Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction

The outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are controversial. We included 1513 patients from six Gulf countries with AMI and CS between 2020 and 2022. Eight hundred twenty patients did not receive MCS, and 693 received MCS, predominantly via an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Patients receiving MCS were more critically ill, with 94.95% in SCAI shock stages D or E versus 46.95% in the non-MCS group. While unadjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the MCS group (61.0% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.001), this difference was attributable to baseline risk. In a propensity score-matched analysis of 430 patient pairs, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (46.7% vs. 43.7%; p = 0.429 for PCI patients) or long-term survival. Mortality was not related to the time of MCS initiation. Among patients with SCAI Stages D and E, the use of MCS was not associated with improved short- or long-term clinical outcomes. The findings, driven by a predominantly IABP-based MCS strategy, suggest that the higher observed mortality in patients receiving MCS reflects their greater illness severity, and that a survival benefit for this MCS approach was not demonstrated. This underscores the need for patient selection and timing of MCS to optimize outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-05-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-51715-4
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

Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction

Shahrukh Hashmani, Mohamed Ajaz Ghani, Mohamad Safieh, Adnan Fathey Hussien et al.
Scientific Reports
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction

Shahrukh Hashmani, Mohamed Ajaz Ghani, Mohamad Safieh, Adnan Fathey Hussien, Youssef Elmahrouk, Prashanth Panduranga, Amin Daoulah, Abdullah Alenezi, Gi Eun Kim, Wael Almahmeed, Tarique Shahzad Chachar, Omer A. Elamin, Alaa Aldossari, Logan Striplin, Khalid Z. Alshali, Nooraldaem Yousif, Wael Qenawi, Ahmed Jamjoom, Abdulrahman Arabi, Mubarak Aldossari, Abdulwali Abohasan, Omar Kanbr, Shaber Seraj, Abeer Said Mohamed Al Rawahi, Sultan Al Obaikan, Mokhtar Abdirahman Kahin, Gladsy Selva Livingston, Abeer M. Shawky, Mohammed A. Qutub, Taher Hassan, Hatem Aloui, Ibrahim A. M. Abdulhabeeb, Alsayed Ali Almarghany, Ahmad S. Hersi, Mohammed Al Jarallah, Abdulaziz Ayedh A. Alghamdi, Said Al Maashani, Abdulrahman M. Alqahtani, Ahmed A. Ghonim, Husam A. Noor, Mohammed A. AlShehri, Hanin Alashi, Rajesh Rajan, Amr A. Arafat, Kralovic Damon, Ahmed Elmahrouk, Hassan Khan, Badr Alzahrani, Waleed Alharbi, Mohamed Amr Badr, Ziad Dahdouh, Amir Lotfi, Mohamed N. Alama, Mohammed Balghith
article en

Abstract

The outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are controversial. We included 1513 patients from six Gulf countries with AMI and CS between 2020 and 2022. Eight hundred twenty patients did not receive MCS, and 693 received MCS, predominantly via an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). Patients receiving MCS were more critically ill, with 94.95% in SCAI shock stages D or E versus 46.95% in the non-MCS group. While unadjusted in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the MCS group (61.0% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.001), this difference was attributable to baseline risk. In a propensity score-matched analysis of 430 patient pairs, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (46.7% vs. 43.7%; p = 0.429 for PCI patients) or long-term survival. Mortality was not related to the time of MCS initiation. Among patients with SCAI Stages D and E, the use of MCS was not associated with improved short- or long-term clinical outcomes. The findings, driven by a predominantly IABP-based MCS strategy, suggest that the higher observed mortality in patients receiving MCS reflects their greater illness severity, and that a survival benefit for this MCS approach was not demonstrated. This underscores the need for patient selection and timing of MCS to optimize outcomes.

Scientific Reports
Ministry of Defence (GB), Cleveland Clinic (US), Baystate Medical Center (US), Prince Sultan University (SA), American University (US), Al-Azhar University (EG), King Abdulaziz University (SA), King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA), Tanta University (EG), King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA), King Saud Medical City (SA), Sultan Qaboos Hospital (OM), King Fahd Medical City (SA), King Saud University (SA), King Abdulaziz Medical City (SA), Amiri Hospital (KW), King Abdullah International Medical Research Center (SA), Bugshan Hospital (SA), Chest Diseases Hospital (KW), Saud Al-babtain Cardiac Centre (SA), Qatif Central Hospital (SA), Royal Hospital (OM), King Abdulaziz Hospital (SA), King Fahad Hospital Jeddah (SA), Islamic University of Madinah (SA), Elrazi University, National Guard Health Affairs (SA), Hamad Medical Corporation (QA)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
DOIOpen Access PDFOpenAlex
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.