Dataset Information

Temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support and mortality in cardiogenic shock.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The management of cardiogenic shock remains a clinical challenge even in well-developed healthcare systems, best illustrated by its high mortality despite numerous innovative proposals for management. The aim of this study was to describe temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support, and mortality in cardiogenic shock in Germany.

Methods and results

Data on all cardiogenic shock patients treated in German hospitals between 2005 and 2017 were obtained from the Federal Bureau of Statistics. The data set comprised 441 696 patients with cardiogenic shock, mean age 71 (±13.8) years, 171 383 (39%) female patients. Incidence rates increased from 33.1/100 000 population in 2005 (27 246 cases) to 51.7/100 000 population in 2017 (42 779 cases). Acute myocardial infarction was the most common cause of cardiogenic shock in 2005-07 (43 422 of 82 037 cases, 52.9%), but the proportion of cases caused by it decreased until 2014-17 (73 274 of 165 873 cases, 44.2%). Over time, intra-aortic balloon pump (2005: 5104; 2017: 973 cases) was used less frequently, whereas use of extracorporeal-membrane-oxygenation (2007: 35; 2017: 2414 cases) and percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (2005: 27; 2017: 1323 cases) increased. Mortality remained high at around 60% without relevant temporal trends in patients without acute myocardial infarction and slightly decreased in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

In this large, nation-wide study, annual incidence of cardiogenic shock was growing, its causes were changing, and mortality was high despite a shift towards use of novel mechanical circulatory support devices. This highlights the need to address the evidence gap in this field, in particular for cardiogenic shock caused by diseases other than acute myocardial infarction.

SUBMITTER: Schrage B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006704 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To review temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices for the treatment of cardiogenic shock, including current evidence, contraindications, complications, and future directions. DATA SOURCES:A MEDLINE search was conducted with MeSH terms: cardiogenic shock, percutaneous mechanical circulatory support, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and TandemHeart. STUDY SELECTION:Selected publications included randomized controlled trial data and observational studies describing experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION:Studies were chosen based on strength of association with and relevance to cardiogenic shock. DATA SYNTHESIS:Until recently, there were few options if cardiogenic shock was refractory to vasopressors or intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. Now, several percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices, including Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), TandemHeart (CardiacAssist, Pittsburgh, PA), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, are more accessible. Compared with intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella provides greater hemodynamic support but no reduction in mortality. Similarly, TandemHeart improves hemodynamic variables but not survival. Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation offers the advantage of biventricular circulatory support and oxygenation, but there are significant vascular complications. Comparative studies with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation have not been completed. Despite lack of randomized controlled data, there has been a substantial increase in use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. Several ongoing prospective studies with larger sample sizes may provide answers, and newer devices may become smaller, easier to insert, and more effective. CONCLUSIONS:Mortality from cardiogenic shock remains unacceptably high despite early coronary revascularization or other therapies. Although evidence is lacking and complications rates are high, improvements and experience with percutaneous mechanical circulatory support may offer the prospect of better outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the study was to compare the renal outcomes in patients presenting with all-cause cardiogenic shock who were supported by either Impella devices (Abiomed, Danvers, MA), intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), or vasopressors alone. Outcomes of cardiogenic shock remain poor even with the advancement of early revascularization and circulatory supportive care. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device has emerged as an effective strategy in protecting end organ function especially renal function during high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Currently, comparative data amongst various MCS modalities and their association with improvement of renal function in cardiogenic shock patients have not been well characterized.MethodsData from New Jersey Cardiac Catheterization Data registry of cardiogenic shock patients from a single tertiary care institution that underwent cardiac catheterization and the modality used to treat were obtained, either with Impella devices, IABP, or treatment with vasopressors alone. Retrospective chart review was conducted to assess the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) on patients with cardiogenic shock prior to and after cardiac catheterization and renal function was evaluated over the course of 96 h after cardiac catheterization. Statistical analysis was performed to ascertain significant difference in creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in patients who received Impella devices, IABP, or were treated with vasopressors alone.ResultsA total of 61 all-cause cardiogenic shock patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study with 19 receiving IABPs, 15 receiving Impella devices, and 27 treated with vasopressors alone. Baseline characteristics among these three groups did not show any statistically significant difference. A total of 29 cardiogenic shock patients had experienced AKI prior to cardiac catheterization in which those receiving Impella devices showed statistically significant decrease in creatinine and increase in eGFR at 72 and 96 h (P < 0.05) compared to baseline. Within the same cohort, Impella group showed statistically significant lower creatinine at 96 h when compared to IABP. Patients that experienced AKI after cardiac catheterization did not show any statistically significant changes in renal function regardless of modality used.ConclusionThe results of our study suggest that Impella devices improve renal function in all-cause cardiogenic shock patients who experience AKI prior to undergoing cardiac catheterization.

Dataset Information

Temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support and mortality in cardiogenic shock.

Aim

Methods and results

Conclusions

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets