Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure–related cardiogenic shock
-
Published:2024-02-14
Issue:4
Volume:113
Page:612-625
-
ISSN:1861-0684
-
Container-title:Clinical Research in Cardiology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Clin Res Cardiol
Author:
Sundermeyer Jonas, Kellner Caroline, Beer Benedikt N., Besch Lisa, Dettling Angela, Bertoldi Letizia Fausta, Blankenberg Stefan, Dauw Jeroen, Dindane Zouhir, Eckner Dennis, Eitel Ingo, Graf Tobias, Horn Patrick, Jozwiak-Nozdrzykowska Joanna, Kirchhof Paulus, Kluge Stefan, Linke Axel, Landmesser Ulf, Luedike Peter, Lüsebrink Enzo, Majunke Nicolas, Mangner Norman, Maniuc Octavian, Möbius-Winkler Sven, Nordbeck Peter, Orban Martin, Pappalardo Federico, Pauschinger Matthias, Pazdernik Michal, Proudfoot Alastair, Kelham Matthew, Rassaf Tienush, Scherer Clemens, Schulze Paul Christian, Schwinger Robert H. G., Skurk Carsten, Sramko Marek, Tavazzi Guido, Thiele Holger, Villanova Luca, Morici Nuccia, Winzer Ephraim B., Westermann Dirk, Schrage BenediktORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Heart failure–related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS.
Methods
In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS.
Results
N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75–1.19).
Conclusions
In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.
Graphical abstract
Sex-related differences in clinical characteristics, shock severity, and mortality in patients with heart failure–related cardiogenic shock. Summary for the main study findings. AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CI, confidence interval; HF-CS, heart failure–related cardiogenic shock; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MCS, mechanical circulatory support; SCAI, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE)
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference46 articles.
1. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M et al (2021) 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Developed by the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 42(36):3599–3726. https://doi.org/10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHAB368 2. Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S et al (2019) SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Societ. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 94(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28329 3. Naidu SS, Baran DA, Jentzer JC et al (2022) SCAI SHOCK stage classification expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies: this statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Heart Association. J Am Coll Cardiol 79(9):933–946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.018 4. Schrage B, Becher PM, Goßling A et al (2021) Temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support and mortality in cardiogenic shock. ESC Hear Fail 8(2):1295–1303. https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13202 5. Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, Katz JN, Alviar CL, Baird-Zars VM, Barnett CF, Barsness GW, Burke JA, Cremer PC, Cruz J, Daniels LB, DeFilippis AP, Haleem A, Hollenberg SM, Horowitz JM, Keller N, Kontos MC, Lawler PR, Menon V, ... Morrow DA (2019) Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 12(3):e005618. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005618
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|