No sex-based difference in cardiogenic shock: A post-hoc analysis of the DOREMI trial

Sex difference in outcomes and management of cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Sex differences in the outcomes and management of cardiogenic shock are not well established. The primary objective of this study is to investigate the differences inik cardiogenic shock outcomes between males and females.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. Studies were searched via the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to December 2022.

RESULTS

The analysis included 24 studies comprising 1,567,660 patients. Compared to females, males with CS had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.88, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.85-0.90, p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality (RR 0.90, 95 % CI 0.89-0.92, p < 0.001). Males were more likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.13-1.31, p < 0.0001) and intra-aortic balloon pump placement (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.11-1.32, p < 0.0001), with no significant sex differences in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or Impella. During the index hospitalization, males were at higher risk of arrhythmias (RR 1.18, 95 % CI 1.05-1.34, p = 0.003) and less likely to develop acute kidney injury (RR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.79-0.94, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Men have a lower all-cause mortality risk in cardiogenic shock. Addressing disparities in management is crucial for improving CS outcomes, especially for women.

Sex-Based Survival Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock

BACKGROUND

Sex-based disparities have been demonstrated in care delivery for females with cardiogenic shock (CS), including lower use of coronary angiography (CAG), percutaneous intervention (PCI) and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). We evaluated whether sex-based disparities exist and are associated with worse CS outcomes in females.

METHODS

We studied a retrospective cohort of 1498 consecutive, unique adult cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admissions with CS from 2007-2018.

RESULTS

Compared to males, females (n = 566, 37.1%) were older (71.7 vs 67.8 years; P < 0.001) but had similar burdens of medical comorbidities. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was present in 54.1% of females and 59.1% of males (P = 0.06). There were no sex-based differences in the use of CAG and PCI, but females received temporary MCS less commonly. Specifically, females with non-AMI CS received MCS devices less commonly (17.6% vs 24.4%; P = 0.04). There was no difference in in-hospital or 1-year mortality rates between the sexes. Compared to males, females who received PCI had lower risks of 1-year mortality (unadjusted HR 0.72; P = 0.03), whereas females who received CAG without PCI had higher risks of 1-year mortality (unadjusted HR 1.41; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

No sex-based disparities in mortality due to CS were demonstrated in this large, diverse cohort of patients with CICU admissions. Females who underwent PCI demonstrated lower risks of 1-year mortality, whereas females who underwent CAG without PCI demonstrated higher risks of 1-year mortality compared to males. This may reflect underuse of PCI as a mortality-reducing therapy in females.

Cardiogenic shock-sex-specific risk factors and outcome differences

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high-mortality condition despite technological and therapeutic advances. One key to potentially improving CS prognosis is understanding patient heterogeneity and which patients may benefit most from different treatment options, a key element of which is sex differences. While cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have historically been considered a male-dominant condition, the field is increasingly aware that females are also a substantial portion of the patient population. While estrogen has been implicated in protective roles against CVD and tissue hypoxia, its role in CS remains unclear. Clinically, female CS patients tend to be older, have more severe comorbidities and are more likely to have non-acute myocardial infarction etiologies with preserved ejection fractions. Female CS patients are more likely to receive pharmacotherapy while less likely to receive mechanical circulatory support. There is increased short-term mortality in females, although long-term mortality is similar between the sexes. More sex-specific and age-stratified research needs to be done to fully understand the relevant pathophysiological differences in CS, to better recognize and manage CS patients and reduce its mortality.

Sex differences in the presentation and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a critical review of contemporary data and a look towards future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a devasting complicating of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), associated with significant mortality. Prior studies have reported sex differences in the presentation, management and outcomes of patients with AMI and CS. These differences are likely due to a variety of factors influencing therapeutic decision-making and impacting survival. This review highlights the more contemporary studies exploring differences in women and men with AMI-CS, providing a critical perspective towards understanding the factors that might lead to these differences and outlining potential opportunities to reduce disparities in treatment and improve survival for women with AMI-CS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent reports demonstrate that women with AMI-CS are older than men and have more cardiovascular comorbidities. When examining an unselected population of patients with AMI-CS, women receive less aggressive treatment compared to men and have poorer outcomes. However, when examining a selected population of patients with AMI-CS treated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and/or admitted to centers that implement CS protocols to manage AMI-CS, these sex-based differences in outcomes are largely mitigated.

SUMMARY

Standardizing protocols for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with AMI-CS, with an emphasis on early revascularization and appropriate invasive therapies, can improve outcomes in women and narrow the gender gap.

Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Women are at higher risk of mortality from many acute cardiovascular conditions, but studies have demonstrated differing findings regarding the mortality of cardiogenic shock in women and men. To examine differences in 30-day mortality and mechanical circulatory support use by sex in patients with cardiogenic shock.

MAIN BODY

Cochrane Central, PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in April 2024. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials or observational studies, included adult patients with cardiogenic shock, and reported at least one of the following outcomes by sex: raw mortality, adjusted mortality (odds ratio) or use of mechanical circulatory support. Out of 4448 studies identified, 81 met inclusion criteria, pooling a total of 656,754 women and 1,018,036 men. In the unadjusted analysis for female sex and combined in-hospital and 30-day mortality, women had higher odds of mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-1.44, p < 0.001). Pooled unadjusted mortality was 35.9% in men and 40.8% in women (p < 0.001). When only studies reporting adjusted ORs were included, combined in-hospital/30-day mortality remained higher in women (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06-1.15, p < 0.001). These effects remained consistent across subgroups of acute myocardial infarction- and heart failure- related cardiogenic shock. Overall, women were less likely to receive mechanical support than men (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.57-0.79, p < 0.001); specifically, they were less likely to be treated with intra-aortic balloon pump (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, p < 0.001) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR = 0.84, 95% 0.71-0.99, p = 0.045). No significant difference was seen with use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.51-1.33, p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

Even when adjusted for confounders, mortality for cardiogenic shock in women is approximately 10% higher than men. This effect is seen in both acute myocardial infarction and heart failure cardiogenic shock. Women with cardiogenic shock are less likely to be treated with mechanical circulatory support than men. Clinicians should make immediate efforts to ensure the prompt diagnosis and aggressive treatment of cardiogenic shock in women.

Efficacy of Milrinone and Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39; p = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference -1.85 d; 95% CI -3.62 to -0.09; p = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.