Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Dec;9(23):e017326.
doi: 10.1161/JAHA.120.017326. Epub 2020 Nov 23.

Outcomes of Hospitalizations for Cardiogenic Shock at Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Non-Left Ventricular Assist Device Centers

Joseph I Wang  1 , Daniel Y Lu  1 , Mhs  1 , Dmitriy N Feldman  1 , Stephen A McCullough  1 , Parag Goyal  1 , Maria G Karas  1 , Irina Sobol  1 , Evelyn M Horn  1 , Luke K Kim  1 , Udhay Krishnan  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Outcomes of Hospitalizations for Cardiogenic Shock at Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Non-Left Ventricular Assist Device Centers

Joseph I Wang et al. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex syndrome associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, many US hospitals have formed multidisciplinary shock teams capable of rapid diagnosis and triage. Because of preexisting collaborative systems of care, hospitals with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) programs may also represent "centers of excellence" for CS care. However, the outcomes of patients with CS at LVAD centers have not been previously evaluated. Methods and Results Patients with CS were identified in the 2012 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Clinical characteristics, revascularization rates, and use of mechanical circulatory support were analyzed in LVAD versus non-LVAD centers. The association between hospital type and in-hospital mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Of 272 075 hospitalizations, 26.0% were in LVAD centers. CS attributable to causes other than acute myocardial infarction represented most cases. In-hospital mortality was lower in LVAD centers (38.9% versus 43.3%; P<0.001). In multivariable analysis, the odds of mortality remained significantly lower for hospitalizations in LVAD centers (odds ratio, 0.89; P<0.001). In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, revascularization rates were similar between LVAD and non-LVAD centers. The use of intra-aortic balloon pump (18.7% versus 18.8%) and Impella/TandemHeart (2.6% versus 1.9%) was similar between hospital types, whereas extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used more frequently in LVAD centers (4.3% versus 0.2%; P<0.001). Conclusions Risk-adjusted mortality was lower in patients with CS who were hospitalized at LVAD centers. These centers likely represent specialized, shock team capable institutions across the country that may be best suited to manage patients with CS.

Keywords: cardiogenic shock; left ventricular assist device; mechanical circulatory support.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Goyal is supported by the National Institute on Aging grant R03AG056446 and American Heart Association grant 18IPA34170185 and is a recipient of a National Institute on Aging Loan Repayment Plan. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study population.
Flowchart of study patients. LVAD indicates left ventricular assist device; and NIS, National Inpatient Sample.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Temporary mechanical support in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) vs non‐LVAD centers, subdivided into the cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI‐CS) and cardiogenic shock related to causes other than acute myocardial infarction (non–AMI‐CS) subpopulations.
ECMO indicates extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; IABP, intra‐aortic balloon pump; and LVAD, left ventricular assist device.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Association between left ventricular assist device (LVAD) centers vs non‐LVAD centers and in‐hospital mortality in cardiogenic shock.
AMI indicates acute myocardial infarction; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; OR, odds ratio; and PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, Buller CE, Jacobs AK, Slater JN, Col J, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: SHOCK Investigators: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;625–634. - PubMed
    1. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Dzavik V, Buller CE, Aylward P, Col J, White HD. Early revascularization and long‐term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2006;2511–2515. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Babaev A, Frederick PD, Pasta DJ, Every N, Sichrovsky T, Hochman JS. Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2005;448–454. - PubMed
    1. Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W, Charitakis K, Feldman DN, Dakik HA, Mauri L, et al. 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. 2016;341–351. - PubMed
    1. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning JM, Pappalardo F, Pieri M, Skurk C, Lauten A, Landmesser U, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation. 2019;1249–1258. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources