Advertisement

Gender Disparities in Cardiogenic Shock Treatment and Outcomes

      Cardiogenic shock is associated with a high risk for morbidity and mortality. The impact of gender on treatment and outcomes is poorly defined. This study aimed to evaluate whether gender influences the clinical management and outcomes of patients with prehospital cardiogenic shock. Consecutive adult patients with cardiogenic shock who were transferred to hospital by emergency medical services (EMS) between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2019 in Victoria, Australia were included. Data were obtained from individually linked ambulance, hospital, and state death index datasets. The primary outcome assessed was 30-day mortality, stratified by patient gender. Propensity score matching was performed for risk adjustment. Over the study period a total of 3,465 patients were identified and 1,389 patients (40.1%) were women. Propensity score matching yielded 1,330 matched pairs with no differences observed in baseline characteristics, including age, initial vital signs, pre-existing co-morbidities, etiology of shock, and prehospital interventions. In the matched cohort, women had higher rates of 30-day mortality (44.7% vs 39.2%, p = 0.009), underwent less coronary angiography (18.3% vs 27.2%, p <0.001), and revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (8.9% vs 14.2%, p <0.001), compared with men. In conclusion, in this large population-based study, women with cardiogenic shock who were transferred by EMS to hospital had significantly worse survival outcomes and reduced rates of invasive cardiac interventions compared to men. These data underscore the urgent need for targeted public health measures to redress gender differences in outcomes and variation with clinical care for patients with cardiogenic shock.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • van Diepen S
        • Katz JN
        • Albert NM
        • Henry TD
        • Jacobs AK
        • Kapur NK
        • Kilic A
        • Menon V
        • Ohman EM
        • Sweitzer NK
        • Thiele H
        • Washam JB
        • Cohen MG
        • American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Mission: Lifeline
        Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: A scientific statement From the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2017; 136: e232-e268
        • De Backer D
        • Biston P
        • Devriendt J
        • Madl C
        • Chochrad D
        • Aldecoa C
        • Brasseur A
        • Defrance P
        • Gottignies P
        • Vincent JL
        • SOAP II Investigators
        Comparison of dopamine and norepinephrine in the treatment of shock.
        N Engl J Med. 2010; 362: 779-789
        • Mathew R
        • Di Santo P
        • Jung RG
        • Marbach JA
        • Hutson J
        • Simard T
        • Ramirez FD
        • Harnett DT
        • Merdad A
        • Almufleh A
        • Weng W
        • Abdel-Razek O
        • Fernando SM
        • Kyeremanteng K
        • Bernick J
        • Wells GA
        • Chan V
        • Froeschl M
        • Labinaz M
        • Le May MR
        • Russo JJ
        • Hibbert B
        Milrinone as compared with dobutamine in the treatment of cardiogenic shock.
        N Engl J Med. 2021; 385: 516-525
        • 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
        • Metkus TS
        • Ng J
        • Orgel R
        • Overgaard CB
        • Park JG
        • Phreaner N
        • Roswell RO
        • Schulman SP
        • Jeffrey Snell R
        • Solomon MA
        • Ternus B
        • Tymchak W
        • Vikram F
        • Morrow DA
        Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019; 12e005618
        • Basir MB
        • Kapur NK
        • Patel K
        • Salam MA
        • Schreiber T
        • Kaki A
        • Hanson I
        • Almany S
        • Timmis S
        • Dixon S
        • Kolski B
        • Todd J
        • Senter S
        • Marso S
        • Lasorda D
        • Wilkins C
        • Lalonde T
        • Attallah A
        • Larkin T
        • Dupont A
        • Marshall J
        • Patel N
        • Overly T
        • Green M
        • Tehrani B
        • Truesdell AG
        • Sharma R
        • Akhtar Y
        • McRae T
        • O'Neill B
        • Finley J
        • Rahman A
        • Foster M
        • Askari R
        • Goldsweig A
        • Martin S
        • Bharadwaj A
        • Khuddus M
        • Caputo C
        • Korpas D
        • Cawich I
        • McAllister D
        • Blank N
        • Alraies MC
        • Fisher R
        • Khandelwal A
        • Alaswad K
        • Lemor A
        • Johnson T
        • Hacala M
        • O'Neill WW
        • National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative Investigators
        Improved outcomes associated with the use of shock protocols: updates from the national cardiogenic shock initiative.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 93: 1173-1183
        • Karlsson V
        • Dankiewicz J
        • Nielsen N
        • Kern KB
        • Mooney MR
        • Riker RR
        • Rubertsson S
        • Seder DB
        • Stammet P
        • Sunde K
        • Søreide E
        • Unger BT
        • Friberg H.
        Association of gender to outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest – a report from the international cardiac arrest registry.
        Crit Care. 2015; 19: 182
        • Mody P
        • Pandey A
        • Slutsky AS
        • Segar MW
        • Kiss A
        • Dorian P
        • Parsons J
        • Scales DC
        • Rac VE
        • Cheskes S
        • Bierman AS
        • Abramson BL
        • Gray S
        • Fowler RA
        • Dainty KN
        • Idris AH
        • Morrison L.
        Gender-based differences in outcomes among resuscitated patients With out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Circulation. 2021; 143: 641-649
        • Stehli J
        • Martin C
        • Brennan A
        • Dinh DT
        • Lefkovits J
        • Zaman S.
        Sex differences persist in time to presentation, revascularization, and mortality in myocardial infarction treated With percutaneous coronary intervention.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2019; 8e012161
        • Lam CSP
        • Arnott C
        • Beale AL
        • Chandramouli C
        • Hilfiker-Kleiner D
        • Kaye DM
        • Ky B
        • Santema BT
        • Sliwa K
        • Voors AA.
        Sex differences in heart failure.
        Eur Heart J. 2019; 40: 3859-3868c
        • Haider A
        • Bengs S
        • Luu J
        • Osto E
        • Siller-Matula JM
        • Muka T
        • Gebhard C.
        Sex and gender in cardiovascular medicine: presentation and outcomes of acute coronary syndrome.
        Eur Heart J. 2020; 41: 1328-1336
        • Bloom JE
        • Andrew E
        • Dawson LP
        • Nehme Z
        • Stephenson M
        • Anderson D
        • Fernando H
        • Noaman S
        • Cox S
        • Milne C
        • Chan W
        • Kaye DM
        • Smith K
        • Stub D
        Incidence and outcomes of nontraumatic shock in adults using emergency medical services in Victoria, Australia.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5e2145179
        • Shah AD
        • Bartlett JW
        • Carpenter J
        • Nicholas O
        • Hemingway H.
        Comparison of random forest and parametric imputation models for imputing missing data using MICE: a CALIBER study.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 179: 764-774
        • Austin PC.
        Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: A systematic review and suggestions for improvement.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 134: 1128-1135
        • Benamer H
        • Bataille S
        • Tafflet M
        • Jabre P
        • Dupas F
        • Laborne FX
        • Lapostolle F
        • Lefort H
        • Juliard JM
        • Letarnec JY
        • Lamhaut L
        • Lebail G
        • Boche T
        • Loyeau A
        • Caussin C
        • Mapouata M
        • Karam N
        • Jouven X
        • Spaulding C
        • Lambert Y.
        Longer pre-hospital delays and higher mortality in women with STEMI: the e-MUST registry.
        EuroIntervention. 2016; 12: e542-e549
        • Stehli J
        • Dinh D
        • Dagan M
        • Duffy SJ
        • Brennan A
        • Smith K
        • Andrew E
        • Nehme Z
        • Reid CM
        • Lefkovits J
        • Stub D
        • Zaman S
        Sex differences in prehospital delays in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
        J Am Heart Assoc. 2021; 10e019938
        • Vallabhajosyula S
        • Ya'Qoub L
        • Singh M
        • Bell MR
        • Gulati R
        • Cheungpasitporn W
        • Sundaragiri PR
        • Miller VM
        • Jaffe AS
        • Gersh BJ
        • Holmes DR
        • Barsness GW.
        Sex disparities in the management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in the young.
        Circ Heart Fail. 2020; 13e007154
        • Vallabhajosyula S
        • Vallabhajosyula S
        • Dunlay SM
        • Hayes SN
        • Best PJM
        • Brenes-Salazar JA
        • Lerman A
        • Gersh BJ
        • Jaffe AS
        • Bell MR
        • Holmes DR
        • Barsness GW.
        Sex and gender disparities in the management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock in older adults.
        Mayo Clin Proc. 2020; 95: 1916-1927
        • Mehta LS
        • Beckie TM
        • DeVon HA
        • Grines CL
        • Krumholz HM
        • Johnson MN
        • Lindley KJ
        • Vaccarino V
        • Wang TY
        • Watson KE
        • Wenger NK
        • American Heart Association Cardiovascular Disease in Women and Special Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research
        Acute myocardial infarction in women: a scientific statement From the American Heart Association.
        Circulation. 2016; 133: 916-947
        • Joseph SM
        • Brisco MA
        • Colvin M
        • Grady KL
        • Walsh MN
        • Cook JL
        • genVAD Working Group
        Women With Cardiogenic Shock Derive Greater Benefit From Early Mechanical Circulatory Support: An Update From the cVAD Registry.
        J Interv Cardiol. 2016; 29: 248-256
        • Rao U
        • Buchanan GL
        • Hoye A.
        Outcomes After percutaneous coronary intervention in women: are there differences when compared with men?.
        Interv Cardiol. 2019; 14: 70-75
        • Blom MT
        • Oving I
        • Berdowski J
        • van Valkengoed IGM
        • Bardai A
        • Tan HL.
        Women have lower chances than men to be resuscitated and survive out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Eur Heart J. 2019; 40: 3824-3834
        • Thiele H
        • Akin I
        • Sandri M
        • Fuernau G
        • de Waha S
        • Meyer-Saraei R
        • Nordbeck P
        • Geisler T
        • Landmesser U
        • Skurk C
        • Fach A
        • Lapp H
        • Piek JJ
        • Noc M
        • Goslar T
        • Felix SB
        • Maier LS
        • Stepinska J
        • Oldroyd K
        • Serpytis P
        • Montalescot G
        • Barthelemy O
        • Huber K
        • Windecker S
        • Savonitto S
        • Torremante P
        • Vrints C
        • Schneider S
        • Desch S
        • Zeymer U
        • CULPRIT-SHOCK Investigators
        PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
        N Engl J Med. 2017; 377: 2419-2432
        • Brush JE
        • Krumholz HM
        • Greene EJ
        • Dreyer RP.
        Sex differences in symptom phenotypes among patients With acute myocardial infarction.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020; 13e005948
        • Biswas S
        • Andrianopoulos N
        • Duffy SJ
        • Lefkovits J
        • Brennan A
        • Walton A
        • Chan W
        • Noaman S
        • Shaw JA
        • Ajani A
        • Clark DJ
        • Freeman M
        • Hiew C
        • Oqueli E
        • Reid CM
        • Stub D.
        Impact of socioeconomic status on clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction.
        Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019; 12e004979
        • Pepine CJ
        • Ferdinand KC
        • Shaw LJ
        • Light-McGroary KA
        • Shah RU
        • Gulati M
        • Duvernoy C
        • Walsh MN
        • Bairey Merz CN
        ACC CVD in Women Committee. Emergence of nonobstructive coronary artery disease: a woman's problem and need for change in definition on angiography.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66: 1918-1933https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.08.876
        • Jeger RV
        • Radovanovic D
        • Hunziker PR
        • Pfisterer ME
        • Stauffer JC
        • Erne P
        • Urban P
        • AMIS Plus Registry Investigators
        Ten-year trends in the incidence and treatment of cardiogenic shock.
        Ann Intern Med. 2008; 149: 618-626
        • Noaman S
        • Andrianopoulos N
        • Brennan AL
        • Dinh D
        • Reid C
        • Stub D
        • Biswas S
        • Clark D
        • Shaw J
        • Ajani A
        • Freeman M
        • Yip T
        • Oqueli E
        • Walton A
        • Duffy SJ
        • Chan W
        • Melbourne Interventional Group Investigators
        Outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating acute coronary syndromes.
        Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 96: E257-E267
        • Tehrani BN
        • Truesdell AG
        • Psotka MA
        • Rosner C
        • Singh R
        • Sinha SS
        • Damluji AA
        • Batchelor WB.
        A standardized and comprehensive approach to the management of cardiogenic shock.
        JACC Heart Fail. 2020; 8: 879-891
        • Lee F
        • Hutson JH
        • Boodhwani M
        • McDonald B
        • So D
        • De Roock S
        • Rubens F
        • Stadnick E
        • Ruel M
        • Le May M
        • Labinaz M
        • Chien K
        • Garuba HA
        • Mielniczuk LM
        • Chih S
        Multidisciplinary code shock team in cardiogenic shock: a Canadian centre experience.
        CJC Open. 2020; 2: 249-257
        • Taleb I
        • Koliopoulou AG
        • Tandar A
        • McKellar SH
        • Tonna JE
        • Nativi-Nicolau J
        • Alvarez Villela M
        • Welt F
        • Stehlik J
        • Gilbert EM
        • Wever-Pinzon O
        • Morshedzadeh JH
        • Dranow E
        • Selzman CH
        • Fang JC
        • Drakos SG
        Shock team approach in refractory cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: a proof of concept.
        Circulation. 2019; 140: 98-100