Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Sepsis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction
Authors' conclusion
Although temporary MCS is deemed to be a feasible option in sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock, the selection of the right patients whose shock is driven mainly by cardiogenic shock rather than septic shock, as represented by low cardiac output and high systemic vascular resistance, plays a critical role in the feasibility of this approach in the absence of clinical trials.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock with and without acute MI, US National Inpatient Sample 2017–2019
- Exposure
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) vs no MCS
- Outcome
- In-hospital mortality
Methodological detailsNational Inpatient Sample database, multivariate logistic regression
- National Inpatient Sample database
- Multivariate logistic regression
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
In-hospital mortality (subgroup without acute myocardial infarction (AMI))
| aOR (95% CI) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| IABP | 0.43 (0.28–0.65) | P < 0.001 | |
| 0.20.5125Adjusted odds ratio (log scale) |
In-hospital mortality (subgroup with AMI)
- Temporary MCS not associated with significantly lower or higher odds of in-hospital mortality
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →