Differences Between STEMI and NSTEMI Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
BACKGROUND: An enhanced understanding is needed of the clinical trajectories seen in contemporary practice among patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) due to different acute myocardial infarction (AMI) types. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to compare clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes among patients with CS due to AMI with and without ST-segment elevation. METHODS: All adults treated for CS due to STEMI or NSTEMI within a multilevel of care health system spanning 11 hospitals from 2016 to 2022 were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were 6-month and in-hospital all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We identified 1,375 patients: 57% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with CS (STEMI-CS) and 43% non-STEMI-CS (NSTEMI-CS). STEMI-CS patients had more severe shock with more cardiac arrest and higher initial lactate whereas NSTEMI-CS patients were older with more comorbidities and more severe coronary disease. NSTEMI-CS patients received more coronary artery bypass grafting (33% vs 8%) and lower rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (35% vs 73%) in those undergoing left heart catheterization. Management patterns were consistent across hospital levels. Rates of in-hospital and 6-month mortality (STEMI-CS 37.1% vs NSTEMI-CS 34.0%; P = 0.53) were similar in both groups. On multivariable analysis, revascularization was associated with lower 6-month mortality in both groups, whereas intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous ventricular assist device use was associated with lower mortality only in STEMI-CS. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with increased mortality in both AMI types. CONCLUSIONS: STEMI and NSTEMI patients with CS have distinct clinical profiles and management strategies across all hospital levels. Although they experience similar rates of short and long-term mortality, associations between mechanical circulatory support use and outcomes differ by phenotype. These findings suggest that AMI type should inform management strategies and research design in CS.
Authors
- Matthew J. Pierce (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6408-1821)
- Sanjay Sivalokanathan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3227-3295)
- Daniel Miklin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3864-3672)
- Jack Jnani (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7716-8990)
- Atul Bali (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9962-2376)
- Niloufar Novin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7060-2870)
- Miguel Alvarez Villela (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2871-3865)
- Hölger Thiele (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0169-998X)
- Abduljabar Adi (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6147-6518)
- Matthew Griffin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3270-7935)
- Sandrine Lebrun
- Allan Lin (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2542-3782)
- Sami Dalati
- Serdar Farhan
- Emily Rodriguez
- Marcy Miller
- Emily Schultz
Institutions
- Northwell Health (US)
- North Shore University Hospital (US)
- Lenox Hill Hospital (US)
- Mount Sinai Hospital (US)
- Leipzig Heart Institute (DE)
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- JACC Advances
- Published
- 2026-07-17
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.103000
- Primary Topic
- Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00