Sex Differences in Management, Time to Intervention, and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Non-Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality, particularly in women. With early intervention being a cornerstone of CS management, this study aims to explore whether sex differences exist in the utilization of critical interventions, timing of treatment, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI-CS. <b>Methods:</b> For this retrospective cohort study, we queried the National Inpatient Sample (years 2016-2021) for CS-related hospitalizations. We assessed sex differences in utilization, timing, and outcomes of CS interventions, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and prior cardiac interventions via multivariate logistic regressions. <b>Results:</b> Of 1,052,360 weighted CS hospitalizations, 60% were for non-AMI-CS and 40% were for AMI-CS. Women with CS had lower rates of all interventions. For AMI-CS, women had higher likelihoods of in-hospital mortality after revascularization (adjusted odds ratio 1.15 [95% confidence interval 1.09-1.22]), mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (1.15 [1.08-1.22]), and right heart catheterization (RHC) (1.10 [1.02-1.19]) (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). Similar trends were seen in the non-AMI-CS group. Women with AMI-CS were less likely to receive early (within 24 h of admission) revascularization (0.93 [0.89-0.96]), MCS (0.76 [0.73-0.80]), or RHC (0.89 [0.84-0.95]); women with non-AMI-CS were less likely to receive early revascularization (0.78 [0.73-0.84]) or RHC (0.83 [0.79-0.88]) (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). Regardless of CS type, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between men and women receiving early MCS or revascularization. <b>Conclusions:</b> Sex disparities in the frequency of treatment of CS persist on a national scale, with women being more likely to die following treatment and less likely to receive early treatment. However, in-hospital mortality does not differ significantly when men and women are treated equally within 24 h of admission, suggesting that early intervention should be made a priority to mitigate sex-based differences in CS outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010180
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.74
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sex Differences in Management, Time to Intervention, and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Non-Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock

Faisal Rahman, Rohan Rani, Ajit Desai, Anum Minhas
4 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
0.74
article

Sex Differences in Management, Time to Intervention, and In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Non-Myocardial Infarction Related Cardiogenic Shock

Faisal Rahman, Rohan Rani, Ajit Desai, Anum Minhas
article en
4 citations

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives:</b> Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high mortality, particularly in women. With early intervention being a cornerstone of CS management, this study aims to explore whether sex differences exist in the utilization of critical interventions, timing of treatment, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI-CS. <b>Methods:</b> For this retrospective cohort study, we queried the National Inpatient Sample (years 2016-2021) for CS-related hospitalizations. We assessed sex differences in utilization, timing, and outcomes of CS interventions, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and prior cardiac interventions via multivariate logistic regressions. <b>Results:</b> Of 1,052,360 weighted CS hospitalizations, 60% were for non-AMI-CS and 40% were for AMI-CS. Women with CS had lower rates of all interventions. For AMI-CS, women had higher likelihoods of in-hospital mortality after revascularization (adjusted odds ratio 1.15 [95% confidence interval 1.09-1.22]), mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (1.15 [1.08-1.22]), and right heart catheterization (RHC) (1.10 [1.02-1.19]) (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). Similar trends were seen in the non-AMI-CS group. Women with AMI-CS were less likely to receive early (within 24 h of admission) revascularization (0.93 [0.89-0.96]), MCS (0.76 [0.73-0.80]), or RHC (0.89 [0.84-0.95]); women with non-AMI-CS were less likely to receive early revascularization (0.78 [0.73-0.84]) or RHC (0.83 [0.79-0.88]) (all <i>p</i> < 0.001). Regardless of CS type, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between men and women receiving early MCS or revascularization. <b>Conclusions:</b> Sex disparities in the frequency of treatment of CS persist on a national scale, with women being more likely to die following treatment and less likely to receive early treatment. However, in-hospital mortality does not differ significantly when men and women are treated equally within 24 h of admission, suggesting that early intervention should be made a priority to mitigate sex-based differences in CS outcomes.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(1)
Johns Hopkins University (US), Georgetown University (US), Johns Hopkins Medicine (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
0.74
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.