Key result
Renal replacement therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock was associated with higher in-hospital mortality compared to no RRT (48.0% vs 31.0%; OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.43-2.92; P<0.001).
Why the study?
Outcomes associated with the utilization and modality of renal replacement therapy (intermittent hemodialysis vs continuous renal replacement therapy) in patients with cardiogenic shock remain poorly understood.
Does the use and modality of renal replacement therapy affect mortality in adult patients with cardiogenic shock?
Population
1498 adult CICU patients with cardiogenic shock
Comparison
RRT vs no RRT, and CRRT vs IHD
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
1-year
Authors
Loading...
RRT requirement marks high-risk cardiogenic shock; leaves open whether early initiation improves survival or merely signals severity.
Cohort (n=1,498)
Does the use and modality of renal replacement therapy affect mortality in adult patients with cardiogenic shock?
Odds Ratio: 2.04 (95% CI 1.43–2.92)
Absolute Event Rate: 48% vs 31%
p-value: p=<.001
The requirement for renal replacement therapy, particularly continuous renal replacement therapy, is associated with significantly higher in-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock.
Patel et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cardiogenic shock (n=1,498). Renal replacement therapy (RRT) vs. No RRT was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.92, p=<.001). Renal replacement therapy in patients with cardiogenic shock was associated with higher in-hospital mortality compared to no RRT (48.0% vs 31.0%; OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.43-2.92; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: