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 (Ptrend<0.001). There was an increase in early mechanical revascularization (30.4% to 50.7%, Ptrend<0.001) and intra‐aortic balloon pump use (44.8% to 53.7%, Ptrend<0.001) in these patients over the 8‐year period. Inhospital mortality decreased significantly, from 44.6% to 33.8% (Ptrend<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 (Ptrend<0.001) during the study period. There was no change in the average length of stay (Ptrend=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.

[1]  D. Kolte,et al.  ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the elderly--temporal trends in incidence, utilization of percutaneous coronary intervention and outcomes in the United States. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[2]  W. Qiu,et al.  Gender comparisons in cardiogenic shock during ST elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. , 2013, The American journal of cardiology.

[3]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Circulation.

[4]  Jane A. Linderbaum,et al.  2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  N. Parakh Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock , 2012 .

[6]  P. Austin,et al.  Sex differences in the management and outcomes of Ontario patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 2012, The Canadian journal of cardiology.

[7]  Daniel Polsky,et al.  Coronary revascularization trends in the United States, 2001-2008. , 2011, JAMA.

[8]  J. Spertus,et al.  Drug-eluting stents and the use of percutaneous coronary intervention among patients with class I indications for coronary artery bypass surgery undergoing index revascularization: analysis from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry). , 2009, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[9]  J. Gore,et al.  Thirty-Year Trends (1975 to 2005) in the Magnitude of, Management of, and Hospital Death Rates Associated With Cardiogenic Shock in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Perspective , 2009, Circulation.

[10]  T. Sundt,et al.  Current trends in coronary revascularization , 2009, Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine.

[11]  I. Palacios,et al.  Sex Differences in Medical Care and Early Death After Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2008, Circulation.

[12]  M. Pfisterer,et al.  Ten-Year Trends in the Incidence and Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  J. Tijssen,et al.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? , 2008, European heart journal.

[14]  Judith S. Hochman,et al.  Cardiogenic Shock: Current Concepts and Improving Outcomes , 2008, Circulation.

[15]  M. Radford,et al.  Impact of the New York State Cardiac Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Reporting System on the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. , 2008, American heart journal.

[16]  Heather Prouty Trends in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock, 1979–2003, United States , 2007 .

[17]  G. Mensah,et al.  Trends in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, 1979-2003, United States. , 2006, American heart journal.

[18]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 2006, JAMA.

[19]  L. Sleeper,et al.  Racial and ethnic differences in the treatment and outcome of cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction. , 2005, The American journal of cardiology.

[20]  S. Assmann,et al.  Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting After Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: Results From the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) Trial , 2005, Circulation.

[21]  J. Hochman,et al.  Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. , 2005, JAMA.

[22]  A. Jacobs,et al.  Absence of gender differences in clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. A report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  H. White,et al.  One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. , 2001, JAMA.

[24]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  J. Gurwitz,et al.  Temporal trends in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  J. Alpert,et al.  Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: Incidence and Mortality from a Community-Wide Perspective, 1975 to 1988 , 1991 .

[27]  B. Steinwald,et al.  Hospital case-mix change: sicker patients or DRG creep? , 1989, Health affairs.

[28]  S. Werns A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: should we change the guidelines? , 2010 .

[29]  M. Roe,et al.  Gender differences among patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR). , 2009, American heart journal.

[30]  L. Sleeper,et al.  Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. , 2003, European heart journal.

[31]  J. Gurwitz,et al.  Recent magnitude of and temporal trends (1994-1997) in the incidence and hospital death rates of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: the second national registry of myocardial infarction. , 2001, American heart journal.

[32]  C. Steiner,et al.  Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. , 1998, Medical care.