6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Regional Variation in the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock in the United States

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There are few studies evaluating regional disparities in the care of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). Using the National Inpatient Sample from 2000–2016, we identified adults with a primary diagnosis of AMI and concomitant CS admitted to the United States census regions of Northeast, Midwest, South and West. Inter-hospital transfers were excluded. End-points of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), mechanical circulatory support (MCS), hospitalization costs, length of stay and discharge disposition. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for potential confounding. Of the 402,825 AMI-CS admissions, 16.8%, 22.5%, 39.3% and 21.4% were admitted to the Northeast, Midwest, South and West respectively. Higher rates of ST-elevation AMI-CS were noted in the Midwest and West. Admissions to the Northeast were on average characterized by a higher frequency of Whites, Medicare beneficiaries and lower rates of cardiac arrest. Admissions to the Northeast were less likely to receive coronary angiography, PCI and MCS, despite the highest rates of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. Compared to the Northeast, in-hospital mortality was lower in the Midwest (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93–0.98]; p <0.001) and West (aOR 0.96 [95% CI 0.94–0.98]; p =0.001), but higher in the South (aOR 1.04 [95% CI 1.01–1.06]; p =0.002). The Midwest (aOR 1.68 [95% CI 1.62–1.74]; p <0.001), South (aOR 1.86 [95% CI 1.80–1.92]; p <0.001) and West (aOR 1.93 [95% CI 1.86–2.00]; p <0.001) had higher discharges to home. There remain significant regional disparities in the management and outcomes of AMI-CS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Acute Noncardiac Organ Failure in Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Hospital-Level Disparities in the Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction With Cardiogenic Shock

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cardiac Shock Care Centers

              Despite advances over the past decade, the incidence of cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction has increased, with an unchanged mortality near 50%. Recent trials have not clarified the best strategies in treatment. While dedicated cardiac shock centers are being established, there are no standardized agreements on the utilization of mechanical circulatory support and the timeliness of percutaneous coronary intervention strategies. In some centers and prospective registries, outcomes after placement of advanced mechanical circulatory support prior to reperfusion therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention have been encouraging with improved survival. Here, we suggest systems of care with a treatment pathway for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Circulation: Heart Failure
                Circ: Heart Failure
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                1941-3289
                1941-3297
                February 2020
                February 2020
                : 13
                : 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cardiovascular Medicine (S.V., S.M.D., A.P., M.R.B., A.S.J., B.J.G., C.S.R., D.R.H., G.W.B.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [2 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.V.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [3 ]Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Rochester, MN (S.V.).
                [4 ]Department of Cardiovascular Surgery (S.H.P.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [5 ]Department of Health Sciences Research (S.M.D.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                [6 ]Division of Clinical Core Laboratory Services, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (A.S.J.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
                Article
                10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006661
                7027926
                32059628
                bba5f330-20bd-4aca-8afa-49e01bc72ac9
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article