based on clinical trials performed in the setting of acute coronary syndrome may not accurately reflect CS in patients with acute on chronic HF. Further investigation into CS in patients with acute on chronic HF is warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jones et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Cardiogenic shock (n=235). Acute cardiogenic shock vs. Acute on chronic decompensated heart failure was evaluated on in-hospital mortality (p=<0.01). Patients with acute cardiogenic shock had significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with acute on chronic heart failure (31.4% vs. 9.8%, P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: