Racial and ethnic differences in the treatment and outcome of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction

Not all Shock States Are Created Equal: A Review of the Diagnosis and Management of Septic, Hypovolemic, Cardiogenic, Obstructive, and Distributive Shock

Shock in the critically ill patient is common and associated with poor outcomes. Categories include distributive, hypovolemic, obstructive, and cardiogenic, of which distributive (and usually septic distributive) shock is by far the most common. Clinical history, physical examination, and hemodynamic assessments & monitoring help differentiate these states. Specific management necessitates interventions to correct the triggering etiology as well as ongoing resuscitation to maintain physiologic milieu. One shock state may convert to another and may have an undifferentiated presentation; therefore, continual re-assessment is essential. This review provides guidance for intensivists for management of all shock states based on available scientific evidence.

Trends and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in Asian populations compared with non-Asian populations in the US: NIS Analysis (2002-2019)

BACKGROUND

Current understanding of outcomes of cardiogenic shock (CS) in Asian populations is limited. We aim to study the clinical outcomes of CS in Asian population compared with non-Asians in the US.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was queried between 2002-2019 to identify hospitalizations with CS. Race was classified as Asians and non-Asians. The adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for in-hospital outcomes were calculated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Results Of 1,573,285 CS hospitalizations, 48,398 (3%) were Asians and 1,524,887 (97%) were non-Asians between 2002-2019. Adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05), and use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12-1.17) were significantly higher among Asians compared with non-Asians. The in-hospital mean cost of hospitalization was higher in Asian population ($63,787±$80,261) with CS compared with non-Asians ($56,207±$76,120, p < 0.001). The use of Impella (aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.95) and left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) (aOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65-0.77) were lower with no difference in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with non-Asians.

CONCLUSION

Asian populations with CS have higher in-hospital mortality, increased requirement of IABP and higher mean cost of hospitalization compared with non-Asians.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Racial and ethnic disparities in the management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear if there remain racial/ethnic differences in the management and in-hospital outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in contemporary practice.

METHODS

We used the National inpatient Sample (2012-2017) to identify a cohort of adult AMI-CS hospitalizations. Race was classified as White, Black and Others (Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native Americans). Primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included use of invasive cardiac procedures, length of hospital stay and discharge disposition.

RESULTS

Among 203,905 AMI-CS admissions, 70.4% were White, 8.1% were Black and 15.7% belonged to Other races. Black AMI-CS admissions were more often female, with lower socio-economic status, greater comorbidity, and higher rates of non-ST-segment-elevation AMI-CS, cardiac arrest, and multi-organ failure. Compared to White AMI-CS admissions, Black and Other races had lower rates of coronary angiography (75.3% vs 69.3% vs 73.6%), percutaneous coronary intervention (52.7% vs 48.6% vs 54.8%), and mechanical circulatory devices (48.3% vs 42.8% vs 43.7%) (all p < 0.001). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was comparable between White (33.3%) and Black (33.8%) admissions, but lower for other races (32.1%). Adjusted analysis with White race as the reference identified lower in-hospital mortality for Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.85 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.82-0.88]; p < 0.001) and Other races (OR 0.97 [95% CI 0.94-1.00]; p = 0.02). Admissions of Black race had longer hospital stay, and less frequent discharges to home.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to previous studies, we identified Black and Other race AMI-CS admissions had lower in-hospital mortality despite lower rates of cardiac procedures when compared to White admissions.

Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock

Outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) patients remain relatively poor despite significant advancements in primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and temporary circulatory support (TCS) technologies. Mortality from CS shows great disparities that seem to reflect large variations in access to care and physician practice patterns. Recent reports of different models to standardize care in CS have shown considerable potential at improving outcomes. The creation of regional, integrated, 3-tiered systems, would facilitate standardized interventions and equitable access to care. Multidisciplinary CS teams at Level I centers would direct care in a hub-and-spoke model through jointly developed protocols and real-time shared decision making. Levels II and III centers would provide early access to life-saving therapies and safe transfer to designated hub centers. In regions with large geographical distances, the implementation of telemedicine-cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) care can be an important resource for the creation of effective systems of care.

Sociodemographic differences in utilization and outcomes for temporary cardiovascular mechanical support in the setting of cardiogenic shock

BACKGROUND

Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are increasingly used in cardiogenic shock, but whether sociodemographic differences by sex, race and/or ethnicity, insurance status, and neighborhood poverty exist in the utilization of these devices is unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study using the National Inpatient Sample for 2012-2017. Logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of use of temporary MCS devices and for in-hospital mortality, clustering by hospital-year.

RESULTS

Our study population included 109,327 admissions for cardiogenic shock. Overall, 14.3% of admissions received an intra-aortic balloon pump, 4.2% a percutaneous ventricular assist device, and 1.8% extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics, use of temporary MCS was lower in women compared to men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.76, P < .001), Black patients compared to white ones (aOR = 0.73, P < .001), those insured by Medicare (aOR = 0.75, P < .001), Medicaid (aOR = 0.74, P < .001), or uninsured (aOR = 0.90, P = .015) compared to privately insured, and those in the lowest income neighborhoods (aOR = 0.94, P = .003) versus other neighborhoods. Women, admissions covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured, and those from low-income neighborhoods also had higher mortality rates even after adjustment for MCS implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in the use of temporary MCS in the setting of cardiogenic shock among specific populations within the United States. The growing use of MCS for treating cardiogenic shock highlights the need to better understand its impact on outcomes.

Disparities in acute decompensated heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to discuss racial and sex disparities in the management and outcomes of patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).

RECENT FINDINGS

Race and sex have a significant impact on in-hospital admissions and overall outcomes in patients with decompensated heart failure and cardiogenic shock. Black patients not only have a higher incidence of heart failure than other racial groups, but also higher admissions for ADHF and worse overall survival, while women receive less interventions for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Moreover, White patients are more likely than Black patients to be cared for by a cardiologist than a noncardiologist in the ICU, which has been linked to overall improved survival. In addition, recent data outline inherent racial and sex bias in the evaluation process for advanced heart failure therapies indicating that Black race negatively impacts referral for transplant, women are judged more harshly on their appearance, and that Black women are perceived to have less social support than others. This implicit bias in the evaluation process may impact appropriate timing of referral for advanced heart failure therapies.

SUMMARY

Though significant racial and sex disparities exist in the management and treatment of patients with decompensated heart failure, these disparities are minimized when therapies are properly utilized and patients are treated according to guidelines.

Racial Disparities in the Utilization and Outcomes of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Acute Myocardial Infarction-Cardiogenic Shock

Racial disparities in utilization and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) are infrequently studied. This study sought to evaluate racial disparities in the outcomes of MCS in AMI-CS. The National Inpatient Sample (2012–2017) was used to identify adult AMI-CS admissions receiving MCS support. MCS devices were classified as intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Self-reported race was classified as white, black and others. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay and discharge disposition. During this period, 90,071 admissions were included with white, black and other races constituting 73.6%, 8.3% and 18.1%, respectively. Compared to white and other races, black race admissions were on average younger, female, with greater comorbidities, and non-cardiac organ failure (all p < 0.001). Compared to the white race (31.3%), in-hospital mortality was comparable in black (31.4%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93–1.05); p = 0.60) and other (30.2%; aOR 0.96 (95% CI 0.92–1.01); p = 0.10). Higher in-hospital mortality was noted in non-white races with concomitant cardiac arrest, and those receiving ECMO support. Black admissions had longer lengths of hospital stay (12.1 ± 14.2, 10.3 ± 11.2, 10.9 ± 1.2 days) and transferred less often (12.6%, 14.2%, 13.9%) compared to white and other races (both p < 0.001). In conclusion, this study of AMI-CS admissions receiving MCS devices did not identify racial disparities in in-hospital mortality. Black admissions had longer hospital stay and were transferred less often. Further evaluation with granular data including angiographic and hemodynamic parameters is essential to rule out racial differences.

Sex Disparities in the Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Young

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on how sex influences the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in young adults.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions aged 18 to 55 years, during 2000 to 2017, was identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support and noncardiac interventions was identified. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of cardiac interventions, hospitalization costs, and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total 90 648 AMI-CS admissions ≤55 years of age were included, of which 26% were women. Higher rates of CS were noted in men (2.2% in 2000 to 4.8% in 2017) compared with women (2.6% in 2000 to 4.0% in 2017; P<0.001). Compared with men, women with AMI-CS were more frequently of Black race, from a lower socioeconomic status, with higher comorbidity, and admitted to rural and small hospitals (all P<0.001). Women had lower rates of ST-segment elevation presentation (73.0% versus 78.7%), acute noncardiac organ failure, cardiac arrest (34.3% versus 35.7%), and received less-frequent coronary angiography (78.3% versus 81.4%), early coronary angiography (49.2% versus 54.1%), percutaneous coronary intervention (59.2% versus 64.0%), and mechanical circulatory support (50.3% versus 59.2%; all P<0.001). Female sex was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (23.0% versus 21.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.07-1.16]; P<0.001). Women had lower hospitalization costs ($156 372±$198 452 versus $167 669±$208 577; P<0.001) but comparable lengths of stay compared with men.

CONCLUSIONS

In young AMI-CS admissions, women are treated less aggressively and experience higher in-hospital mortality than men.

Frequency of Management of Cardiogenic Shock With Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices According to Race

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has influenced the management of cardiogenic shock (CS), but the association between race and MCS utilization is unknown. We sought to evaluate the effect of race on MCS utilization in CS and whether there are racial differences in in-hospital outcomes. Our study was a population-based retrospective cohort study that enrolled patients with CS, defined by International classification of disease, ninth Revision, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM) codes, between 2013 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample. Race was adjudicated by National Inpatient Sample and included White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. The primary outcomes were the utilization of MCS devices in CS with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and in-hospital mortality by race. The statistical adjustment was performed for clinical co-morbidities as well as in-hospital events using multivariate logistic regressions. Among 332,885 patients with CS, there were 71% white and 14% black patients, and AMI was present in 42% and MCS was utilized in 23% of patients. There was less utilization of MCS only in Black patients with CS, and with AMI after adjustment (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI][0.79 to 0.89] and OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, respectively). In addition, only Black patients had greater in-hospital mortality in AMI after adjustment (OR 1.16, 95% CI [1.06 to 1.27]) whereas there was no statistically significant increase in in-hospital mortality in any other race. In conclusion, these results suggest that there is less utilization of MCS devices and, in parallel, increased odds of in-hospital mortality in Black patients in comparison to other races. Further steps may be needed to address possible implicit bias in acute clinical scenarios as new devices emerge, which carries new opportunities to improve clinical outcomes but there is a lack of clear guidelines.

Coronary Artery Disease: From Mechanism to Clinical Practice

In most developed countries, coronary artery disease (CAD), mostly caused by atherosclerosis of coronary arteries, is one of the primary causes of death. From 1990s to 2000s, mortality caused by acute MI declined up to 50%. The incidence of CAD is related with age, gender, economic, etc. Atherosclerosis contains some highly correlative processes such as lipid disturbances, thrombosis, inflammation, vascular smooth cell activation, remodeling, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, altered matrix metabolism, and genetic factors. Risk factors of CAD exist among many individuals of the general population, which includes hypertension, lipids and lipoproteins metabolism disturbances, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, age, genders, lifestyle, cigarette smoking, diet, obesity, and family history. Angina pectoris is caused by myocardial ischemia in the main expression of pain in the chest or adjoining area, which is usually a result of exertion and related to myocardial function disorder. Typical angina pectoris would last for minutes with gradual exacerbation. Rest, sit, or stop walking are the usual preference for patients with angina, and reaching the maximum intensity in seconds is uncommon. Rest or nitroglycerin usage can relieve typical angina pectoris within minutes. So far, a widely accepted angina pectoris severity grading system included CCS (Canadian Cardiovascular Society) classification, Califf score, and Goldman scale. Patients with ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) may have different symptoms and signs of both severe angina pectoris and various complications. The combination of rising usage of sensitive MI biomarkers and precise imaging techniques, including electrocardiograph (ECG), computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, made the new MI criteria necessary. Complications of acute myocardial infarction include left ventricular dysfunction, cardiogenic shock, structural complications, arrhythmia, recurrent chest discomfort, recurrent ischemia and infarction, pericardial effusion, pericarditis, post-myocardial infarction syndrome, venous thrombosis pulmonary embolism, left ventricular aneurysm, left ventricular thrombus, and arterial embolism.

Therapeutic Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a life-threatening state of tissue hypoperfusion, associated with a very high risk of mortality, despite intensive monitoring and modern treatment modalities. The present review aimed at describing the therapeutic advances in the management of CS.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Many uncertainties about CS management remain in clinical practice, and these relate to the intensity of invasive monitoring, the type and timing of vasoactive therapies, the risk-benefit ratio of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy, and optimal ventilation mode. Furthermore, most of the data are obtained from CS in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), although for non-AMI-CS patients, there are very few evidences for etiological or MCS therapies.

DATA SOURCES

The prospective multicentric acute heart failure registries that specifically presented characteristics of patients with CS, distinct to other phenotypes, were included in the present review. Relevant clinical trials investigating therapeutic strategies in post-AMI-CS patients were added as source information. Several trials investigating vasoactive medications and meta-analysis providing information about benefits and risks of MCS devices were reviewed in this study.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Early revascularization remains the most important intervention for CS in settings of AMI, and in patients with multivessel disease, recent trial data recommend revascularization on a "culprit-lesion-only" strategy. Although diverse types of MCS devices improve hemodynamics and organ perfusion in patients with CS, results from almost all randomized trials incorporating clinical end points were inconclusive. However, development of new algorithms for utilization of MCS devices and progresses in technology showed benefit in selected patients. A major advance in the management of CS is development of concept of regional CS centers based on the level of facilities and expertise. The modern systems of care with CS centers used as hubs integrated with emergency medical systems and other referee hospitals have the potential to improve patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional research is needed to establish new triage algorithms and to clarify intensity and timing of pharmacological and mechanical therapies.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on the contemporary and potentially changing trends in the incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We queried the 2003-2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample databases to identify all patients ≥ 40 years of age with STEMI and cardiogenic shock. Overall and age-, sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific trends in incidence of cardiogenic shock, early mechanical revascularization, and intra-aortic balloon pump use, and inhospital mortality were analyzed. From 2003 to 2010, among 1 990 486 patients aged ≥ 40 years with STEMI, 157 892 (7.9%) had cardiogenic shock. The overall incidence rate of cardiogenic shock in patients with STEMI increased from 6.5% in 2003 to 10.1% in 2010 (P(trend)<0.001). There was an increase in early mechanical revascularization (30.4% to 50.7%, P(trend)<0.001) and intra-aortic balloon pump use (44.8% to 53.7%, P(trend)<0.001) in these patients over the 8-year period. Inhospital mortality decreased significantly, from 44.6% to 33.8% (P(trend)<0.001; adjusted OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.75), whereas the average total hospital cost increased from $35 892 to $45 625 (P(trend)<0.001) during the study period. There was no change in the average length of stay (P(trend)=0.394). These temporal trends were similar in patients <75 and ≥ 75 years of age, men and women, and across each racial/ethnic group.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of cardiogenic shock complicating STEMI has increased during the past 8 years together with increased use of early mechanical revascularization and intra-aortic balloon pumps. There has been a concomitant decrease in risk-adjusted inhospital mortality, but an increase in total hospital costs during this period.

Neighborhood poverty rate and mortality in patients receiving critical care in the academic medical center setting

BACKGROUND

Poverty is associated with increased risk of chronic illness but its contribution to critical care outcome is not well defined.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter observational study of 38,917 patients, aged ≥ 18 years, who received critical care between 1997 and 2007. The patients were treated in two academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts. Data sources included 1990 US census and hospital administrative data. The exposure of interest was neighborhood poverty rate, categorized as < 5%, 5% to 10%, 10% to 20%, 20% to 40% and > 40%. Neighborhood poverty rate is the percentage of residents below the federal poverty line. Census tracts were used as the geographic units of analysis. Logistic regression examined death by days 30, 90, and 365 post-critical care initiation and in-hospital mortality. Adjusted ORs were estimated by multivariable logistic regression models. Sensitivity analysis was performed for 1-year postdischarge mortality among patients discharged to home.

RESULTS

Following multivariable adjustment, neighborhood poverty rate was not associated with all-cause 30-day mortality: 5% to 10% OR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.98-1.14; P = .2); 10% to 20% OR, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.87-1.06; P = .5); 20% to 40% OR, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.96-1.22; P = .2); > 40% OR, 1.20 (95% CI, 0.90-1.60; P = .2); referent in each is < 5%. Similar nonsignificant associations were noted at 90-day and 365-day mortality post-critical care initiation and in-hospital mortality. Among patients discharged to home, neighborhood poverty rate was not associated with 1-year-postdischarge mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that there is no relationship between the neighborhood poverty rate and mortality up to 1 year following critical care at academic medical centers.

Update on the management of cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock is a life-threatening emergency that occurs frequently with acute coronary syndromes. If rapid myocardial reperfusion following acute myocardial infarction is not obtained, either with thrombolytics or by revascularization, cardiogenic shock frequently develops and the mortality rate is high. This review summarizes recent advances in the pathophysiology, incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock. Particular attention is given to pharmacologic advances.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiogenic shock continues to occur in 5-10% of patients who suffer a myocardial infarction and the mortality remains over 50% in most studies. Treatment preference is referral to a cardiac center capable of reperfusion using multiple therapies. While no delay in reperfusion is acceptable, emphasis on implementing supportive treatment such as vasopressors, inotropes, and fluids remains critical. There is a wide variance in treatment standards despite established guidelines. Overall mortality from cardiogenic shock has decreased but the incidence remains unchanged.

SUMMARY

Emerging pharmacological interventions designed to counteract the underlying proinflammatory pathophysiologic mechanisms may, in combination with early revascularization, result in improved patient outcomes, but there is no magic bullet on the horizon. Attention to the timeliness of transport and treatment of patients with a focus on revascularization is required for cardiogenic shock patients.

Health care disparities in critical illness

Disparities in critical illness are evident in a variety of racial and ethnic groups. Most data available in the literature reflect variations in the incidence, presentation, diagnosis,treatment, and outcomes between African Americans and whites. Most research in critical care concerning disparities relates to cardiovascular illnesses. Significantly less in-formation is available regarding disparities in common ICU diagnoses. Data are significantly lacking delineating the reasons for disparities in the critically ill. Further re-search is required to elucidate the root causes for racial or ethnic differences, provide adequate education for health care providers, and develop and implement evidence-based interventions targeted for specific patient groups.