Key result
Four-pillar OMT before heart failure cardiogenic shock linked to ~83% lower in-hospital mortality.
Why the study?
The prognostic relevance of pre-event heart failure guideline-optimized medical therapy intensity in HF-related cardiogenic shock remains poorly defined.
Does a higher intensity of pre-event heart failure guideline-optimized medical therapy (4/4 or ≥3 pillars) reduce in-hospital mortality compared to lower therapy intensity in patients with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock?
Observational (n=248)
Yes
Does a higher intensity of pre-event heart failure guideline-optimized medical therapy (4/4 or ≥3 pillars) reduce in-hospital mortality compared to lower therapy intensity in patients with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock?
In patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, particularly acute decompensated heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, prior treatment with a higher number of the four guideline-directed medical therapy pillars is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality.
Background The prognostic relevance of pre-event heart failure (HF) guideline-optimized medical therapy (OMT) intensity in HF-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) remains poorly defined. Purpose To assess the association between pre-event OMT intensity—defined by the four HF pharmacological pillars—and in-hospital mortality in HF-CS and in the acute decompensated HF-CS (ADHF-CS) subgroup. Methods Multicentre registry including patients with HF-CS (N=248) and the ADHF-CS subgroup (N=135). Pre-event OMT intensity was defined as the number of HF drug classes (0–4) among the four pillars (beta-blocker, RAAS inhibitor and/or ARNI, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, SGLT2 inhibitor) and reported as 0-4 pillars, including OMT4 (4/4 pillars) and OMT≥3 (≥3 pillars). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality; associations with mortality were estimated using robust Poisson regression (risk ratios, RR) adjusted for age, sex, SCAI class (A-B/C/D-E), admission lactate, baseline haemoglobin and use of mechanical circulatory support (Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP)/Impella/VA-ECMO). Results In-hospital mortality was 27.0% (67/248) in HF-CS and 31.9% (43/135) in the ADHF-CS subgroup. OMT4 (4/4 pillars) was present in 22/248 (8.9%) HF-CS patients and 21/135 (15.6%) in ADHF-CS patients (p=0.070); OMT≥3 was present in 80/248 (32.3%) and 65/135 (48.1%), respectively (p=0.003). In HF-CS, OMT4 was associated with lower mortality versus <4 pillars (4.5% vs 29.2%, p=0.011; adjusted RR 0.17, 95%CI 0.03–0.96, p=0.045), whereas OMT≥3 was not associated with lower mortality (18.8% vs 31.0%, p=0.061; adjusted RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.38–1.03, p=0.067). In ADHF-CS, both OMT4 (4.8% vs 36.8%, p=0.004; adjusted RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–0.74, p=0.021) and OMT≥3 (18.5% vs 44.3%, p=0.002; adjusted RR 0.45, 95%CI 0.26–0.78, p=0.004) were associated with lower mortality. Each additional pre-event pillar was associated with lower risk (adjusted RR per +1 pillar 0.78, 95%CI 0.66–0.92, p=0.003). In ADHF-CS, in-hospital mortality by pre-event OMT score (0–4 pillars) is shown in Figure 1. Conclusions In this real-world HF-CS registry, greater pre-event OMT intensity—most consistently in ADHF-CS—was associated with lower in-hospital mortality. These observational findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant prospective confirmation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guarnieri et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) (n=248). Pre-event guideline-directed optimized medical therapy (OMT) with all 4 HF pillars (OMT4) vs. <4 HF pharmacological pillars was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (adjusted RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, p=0.045). Pre-event OMT with 4 pillars vs <4 pillars was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in HF-CS (4.5% vs 29.2%; adjusted RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03-0.96, p=0.045).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: