ABSTRACT
Background and objectives Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains elevated, with the potential for CS causes to impact prognosis and risk stratification. The aim was to investigate in-hospital prognosis and mortality in CS patients according to aetiology. We also assessed the prognostic accuracy of CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores.
Methods Shock-CAT study was a multicentre, prospective, observational study conducted from December 2018-November 2019 in eight University hospitals in Catalonia, including non-selected consecutive CS patients. Data on clinical presentation, management, including mechanical circulatory support (MCS) were analysed comparing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related CS and non-AMI-CS. The accuracy of CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores to assess 90-days mortality risk were also compared.
Results A total of 382 CS patients were included, age 65.3 (SD 13.9) years, 75.1% men. Patients were classified as AMI-CS (n=232, 60.7%) and non-AMI-CS (n=150, 39.3%). In the AMI-CS group, 77.6% were STEMI. Main aetiologies for non-AMI-CS were heart failure (36.2%), arrhythmias (22.1%) and valve disease (8.0%). AMI-CS patients required more MCS than non-AMI-CS (43.1% vs 16.7%, p<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in AMI-CS (37.1 vs 26.7%, p=0.035), with a two-fold increased risk after multivariate adjustment (OR 2.24, p=0.019). The IABP-SHOCK II had superior discrimination for predicting 90-days mortality when compared with CardShock in AMI-CS patients (AUC 0.74 vs 0.66, p=0.047) although both scores performed similarly in non-AMI-CS (AUC 0.64 vs 0.62, p=0.693).
Conclusions In our cohort, AMI-CS mortality was increased by two-fold when compared to non- AMI-CS. IABP-SHOCK II score provides better 90-days mortality risk prediction than CardShock score in AMI-CS, but both scores performed similar in non-AMI-CS patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data are available if someone needs it. All data are under the own of the correspondence author
