Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2021, 165(3):291-297 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2021.046

Regional differences in presentation characteristics, use of treatments and outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock: Results from multicenter, international registry

Michal Pazdernika, b, Mario Gramegnac, Allan Bohmd, e, Maria Trepaf, Christophe Vandenbrieleg, Salvatore De Rosah, Jamol Uzokovi, Milica Aleksicj, Milana Jarakovick, Mohammad El Tahlawil, Morsy Mostafam, Maria Stratinakin, Diego Araiza-Garaygordobilo, Ekaterina Gubarevap, Polina Duplyakovaq, Manuel Chacon-Diazr, Hesham Refaatl, s, Federico Guerrat, Alberto Maria Cappellettic, Vojtech Berkab, Dirk Westermannu, Benedikt Schrageu
Received: November 3, 2020; Revised: February 17, 2021; Accepted: July 9, 2021; Available online: August 19, 2021
a Department of Cardiology, IKEM, Prague, Czech Republic
b Department of Cardiology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
c Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
d National Cardiovascular Institute, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
e 3rd Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
f Centro Hospitalar Universitario do Porto, Porto, Portugal
g University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
h Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy
i Republican Specialized Scientific Practical Medical Center of Therapy and Medical Rehabilitation, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
j Clinical Hospital Center Bezanijska Kosa, Belgrade, Serbia
k Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia
l Cardiology Department, Zagazig University Hospital, Zagazig, Egypt
m As-Salam International Hospital, Cairo, Egypt
n Onassis Cardiac Surgery Centre, Athens, Greece
o Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez, Mexico City, Mexico
p Clinics of Samara State Medical University, Samara, Russian Federation
q Samara State Cardiology Dispensary, Samara, Russian Federation
r Instituto Nacional Cardiovascular-INCOR, Lima, Peru
s Al Jahra Hospital, Al Jahra, Kuwait
t Marche Polytechnic University, University Hospital "Umberto I - Lancisi - Salesi", Ancona, Italy
u University Heart and Vasculature Centre, Hamburg, Germany

Background: Concurrent evidence about cardiogenic shock (CS) characteristics, treatment and outcome does not represent a global spectrum of patients and is therefore limited. The aim of this study was to investigate these regional differences.

Methods: To investigate regional differences in presentation characteristics, treatments and outcomes of patients treated with all types of cardiogenic shock (CS) in a single calendar year on a multi-national level. Consecutive patients from 19 tertiary care hospitals in 13 countries with CS who were treated between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 were enrolled in this study.

Results: In total, 699 cardiogenic shock patients were included in this study. Of these patients, 440 patients (63%) were treated in European hospitals and 259 (37%) were treated in Non-European hospitals. Female patients (P<0.01) and patients with a previous myocardial infarction (P=0.02) were more likely to present at Non-European hospitals; whereas older patients (P=0.01) and patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute heart failure (P<0.01) were more likely to present at European hospitals. Vasopressor use was more likely in Non-European hospitals (P=0.04), whereas use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was more likely in European hospitals (P<0.01). Despite adjustment for relevant confounders, 30-day in-hospital mortality risk was comparably high in CS patients treated in European vs. Non-European hospitals (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.84-1.39, P=0.56).

Conclusion: Despite marked heterogeneity in characteristics and treatment of CS patients, including fewer use of MCS but more frequent use of vasopressors in Non-European hospitals, 30-day in-hospital mortality did not differ between regions.

Keywords: Kew words: cardiogenic shock, regional differences, mechanical circulatory support, acute heart failure, AMICS

Received: November 3, 2020; Revised: February 17, 2021; Accepted: July 9, 2021; Prepublished online: August 19, 2021; Published: September 20, 2021  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Pazdernik, M., Gramegna, M., Bohm, A., Trepa, M., Vandenbriele, C., De Rosa, S., ... Schrage, B. (2021). Regional differences in presentation characteristics, use of treatments and outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock: Results from multicenter, international registry. Biomedical papers165(3), 291-297. doi: 10.5507/bp.2021.046
Download citation

References

  1. van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, Henry TD, Jacobs AK, Kapur NK, Kilic A, Menon V, Ohman EM, Sweitzer NK, Thiele H, Washam JB, Cohen MG. Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017;136(16):e232-e268. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A, Køber L, Tarvasmäki T, Spinar J, Parissis J, Banaszewski M, Silva-Cardoso J, Carubelli V, Di Somma S, Tolppanen H, Zeymer U, Thiele H, Nieminen MS, Mebazaa A. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 2015;17(5):501-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Hunziker L, Radovanovic D, Jeger R, Pedrazzini G, Cuculi F, Urban P, Erne P, Rickli H, Pilgrim T. Twenty-year trends in the incidence and outcome of cardiogenic shock in AMIS plus registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019;12(4):1-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, Katz JN, Alviar CL, Baird-Zars VM, Barnett CF, Barsness GW, Burke JA, Cremer PC, Cruz J, Daniels LB, DeFilippis AP, Haleem A, Hollenberg SM, Horowitz JM, Keller N, Kontos MC, Lawler PR, Menon V, Metkus TS, Ng J, Orgel R, Overgaard CB, Park JG, Phreaner N, Roswell RO, Schulman SP, Jeffrey Snell R, Solomon MA, Ternus B, Tymchak W, Vikram F, Morrow DA. Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units: Data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2019;12(3):e005618. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Shah M, Patnaik S, Patel B, Ram P, Garg L, Agarwal M, Agrawal S, Arora S, Patel N, Wald J, Jorde UP. Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States. Clin Res Cardiol 2018;107(4):287-303. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Hochman JS, Buller CE, Sleeper LA, Boland J, Dzavik V, Sanborn TA, Godfrey E, White HD, Lim J, LeJemtel T. Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction - etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36(3 Suppl A):1063-70. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Thiele H, Schuler G, Neumann FJ, Hausleiter J, Olbrich HG, Schwarz B, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Fuernau G, Desch S, de Waha S, Eitel I, Hambrecht R, Böhm M, Kurowski V, Lauer B, Minden HH, Figulla HR, Braun-Dullaeus RC, Strasser RH, Rochor K, Maier SK, Möllmann H, Schneider S, Ebelt H, Werdan K, Zeymer U. Intraaortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: design and rationale of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial. Am Heart J 2012;163(6):938-45. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Thiele H, Desch S, Piek JJ, Stepinska J, Oldroyd K, Serpytis P, Montalescot G, Noc M, Huber K, Fuernau G, de Waha S, Meyer-Saraei R, Schneider S, Windecker S, Savonitto S, Briggs A, Torremante P, Vrints C, Schuler G, Ceglarek U, Thiery J, Zeymer U. Multivessel versus culprit lesion only percutaneous revascularization plus potential staged revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock : Design and rationale of CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Am Heart J 2016;172:160-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Sakamoto K, Matoba T, Mohri M, Ueki Y, Tsujita Y, Yamasaki M, Tanaka N, Hokama Y, Fukutomi M, Hashiba K, Fukuhara R, Suwa S, Matsuura H, Tachibana E, Yonemoto N, Nagao K. Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors in acute coronary syndrome patients complicated with cardiogenic shock in Japan: analysis from the Japanese Circulation Society Cardiovascular Shock Registry. Heart Vessels 2019;34(8):1241-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  10. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Delmas C, Ortuno S, Durand E, Bataille V, Drouet E, Bonello L, Bonnefoy-Cudraz E, Lesmeles G, Guerot E, Schiele F, Simon T, Danchin N. Trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Heart Fail 2020;22(4):664-72. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Vallabhajosyula S, Patlolla SH, Dunlay SM, Prasad A, Bell MR, Jaffe AS, Gersh BJ, Rihal CS, Holmes DR Jr, Barsness GW. Regional variation in the management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in the United States. Circ Heart Fail 2020;13(2):e006661. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Schrage B, Weimann J, Dabboura S, Yan I, Hilal R, Becher PM, Seiffert M, Bernhardt AM, Kluge S, Reichenspurner H, Blankenberg S, Westermann D. Patient characteristics, treatment and outcome in non-ischemic vs. ischemic cardiogenic shock. J Clin Med 2020;9(4):931. