Trends in mechanical circulatory support use and hospital mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and non-infarction related cardiogenic shock in the United States
Recent trends on outcomes in cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) suggest improvements in early survival. However, with the ever-changing landscape in management of CS, we sought to identify age-based trends in these outcomes and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use among patients with both AMI and non-AMI associated shock.
We queried the 2005–2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases to identify patients with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock. Trends in the incidence of hospital-mortality, and use of MCS such as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), Impella/TandemHeart (IMP), and extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were analyzed within the overall population and among different age-categories (50 and under, 51–65, 66–80 and 81–99 years). We also made comparisons between patient groups admitted with CS complicating AMI and those with non-AMI associated CS.
We studied 144,254 cases of CS, of which 55.4% cases were associated with an AMI. Between 2005 and 2014, an overall decline in IABP use (29.8–17.7%; ptrend < 0.01), and an uptrend in IMP use (0.1–2.6%; ptrend < 0.01), ECMO use (0.3–1.8%; ptrend < 0.01) and in-hospital mortality (44.1–52.5% AMI related, 49.6–53.5% non-AMI related; ptrend < 0.01) was seen. Patients aged 81–99 years had the lowest rate of MCS use (14.8%), whereas those aged 51–65 years had highest rate of MCS use (32.3%). Multivariable analysis revealed that patients aged 51-65 years (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.40–1.52; p<0.001), 66–80 years (aOR 2.51, 95% CI 2.39–2.63; p<0.01) and 81–99 years (aOR 5.04, 95% CI 4.78–5.32; p<0.01) had significantly higher hospital mortality compared to patients aged ≤ 50 years. Patients admitted with CS complicating AMI were older and had more comorbidities, but lower hospital mortality (45.0 vs. 48.2%; p < 0.001) when compared to non-AMI related CS. We also noted that the proportion of patients admitted with CS complicating AMI significantly decreased from 2005 to 2014 (65.3–45.6%; ptrend < 0.01) whereas those admitted without an associated AMI increased.
IABP use has declined whereas IMP and ECMO use has increased over time among CS admissions. Older age was associated with an incrementally higher independent risk for hospital mortality. Recent trends indicate an increase in both proportion of patients admitted with CS without associated AMI and in-hospital mortality across all CS admissions irrespective of AMI status.
KeywordsMCS Nationwide inpatient sample Cardiogenic shock Mortality Trends Balloon pump Impella ECMO
Compliance with ethical standards
No study specific funding was used to support this work. The authors are solely responsible for the study design, conduct and analyses, drafting and editing of the manuscript and its final contents. All authors had access to the data and a role in writing the manuscript.
None of the authors has any disclosures relevant to the content of the manuscript.
- 2.Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W et al (2016) Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction: a report from the CathPCI Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(4):341–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.O’Gara P, Kushner F, Ascheim D, Casey D, Chung M, de Lemos J et al (2013) 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 127(4):e362–e245Google Scholar
- 6.O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE Jr, Chung MK, de Lemos JA et al (2013) 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 82(1):E1–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Alexander KP, Newby LK, Armstrong PW, Cannon CP, Gibler WB, Rich MW et al (2007) Acute coronary care in the elderly, part II: ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: in collaboration with the Society of Geriatric Cardiology. Circulation 115(19):2570–2589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Agarwal S, Sud K, Martin J, Menon V (2015) Trends in the Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv 8(13):1772–1774Google Scholar
- 14.Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, Fröhlich G, Bott-Flügel L, Byrne R et al (2008) A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(19):1584–1588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, Ferenc M, Olbrich HG, Hausleiter J et al (2013) Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 382(9905):1638–1645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, DiMario C, Falk V, Folliguet T et al (2010) Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 31(20):2501–2555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, Collet JP, Cremer J, Falk V et al (2014) Authors/Task Force members. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 35(37):2541–2619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD (2013) ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 62(11):485–510Google Scholar
- 19.Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B (2011) ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 124(23):e574–e651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Goldberg RJ, Makam RCP, Yarzebski J, McManus DD, Lessard D, Gore JM (2016) Decade Long Trends (2001–2011) In the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated with the In-Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction: Goldberg et al: Cardiogenic Shock and AMI. Circulation Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 9(2):117–125Google Scholar
- 22.Lindenauer PK, Lagu T, Shieh MS, Pekow PS, Rothberg MB (2012) Association of diagnostic coding with trends in hospitalizations and mortality of patients with pneumonia, 2003–2009. JAMA 307(13):1405–1413Google Scholar
- 27.Khera R, Cram P, Lu X, Vyas A, Gerke A, Rosenthal G et al (2015) Trends in the Use of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices: Analysis of National Inpatient Sample Data, 2007 Through 2012. JAMA Int Med 175(6):941–950Google Scholar
- 29.Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Juilliere Y, Jourdain P, Blanchard D, Schiele F (2016) Fifteen-year trends in the management of cardiogenic shock and associated 1-year mortality in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: the FAST-MI programme. Eur J Heart Fail 18(9):1144–1152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Alexander KP, Newby LK, Armstrong PW, Cannon CP, Gibler WB, Rich MW et al (2007) Acute coronary care in the elderly, part II: ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: in collaboration with the Society of Geriatric Cardiology. Circulation 115(19):2570–2589CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Cheng JM, den Uil CA, Hoeks SE, van der Ent M, Jewbali LS, van Domburg RT, Serruys PW (2009) Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 30(17):2102–2108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot E, Diederich K, Hambrecht R, Niebauer J, Schuler G (2005) Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 26(13):1276–1283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar