BACKGROUND: In the SHOCK trial, an invasive strategy of early revascularization was associated with a significant mortality benefit at 6 months when compared with initial stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Our objectives were to evaluate the data on real-world practice and outcomes of invasive vs conservative management in patients with cardiogenic shock. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011 with primary discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and secondary diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients managed invasively (with cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) vs conservatively with similar baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We identified 60,833 patients with cardiogenic shock, of which 20,644 patients (10,322 in each group) with similar propensity scores, including 11,004 elderly patients (≥75 years), were in the final analysis. Patients who underwent invasive management had 59% lower odds of in-hospital mortality (37.7% vs 59.7%; odds ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.43; P < .0001) when compared with those managed conservatively. This lower mortality was consistently seen across all tested subgroups; specifically in the elderly (≥75 years) (44.0% vs 63.6%; OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49; P < .0001) and those younger than 75 years (30.6% vs 55.1%; OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.39; P < .0001), although the magnitude of risk reduction differed (Pinteraction < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this largest cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction, patients managed invasively had significantly lower mortality when compared with those managed conservatively, even in the elderly. Our results emphasize the need for aggressive management in this high-risk subgroup.
BACKGROUND: In the SHOCK trial, an invasive strategy of early revascularization was associated with a significant mortality benefit at 6 months when compared with initial stabilization in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Our objectives were to evaluate the data on real-world practice and outcomes of invasive vs conservative management in patients with cardiogenic shock. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011 with primary discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and secondary diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients managed invasively (with cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) vs conservatively with similar baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: We identified 60,833 patients with cardiogenic shock, of which 20,644 patients (10,322 in each group) with similar propensity scores, including 11,004 elderly patients (≥75 years), were in the final analysis. Patients who underwent invasive management had 59% lower odds of in-hospital mortality (37.7% vs 59.7%; odds ratio [OR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.43; P < .0001) when compared with those managed conservatively. This lower mortality was consistently seen across all tested subgroups; specifically in the elderly (≥75 years) (44.0% vs 63.6%; OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49; P < .0001) and those younger than 75 years (30.6% vs 55.1%; OR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.33-0.39; P < .0001), although the magnitude of risk reduction differed (Pinteraction < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this largest cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction, patients managed invasively had significantly lower mortality when compared with those managed conservatively, even in the elderly. Our results emphasize the need for aggressive management in this high-risk subgroup.
Authors: S Tenzer; B Peters; S Bulik; O Schoor; C Lemmel; M M Schatz; P-M Kloetzel; H-G Rammensee; H Schild; H-G Holzhütter Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: Ovidiu Chioncel; Sean P Collins; Andrew P Ambrosy; Peter S Pang; Razvan I Radu; Elena-Laura Antohi; Josep Masip; Javed Butler; Vlad Anton Iliescu Journal: Am J Ther Date: 2019 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.688
Authors: Robert J Goldberg; Raghavendra Charan P Makam; Jorge Yarzebski; David D McManus; Darleen Lessard; Joel M Gore Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-02-16
Authors: Karl Werdan; Michael Buerke; Alexander Geppert; Holger Thiele; Bernd Zwissler; Martin Ruß Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 5.594