Dataset Information

Cardiogenic shock in Taiwan from 2003 to 2017 (CSiT-15 study)

ABSTRACT:

Background

This study investigated temporal trends in the treatment and mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) in Taiwan in relation to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accreditation implemented in 2009 and the unavailability of percutaneous ventricular assist devices.

Methods

Data of patients diagnosed as having CS between January 2003 and December 2017 were collected from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Each case was followed from the date of emergency department arrival or hospital admission for the first incident associated with a CS diagnosis up to a 1-year interval. Measurements included demographics, comorbidities, treatment, mortality, and medical costs. Using an interrupted time-series (ITS) design with multi-level mixed-effects logistic regression model, we assessed the impact of AMI accreditation implementation on the mortality of patients with AMI and CS overall and stratified by the hospital levels.

Results

In total, 64 049 patients with CS (mean age:70 years; 62% men) were identified. The incidence rate per 105 person-years increased from 17 in 2003 to 25 in 2010 and plateaued thereafter. Average inpatient costs increased from 159 125 points in 2003 to 240 993 points in 2017, indicating a 1.5-fold increase. The intra-aortic balloon pump application rate was approximately 22–25% after 2010 (p = 0.093). Overall, in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality declined from 60.3%, 63.0%, and 69.3% in 2003 to 47.9%, 50.8% and 59.8% in 2017, respectively. The decline in mortality was more apparent in patients with AMI-CS than in patients with non-AMI-CS. The ITS estimation revealed a 2% lower in-hospital mortality in patients with AMI-CS treated in district hospitals after the AMI accreditation had been implemented for 2 years.

Conclusions

In Taiwan, the burden of CS has consistently increased due to high patient complexity, advanced therapies, and stable incidence. Mortality declined over time, particularly in patients with AMI-CS, which may be attributable to advancements in AMI therapies and this quality-improving policy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03820-1.

SUBMITTER: Chien S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8600726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMixed cardiogenic-septic shock is common and associated with high mortality. There are limited contemporary data on concomitant sepsis in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).DesignObservational study.SettingTwenty percent stratified sample of all community hospitals (2000-2014) in the United States.ParticipantsAdults (> 18 yr) with AMI-CS with and without concomitant sepsis.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOutcomes of interest included inhospital mortality, development of noncardiac organ failure, complications, utilization of guideline-directed procedures, length of stay, and hospitalization costs. Over 15 years, 444,253 AMI-CS admissions were identified, of which 27,057 (6%) included sepsis. The sepsis cohort had more comorbidities and had higher rates of noncardiac multiple organ failure (92% vs 69%) (all p < 0.001). In 2014, compared with 2000, the prevalence of sepsis increased from 0.5% versus 11.5% with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 11.71 (95% CI, 9.7-14.0) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 24.6 (CI, 16.4-36.7) (all p < 0.001) in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. The sepsis cohort received fewer cardiac interventions (coronary angiography [65% vs 68%], percutaneous coronary intervention [43% vs 48%]) and had greater use of mechanical circulatory support (48% vs 45%) and noncardiac support (invasive mechanical ventilation [65% vs 41%] and acute hemodialysis [12% vs 3%]) (p < 0.001). The sepsis cohort had higher inhospital mortality (44.3% vs 38.1%; aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.25; p < 0.001), longer length of stay (14.0 d [7-24 d] vs 7.0 d [3-12 d]), greater hospitalization costs (×1,000 U.S. dollars) ($176.0 [$85-$331] vs $77.0 [$36-$147]), fewer discharges to home (22% vs 44%) and more discharges to skilled nursing facilities (51% vs 28%) (all p < 0.001).ConclusionsIn AMI-CS, concomitant sepsis is associated with higher mortality and morbidity highlighting the need for early recognition and integrated management of mixed shock.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock. OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies. METHODS:This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI. RESULTS:Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018. CONCLUSIONS:The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd).