Gender-based differences in clinical profile, management and mortality in cardiogenic shock. Prognostic accuracy of CardShock vs IABP Score, the Shock-CAT study

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains very high. Gender could influence in aetiology, management, outcomes and risk stratification predictors. Purpose The aim is to analyse differences in clinical profile, management, in-hospital prognosis and mortality risk in CS patients depending on sex and compare the prognostic accuracy of CardShock and IABP scores between sexes in a Mediterranean cohort. Method Shock-CAT study was a multicentre, prospective, observational study conducted between December 2018 and December 2019 in eight public University hospitals in Spain, including CS patients of different aetiologies. Data on clinical presentation, biomarkers, management, including mechanical cardiac/circulatory support (MCS) were analysed comparing women and men. Cardshock and IABP score have been compared to assess 90-days mortality risk between sexes. Results A total of 382 CS patients (p) were included: women 24.9% (n=95 p) and men 75.1% (n=287p). Women were older than men (68.9 vs 64.1 years, P=0.004). CS due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was more frequent in men (66.6% vs 43.2%), and myocarditis (1.7 vs 6.3%), stress cardiomyopathy (0.3% vs 8.4%) and severe aortic stenosis (2.4% vs 6.3%) were more prevalent in women, all p<0.001. Cardiac arrest was more prevalent in men than women (38.4% vs 25.3%, p=0.020). MCS was implanted in 35.3% of patients, without gender differences (men 36.6%, women 31.6%, p=0.376). Even though there was a non-significant trend to lower use in women of IABP (31.1% vs 26.5%), Impella (13.5% vs 7.4%) or ECMO (10.4% vs 7.4%). Risk scores were similar between sexes: Cardshock (men:4.32 vs 4.40 women, p=0.674) and IABP score (men: 2.31 vs 2.04 women, p=0.190). There were no differences between men and women in in-hospital mortality (32.4% vs 34.7%, p=0.675) or 6-months mortality (41.5% vs 40%, p=0.989). Receiver-operating characteristic curves demonstrated that IABP shock score had superior prognostic power for predicting 90-days mortality when compared with Cardshock score in men (area under the curve -AUC- 0.72 vs 0.64) respectively, p=0.009, although both scores were similar in women (AUC 0.70 vs 0.72, p=0.635), Figures 1-2. Conclusions Women with CS were older than men and had less ACS and cardiac arrest at admission. There is a non-significant lower use of mechanical assistance devices in women, although in-hospital or 6-months mortality were similar in both sexes. IABP score provided better 90-days mortality risk prediction than CardShock score in men, but both scores were similar in women with cardiogenic shock.Men ROC Curves 90-days MortalityWomen ROC Curves 90-days Mortality