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Sharma YP, Krishnappa D, Kanabar K, Kasinadhuni G, Sharma R, Kishore K, Mehrotra S, Santosh K, Gupta A, Panda P. Clinical characteristics and outcome in patients with a delayed presentation after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and complicated by cardiogenic shock. Indian Heart J 2019;71(5):387-93. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Vahdatpour C, Collins D, Goldberg S. Cardiogenic shock. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(8):e011991. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Jeger RV, Radovanovic D, Hunziker PR, Pfisterer ME, Stauffer JC, Erne P, Urban P. Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Ann Intern Med 2008;149(9):618-26. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Lim HS, Andrianopoulos N, Sugumar H, Stub D, Brennan AL, Lim CC, Barlis P, Van Gaal W, Reid CM, Charter K, Sebastian M, New G, Ajani AE, Farouque O, Duffy SJ, Clark DJ. Long-term survival of elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Int J Cardiol 2015;195:259-64. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Helgestad OKL, Josiassen J, Hassager C, Jensen LO, Holmvang L, Udesen NLJ, Schmidt H, Berg Ravn H, Moller JE. Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock. Open Heart 2020;7(1):e001214. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Fengler K, Fuernau G, Desch S, Eitel I, Neumann FJ, Olbrich HG, de Waha A, de Waha S, Richardt G, Hennersdorf M, Empen K, Hambrecht R, Fuhrmann J, Böhm M, Poess J, Strasser R, Schneider S, Schuler G, Werdan K, Zeymer U, Thiele H. Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial. Clin Res Cardiol 2015;104(1):71-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Rubini Gimenez M, Zeymer U, Desch S, de Waha-Thiele S, Ouarrak T, Poess J, Meyer-Saraei R, Schneider S, Fuernau G, Stepinska J, Huber K, Windecker S, Montalescot G, Savonitto S, Jeger RV, Thiele H. Sex-specific management in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: A substudy of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2020;13(3):e008537. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Kunadian V, Coats L, Kini AS, Mehran R. Cardiogenic shock in women. Interv Cardiol Clin 2012;1(2):231-43. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Belletti A, Castro ML, Silvetti S, Greco T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Pasin L, Zangrillo A, Landoni G. The effect of inotropes and vasopressors on mortality: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Br J Anaesth 2015;115(5):656-75. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Schrage B, Westermann D. Mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiogenic shock and acute heart failure: current evidence. Curr Opin Crit Care 2019;25(4):391-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Ouweneel DM, Eriksen E, Sjauw KD, van Dongen IM, Hirsch A, Packer EJ, Vis MM, Wykrzykowska JJ, Koch KT, Baan J, de Winter RJ, Piek JJ, Lagrand WK, de Mol BA, Tijssen JG, Henriques JP. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support versus intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69(3):278-87. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, Pieri M, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, Westenfeld R, Horn P, Pauschinger M, Eckner D, Twerenbold R, Nordbeck P, Salinger T, Abel P, Empen K, Busch MC, Felix SB, Sieweke JT, Møller JE, Pareek N, Hill J, MacCarthy P, Bergmann MW, Henriques JPS, Möbius-Winkler S, Schulze PC, Ouarrak T, Zeymer U, Schneider S, Blankenberg S, Thiele H, Schäfer A, Westermann D. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 2019;139(10):1249-58. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Wang X, Luke AA, Vader JM, Maddox TM, Joynt Maddox KE. Disparities and impact of Medicaid expansion on left ventricular assist device implantation and outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020;13(6):e006284. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Chioncel O, Parissis J, Mebazaa A, Thiele H, Desch S, Bauersachs J, Harjola VP, Antohi EL, Arrigo M, Gal TB, Celutkiene J, Collins SP, DeBacker D, Iliescu VA, Jankowska E, Jaarsma T, Keramida K, Lainscak M, Lund LH, Lyon AR, Masip J, Metra M, Miro O, Mortara A, Mueller C, Mullens W, Nikolaou M, Piepoli M, Price S, Rosano G, Vieillard-Baron A, Weinstein JM, Anker SD, Filippatos G, Ruschitzka F, Coats AJS, Seferovic P. Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail 2020;22(8):1315-41. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.