English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex syndrome associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, many US hospitals have formed multidisciplinary shock teams capable of rapid diagnosis and triage. Because of preexisting collaborative systems of care, hospitals with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) programs may also represent “centers of excellence” for CS care. However, the outcomes of patients with CS at LVAD centers have not been previously evaluated. Methods and Results Patients with CS were identified in the 2012 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample. Clinical characteristics, revascularization rates, and use of mechanical circulatory support were analyzed in LVAD versus non‐LVAD centers. The association between hospital type and in‐hospital mortality was examined using multivariable logistic regression models. Of 272 075 hospitalizations, 26.0% were in LVAD centers. CS attributable to causes other than acute myocardial infarction represented most cases. In‐hospital mortality was lower in LVAD centers (38.9% versus 43.3%;P &lt;0.001). In multivariable analysis, the odds of mortality remained significantly lower for hospitalizations in LVAD centers (odds ratio, 0.89;P &lt;0.001). In patients with CS secondary to acute myocardial infarction, revascularization rates were similar between LVAD and non‐LVAD centers. The use of intra‐aortic balloon pump (18.7% versus 18.8%) and Impella/TandemHeart (2.6% versus 1.9%) was similar between hospital types, whereas extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used more frequently in LVAD centers (4.3% versus 0.2%;P &lt;0.001).Conclusions Risk‐adjusted mortality was lower in patients with CS who were hospitalized at LVAD centers. These centers likely represent specialized, shock team capable institutions across the country that may be best suited to manage patients with CS.

Outcomes of Hospitalizations for Cardiogenic Shock at Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Non–Left Ventricular Assist Device Centers