Abstract 4143910: Comparative Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Clinical trends show a rise in non-ischemic causes of cardiogenic shock (CS), especially acute heart failure CS (AHFCS). Compared to acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS), AHFCS typically occurs in the context of chronic heart failure with compensatory mechanisms that seem to better withstand hemodynamic disturbances. Given the clinical heterogeneity, we aim to compare the in-hospital outcomes of AMICS and AHFCS to enhance clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search until April 2024 and included 8 studies from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, etc. We used Mantel-Haenszel random effects and inverse variance models to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean differences at a 95% confidence interval. Results: Patients with AMICS were older by an average of 6.3 years compared to those with AHFCS [p<0.00001]. The AMICS cohort showed an 80% greater risk of using temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) [RR: 1.80; p<0.00001] and an 88% greater risk of using > 1 tMCS [RR: 1.88; p<0.00001] than patients with AHFCS. When categorized by tMCS type, Impella use was notably higher in the AMICS group [RR: 1.65; p<0.0001]. AMICS patients showed a 79% lower risk of undergoing LVAD implantation [RR: 0.21; p=0.03] and 88% lower risk of heart transplantation (HT) [RR: 0.12; p<0.0001] compared to AHFCS cohort. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in hospital mortality [RR: 1.13; p = 0.50], length of stay (LOS), vasopressor use, or occurrence of bleeding. Conclusion: This pioneering meta-analysis reveals distinct differences in treatment approaches between AMICS and AHFCS. AMICS patients more frequently utilized tMCS but were less likely to receive LVAD or HT. Despite these variations, in-hospital mortality, LOS, vasopressor use, and bleeding remain comparable between the two groups. This emphasizes the critical need for tailored treatment strategies based on CS etiology.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4143910
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4143910: Comparative Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Sharini Venugopal, Darshine Venugopal, Mohammed Al‐Tawil, Raja Pullatt et al.
Circulation
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Abstract 4143910: Comparative Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis

Sharini Venugopal, Darshine Venugopal, Mohammed Al‐Tawil, Raja Pullatt, Viraj Panchal, Ragavendar Saravanabavanandan, Shubhashis Saha
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical trends show a rise in non-ischemic causes of cardiogenic shock (CS), especially acute heart failure CS (AHFCS). Compared to acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMICS), AHFCS typically occurs in the context of chronic heart failure with compensatory mechanisms that seem to better withstand hemodynamic disturbances. Given the clinical heterogeneity, we aim to compare the in-hospital outcomes of AMICS and AHFCS to enhance clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search until April 2024 and included 8 studies from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, etc. We used Mantel-Haenszel random effects and inverse variance models to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean differences at a 95% confidence interval. Results: Patients with AMICS were older by an average of 6.3 years compared to those with AHFCS [p<0.00001]. The AMICS cohort showed an 80% greater risk of using temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) [RR: 1.80; p<0.00001] and an 88% greater risk of using > 1 tMCS [RR: 1.88; p<0.00001] than patients with AHFCS. When categorized by tMCS type, Impella use was notably higher in the AMICS group [RR: 1.65; p<0.0001]. AMICS patients showed a 79% lower risk of undergoing LVAD implantation [RR: 0.21; p=0.03] and 88% lower risk of heart transplantation (HT) [RR: 0.12; p<0.0001] compared to AHFCS cohort. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in hospital mortality [RR: 1.13; p = 0.50], length of stay (LOS), vasopressor use, or occurrence of bleeding. Conclusion: This pioneering meta-analysis reveals distinct differences in treatment approaches between AMICS and AHFCS. AMICS patients more frequently utilized tMCS but were less likely to receive LVAD or HT. Despite these variations, in-hospital mortality, LOS, vasopressor use, and bleeding remain comparable between the two groups. This emphasizes the critical need for tailored treatment strategies based on CS etiology.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
Illinois College (US), Al-Quds University (PS), John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County (US), Trinitas Regional Medical Center (US), Smt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College (IN), MedStar Health (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 81%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.