Key result
AMI-related cardiogenic shock linked to ~124% higher in-hospital mortality versus non-AMI etiologies.
Why the study?
Mortality in cardiogenic shock remains elevated, and the impact of different aetiologies on prognosis and risk stratification is unclear.
Does acute myocardial infarction etiology increase in-hospital mortality compared to non-AMI etiology in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Observational (n=382)
Yes
Does acute myocardial infarction etiology increase in-hospital mortality compared to non-AMI etiology in patients with cardiogenic shock?
Odds Ratio: 2.24 (95% CI 1.14–4.39)
Absolute Event Rate: 37.1% vs 26.7%
p-value: p=0.019
Cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial infarction carries a two-fold higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared to non-AMI etiologies, and the IABP-SHOCK II score provides superior 90-day mortality prediction in this subgroup.
AMI etiology was associated with higher in-hospital mortality in CS; hypothesis-generating for etiology-specific strategies, should not yet change practice.
AIMS: Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains elevated, with the potential for CS causes to impact prognosis and risk stratification. The aim was to investigate in-hospital prognosis and mortality in CS patients according to aetiology. We also assessed the prognostic accuracy of CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores. METHODS: Shock-CAT study was a multicentre, prospective, observational study conducted from December 2018 to November 2019 in eight university hospitals in Catalonia, including non-selected consecutive CS patients. Data on clinical presentation, management, including mechanical circulatory support (MCS) were analysed comparing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related CS and non-AMI-CS. The accuracy of CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores to assess 90 day mortality risk were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 382 CS patients were included, age 65.3 (SD 13.9) years, 75.1% men. Patients were classified as AMI-CS (n = 232, 60.7%) and non-AMI-CS (n = 150, 39.3%). In the AMI-CS group, 77.6% were STEMI. Main aetiologies for non-AMI-CS were heart failure (36.2%), arrhythmias (22.1%) and valve disease (8.0%). AMI-CS patients required more MCS than non-AMI-CS (43.1% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in AMI-CS (37.1 vs. 26.7%, P = 0.035), with a two-fold increased risk after multivariate adjustment (odds ratio 2.24, P = 0.019). The IABP-SHOCK II had superior discrimination for predicting 90 day mortality when compared with CardShock in AMI-CS patients [area under the curve (AUC) 0.74 vs. 0.66, P = 0.047] although both scores performed similarly in non-AMI-CS (AUC 0.64 vs. 0.62, P = 0.693). CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, AMI-CS mortality was increased by two-fold when compared with non-AMI-CS. IABP-SHOCK II score provides better 90 day mortality risk prediction than CardShock score in AMI-CS, but both scores performed similar in non-AMI-CS patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
García‐García et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Cardiogenic shock (n=382). Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related cardiogenic shock vs. Non-AMI related cardiogenic shock was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 2.24, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.39, p=0.019). Acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock was associated with a two-fold increased risk of in-hospital mortality compared to non-AMI etiologies (OR 2.24).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: