Key result
High hospital MCS utilization shows no mortality benefit over low utilization in cardiogenic shock.
Why the study?
Limited knowledge exists on inter-hospital variation in the utilization of short-term nondurable mechanical circulatory support for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Does higher hospital utilization of short-term nondurable mechanical circulatory support reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Observational
Yes
Does higher hospital utilization of short-term nondurable mechanical circulatory support reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock?
Odds Ratio: 0.95 (95% CI 0.77–1.16)
p-value: p=0.58
There is wide inter-hospital variation in the use of short-term mechanical circulatory support for MI complicated by cardiogenic shock, but higher utilization is not associated with improved risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wide interhospital MCS variation for MI-CS without mortality difference warrants standardization; leaves open optimal device selection in observational data.
Strom et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. High hospital utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) vs. Low hospital utilization of MCS (Q1) was evaluated on Adjusted in-hospital mortality (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.77-1.16, p=0.58). High hospital utilization of mechanical circulatory support for MI with cardiogenic shock was not associated with a difference in adjusted in-hospital mortality compared to low utilization (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.16; P=0.58).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: