Skip to main content
Download PDF

Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis

Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 192 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Women are at higher risk of mortality from many acute cardiovascular conditions, but studies have demonstrated differing findings regarding the mortality of cardiogenic shock in women and men. To examine differences in 30-day mortality and mechanical circulatory support use by sex in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Main body

Cochrane Central, PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in April 2024. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials or observational studies, included adult patients with cardiogenic shock, and reported at least one of the following outcomes by sex: raw mortality, adjusted mortality (odds ratio) or use of mechanical circulatory support. Out of 4448 studies identified, 81 met inclusion criteria, pooling a total of 656,754 women and 1,018,036 men. In the unadjusted analysis for female sex and combined in-hospital and 30-day mortality, women had higher odds of mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–1.44, p < 0.001). Pooled unadjusted mortality was 35.9% in men and 40.8% in women (p < 0.001). When only studies reporting adjusted ORs were included, combined in-hospital/30-day mortality remained higher in women (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.06–1.15, p < 0.001). These effects remained consistent across subgroups of acute myocardial infarction- and heart failure- related cardiogenic shock. Overall, women were less likely to receive mechanical support than men (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, p < 0.001); specifically, they were less likely to be treated with intra-aortic balloon pump (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.89, p < 0.001) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR = 0.84, 95% 0.71–0.99, p = 0.045). No significant difference was seen with use of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.51–1.33, p = 0.42).

Conclusion

Even when adjusted for confounders, mortality for cardiogenic shock in women is approximately 10% higher than men. This effect is seen in both acute myocardial infarction and heart failure cardiogenic shock. Women with cardiogenic shock are less likely to be treated with mechanical circulatory support than men. Clinicians should make immediate efforts to ensure the prompt diagnosis and aggressive treatment of cardiogenic shock in women.

Background

Cardiogenic shock is a complex syndrome of systemic hypoperfusion resulting from cardiac dysfunction. The observed incidence of cardiogenic shock in the United States has tripled between 2004 and 2018 [1]. Acute mortality ranges between 30–50%, despite improvements in recognition and management [2,3,4]. While most studies of patients with cardiogenic shock have focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiogenic shock caused by other pathologies has become the predominant aetiology in cardiac critical care units [4, 5].

Compared to men, women appear to have higher mortality in other acute cardiovascular pathologies such as out-of-hospital cardiac arrest [6] and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) [7], but may have a similar or even better prognosis in heart failure [8, 9]. Similarly, women with severe acute respiratory failure have been found to be more likely to die and to be ventilated with potentially injurious ventilator settings [10].

Several studies using adjusted analyses to examine the effect of sex on outcomes in cardiogenic shock have been undertaken, with some reporting higher mortality in women [11, 12], and others no difference [13,14,15]. Similarly, registry data show that women are less likely to receive mechanical circulatory support (MCS) than men, despite observational data suggesting they may derive greater benefit [16].

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the relationship between sex with mortality and receipt of mechanical circulatory support, adjusting for confounding factors where possible.

Methods

Search strategy

This epidemiological systematic review and meta-analysis was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380480). Throughout, we followed the Meta-Analysis for Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines [17]. We searched Cochrane Central, PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies reporting sex-specific mortality and treatment in patients with cardiogenic shock up to 19 April 2024. The full search strategy was developed in conjunction with a medical librarian at Barts Health NHS Trust (A.L.) and is listed in the Supplementary Appendix.

Studies were included if they met both of the following criteria: (1) Observational study or randomised controlled trial enrolling adult patients with cardiogenic shock. (2) Reported by sex at least one of: (a) unadjusted in-hospital or 30-day mortality or longer-term outcome; (b) adjusted mortality at least in-hospital or 30 days (i.e. by odds ratio or risk ratio between men and women); (c) use of MCS devices in men and women. Studies in languages other than English were included with translation as required. Case reports and non-human studies were excluded.

Mortality was extracted preferentially as 30-day mortality, then as in-hospital mortality if 30-day mortality was not reported. Studies which reported only shorter-term outcomes (e.g. ICU mortality) were not included. Studies which reported only longer-term outcomes were included only if in-hospital mortality/30-day mortality were not reported, as epidemiological studies have demonstrated that patients with cardiogenic shock who survive critical illness have relatively low rates of mortality in the first year following admission, comparable to similarly morbid patients [18, 19]. Studies reporting cohorts of patients receiving a particular treatment were included only if all, or a clear, separately reported cohort, had cardiogenic shock.

The search was carried out using Covidence software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) under licence from the University of Edinburgh. After importation of references, titles and abstracts were screened by three researchers (T.F., N.H. and A.K.). Arbitration of discrepancies and full-text review was undertaken by a separate researcher (A.W.). Multiple publications from the same dataset or study were identified manually. In order to prevent bias from multiple inclusion, only the most comprehensive study (i.e. with the lowest risk of bias, broadest acceptable inclusion criteria, longest search period and largest sample size) was included.

Bias was assessed for all studies with the Newcastle–Ottawa Score for observational cohort studies [20] by at least two of three independent researchers (T.F., N.H., A.K.) and arbitration by a fourth (A.W.). Randomised studies were assessed in the same way, given the objective was to assess the sex-related epidemiological data reported rather than bias of the randomised intervention. Definition for low risk of bias was Newcastle–Ottawa Score of ≤ 7.

Statistical analysis

Three separate analyses were conducted for the outcomes of unadjusted mortality, adjusted mortality, and mechanical cardiac support use. Data were extracted for: study size, location, study type, population, number of men, number of women, total number of included patients, nature of primary outcome, number of deaths in men, number of deaths in women, adjusted odds ratio, factors used in multivariable analysis (where reported), number of MCS devices used in men and women and nature of MCS device. Subgroup analyses were performed for aetiology of cardiogenic shock and type of mechanical circulatory support, with sensitivity analyses including only studies at lower risk of bias.

Due to the predicted high heterogeneity of included studies, we performed meta-analysis using the DerSimonian–Laird random effects model with inverse variance weighting. Data are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. P values for the main analyses were adjusted for multiple comparison using the Holm–Bonferonni correction.

Meta-regression was conducted using the Begg–Mubazzar test and Egger’s regression analysis to assess for publication bias; in addition, funnel plots were visually inspected.

All statistical analysis was undertaken in R version 4.1.1. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) using package ‘metafor’ (Viechtbauer 2010).

Results

In total, 81 studies reporting at least one sex-specific outcome were included in meta-analysis [12,13,14,15,16, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98], comprising data from eight randomised controlled studies and 73 observational cohort studies. The pooled studies contained data on 656,754 women and 1,018,036 men.

A flow diagram for the meta-analysis is given in Fig. 1. Of 4448 abstracts screened, 670 progressed to full-text review. 589 were excluded (sex-specific outcomes not reported, n = 280; multiple publications from same study or dataset, n = 195; wrong study design n = 52; wrong patient population (e.g. extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, post-cardiotomy) n = 46; wrong outcomes n = 16). Fifteen studies were identified from the United States National Inpatient Sample with overlapping enrolment and criteria. As in the methods above, only the largest study was included [63].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for epidemiological meta-analysis of sex differences in cardiogenic shock

Full size image

Unadjusted mortality

Unadjusted sex-specific mortality was reported in 56 studies including data for 617,801 women and 962,561 men (Fig. 2). Odds ratio for female sex and combined in-hospital and 30-day mortality was 1.35 (95% confidence interval 1.26–1.44, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.031, I2 = 77.3%), Fig. 2. Pooled unadjusted mortality was 35.9% in men and 40.8% in women (p < 0.001).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effect of sex on unadjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality in cardiogenic shock

Full size image

The included data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) comprised 95% of the total sample size of patients; the model weight for this study accordingly was the highest at 3.9% (see Supplementary Table 1). However, sensitivity analysis excluding this study showed an almost identical result (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.24–1.47, p < 0.001).

Adjusted mortality

Adjusted sex-specific mortality was available for 41 studies comprising 1,659,622 patients between 40 observational studies and a single randomised controlled trial (Fig. 3). Details of studies included in the adjusted analysis are given in Table 1. In total, 39 studies reported details of the regression model used to adjust the primary outcome. Of these, 38 studies adjusted for age, six for race/ethnicity, 26 adjusted for at least one comorbidity, and 13 for prior cardiac arrest.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Adjusted effect of sex on in-hospital/30-day mortality in cardiogenic shock

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of 41 studies reporting adjusted sex-specific mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS)
Full size table

The pooled adjusted odds ratio for female sex and combined in-hospital/30-day mortality was 1.10 (95% CI 1.06–1.15, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.005, I2 = 74.22%), Fig. 3. Whilst the largest study from the NIS again comprised the majority of the sample (90.7%), it was weighted at 8.3% in the meta-analysis, and sensitivity analysis performed with the exclusion of this study demonstrated a similar result (OR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.07–1.19, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.012, I2 = 74.58%).

Mechanical circulatory support

Sex-specific use of MCS was reported in 23 studies with a total of 1,559,978 patients. Overall, women were less likely to receive MCS (OR = 0.72 (95% CI 0.62–0.84, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.10, I2 = 93.67%), Fig. 4.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Sex-specific use of mechanical cardiac support in cardiogenic shock

Full size image

Nineteen studies reported sex-specific use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), 12 reported sex-specific use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and 9 reported percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD). Among these, women were less likely to be treated with IABP (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.89, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.02, I2 = 65.28%) and ECMO (OR = 0.84, 95% 0.71–0.99, p = 0.045, τ2 = 0.04, I2 = 62.11% There was no significant difference seen in the use of percutaneous VAD (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.51–1.33, p = 0.42, τ2 = 0.39, I2 = 96.06%).

Heterogeneity, bias, and sensitivity analysis

Visual inspection of funnel plots (Supplementary Fig. 1a) suggested low likelihood of publication bias for the unadjusted mortality analyses, subsequently confirmed by Begg’s (τ =  − 0.10, p = 0.23), and Egger’s tests (p = 0.62). For the adjusted mortality analysis, visual inspection of the funnel plot (Supplementary Fig. 1b) suggested moderate likelihood of publication bias, with the missing effect estimates of significantly increased mortality in women. This was not significant by Begg’s test (τ = 0.15, p = 0.16) but was by meta-regression (Egger’s test p < 0.001). The MCS analysis (Supplementary Fig. 1c) showed moderate likelihood of publication bias by Begg’s (τ =  − 0.38, p = 0.012) but not Egger’s tests (p = 0.88).

As discussed above, significant heterogeneity of studies was observed. Sensitivity analysis was performed including only studies with low risk of bias (Newcastle–Ottawa Score ≥ 7). In this sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Figs. 2–4), unadjusted OR for female sex and mortality was 1.31 (95% CI 1.22–1.41, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.03, I2 = 78.9%), and adjusted OR for female sex and mortality was 1.09 (95% CI 1.05–1.13, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.004, I2 = 72.5%). The OR for female sex and receipt of MCS in sensitivity analysis was 0.74 (95% CI 0.62–0.88, p = 0.001, τ2 = 0.11, I2 = 92.9%).

Subgroup analyses

Two a priori subgroup analyses were specified: AMI-cardiogenic shock and heart failure cardiogenic shock (HF-cardiogenic shock). Data for 634,036 patients (254,741 females and 379,295 males) with AMI-cardiogenic shock from 45 studies were available. In females with AMI-cardiogenic shock, the unadjusted OR was 1.45 (95% CI 1.34–1.56, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.018, I2 = 64.8%). Adjusted OR for female sex and in-hospital/30-day mortality in AMI-cardiogenic shock was 1.13 (95% CI 1.06–1.22, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.013, I2 = 77.8%), (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6).

Data were available for 928,263 patients with HF-cardiogenic shock (370,215 women and 558,048 men from 8 studies. In females with HF-cardiogenic shock, the unadjusted OR was 1.36 (95% CI 1.05–1.77, p = 0.021, τ2 = 0.087, I2 = 85.5%), Supplementary Fig. 7. Only three studies reported an adjusted OR for HF-cardiogenic shock patients, so meta-analysis was not performed.

In a post hoc analysis including only randomised controlled trials, consisting of 721 women and 2,040 men, the unadjusted OR for female sex and mortality was 1.39 (95% CI 1.17–1.66, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.001, I2 = 1.55%), Supplementary Fig. 8. Mortality was higher in women in all but one study (Table 2).

Table 2 Randomised controlled trials in cardiogenic shock reporting sex-specific mortality and risk ratios for intervention
Full size table

Discussion

This is the first systematic review examining sex differences in outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock. Strengths of this study include geographically representative data, a large sample size and well-defined outcome measures (in-hospital mortality and use of MCS). The observed effect size remained present after exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias, and we undertook a rigorous process to limit inclusion of multiple publications from the same patient dataset. Our key findings are that, after adjustment for baseline characteristics, female patients with cardiogenic shock were 10% more likely to die than male patients, and 30% less likely to receive MCS. The observed difference in mortality was mirrored in sub-group analyses of AMI-cardiogenic shock and HF-cardiogenic shock.

There are multiple potential explanations for our findings, which include: (1) persistent confounding from variables not adjusted for in studies reporting adjusted analysis; (2) differences in cardiogenic shock aetiology and pathophysiology between men and women; (3) sex-related healthcare behaviours and/or systemic bias from clinicians leading to women presenting at a more advanced stage of cardiogenic shock; (4) differential therapeutic effects causing women to derive less benefit from treatments than men; and (5) implicit bias from treating healthcare professionals leading to less aggressive treatment of cardiogenic shock in women.

Included studies reported that women who develop cardiogenic shock are older [13, 15, 21, 26, 48, 63] and have more comorbidities [13, 26, 63, 72]. Men with AMI-cardiogenic shock are more likely to have obstructive coronary disease, whereas women are more likely to have non-obstructive coronary arteries with other comorbidities, which may predispose them to poorer outcomes [99]. Despite men representing most patients with AMI-cardiogenic shock, women have a higher risk of developing cardiogenic shock post-AMI compared to men. Women with obstructed coronary arteries may have more diffuse disease less amenable to angiographic intervention [100]. Given that successful revascularisation of the culprit vessel(s) is strongly associated with survival in AMI-cardiogenic shock [101], this may contribute to its increased incidence and mortality in women. Sex differences in heart failure aetiology and in cardiac function have also been described in patients with chronic heart failure [102].

It is likely that women have different aetiologies of cardiogenic shock than men. Mechanical complications of AMI such as ventricular septal defect formation and papillary muscle rupture are more common in women [103]. Several non-AMI causes of de novo heart failure are more common in women, including Takutsubo syndrome, peripartum cardiomyopathy, myocarditis and valvular aetiologies [4, 15, 33, 41, 104]. Although outcomes in different de novo aetiologies vary, with better outcomes in patients with CS secondary to Takotsubo syndrome [105], recent registry data report higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores and more common presentations of SCAI E stage of CS in de novo CS compared to acute-on-chronic HF-CS, with higher associated in-hospital mortality [106]. This may be attributed to the absence of validated treatments assessed in large randomised trials to manage such patients.

Women with cardiogenic shock may have greater shock severity at presentation. Female patients have lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure on presentation, and across all aetiologies are more likely to present in the most severe (Extremis) Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage of cardiogenic shock [14, 15, 33, 41]. This finding itself is likely multifactorial: whilst contrary to some traditional teaching, women are equally likely as men to experience ‘classical’ symptoms of STEMI with chest pain, they may be less likely to perceive these as those of a heart attack [107]. Women are less likely to be correctly diagnosed with STEMI pre-hospital and triaged to an appropriate hospital [108], and have longer symptom-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time than men [109]. Delay in recognition of cardiogenic shock as the cause of deterioration in women is likely to correlate with worse physiological derangement at presentation.

Less aggressive treatment of women with cardiogenic shock may lead to higher mortality. Women with AMI-cardiogenic shock have been shown to be less likely to receive revascularisation [11, 109]. The data herein demonstrate that women with all-cause cardiogenic shock are less likely to receive MCS. Clinicians may be less likely to pursue MCS in women with cardiogenic shock due to their baseline differences including older age, comorbid disease and increased frailty. In some jurisdictions, women with cardiogenic shock are more often from more deprived socioeconomic groups, which may consciously or unconsciously affect decision-making [110].

The evidence base for treatment of cardiogenic shock derives almost entirely from men: the proportion of women enrolled in the eight included RCTs (Table 2) ranges from 19 to 35%. In the three trials to date which have reported a survival benefit from an intervention in AMI-related cardiogenic shock, the benefit was seen only in the male patients. In DANGER-SHOCK, the relative risk for mortality with a pVAD was 1.01 (0.58–1.79) in women compared to 0.67 (0.47–0.93) for men [58]; in CULPRIT-SHOCK the relative risk for mortality with culprit vs. complete revascularisation in women was 1.02 (0.77–1.35) compared to 0.76 (0.64–0.91) in men [72]. The SHOCK trial (revascularisation vs. medical therapy) was not included in our analysis as sex-specific mortality data was unavailable, but also reported a statistically significant benefit for revascularisation in men but no significant benefit in women with a relative risk > 1 [111].

It is possible that these discrepancies are due to the low enrolment of women in RCTs and hence inadequate statistical power to detect benefit of these interventions in women. However, there could also be factors which cause women to derive less benefit from revascularisation and/or MCS than men. Revascularisation may be more challenging in women for the reasons listed above. Complications of MCS, specifically bleeding and limb ischaemia, occur more frequently in women [112, 113], who are more likely to have smaller vessel size, smaller body surface area, and altered haemocompatibility. These factors may contribute to conscious or unconscious bias against the provision of advanced therapies to women.

There are further potential systemic biases against female patients in acute cardiovascular care. Several guidelines for escalation of therapy in cardiogenic shock use haemodynamic and biochemical thresholds extracted from analysis of databases with predominantly male patients. As demonstrated, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular disease trials [114], the results of which eventually comprise the basis of clinical guidelines including the SCAI classification of CS. The disparity in the outcome between male and female sex has been noted in the SCAI consensus on sex specific considerations in myocardial revascularisation with recommendations to create sex-based algorithms [115]. It may be that, given the results of our study, a similar approach is required to address disparities in evidence and in receipt of treatment, promote awareness of cardiovascular disease in women and to close the “sex gap” in cardiogenic shock [116].

Limitations

Several factors limit the conclusions we can draw from our meta-analysis. Our inclusion of studies from over a twenty-year period led to a large cohort, however this may limit applicability to current practice particularly as cardiogenic shock definitions and therapeutic strategies have evolved over this period.

Although included studies originated from six continents, the majority of our data is derived from countries with access to advanced resources with established preventive public health policies. Most included studies were conducted in tertiary cardiac centres. There was limited evidence from non-specialised units which limits applicability of our findings to this setting. Most included studies assessed patients with AMI- cardiogenic shock, which is not reflective of the contemporary increasing prevalence of cardiogenic shock due to other causes. There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis on HF-cardiogenic shock adjusted mortality. We were unable to access individual patient data for the included studies, and thus were unable to stratify data by age, race, or comorbidities which may have limited the conclusions we can draw regarding causes of the observed differences in women and men.

Our meta-analysis on adjusted mortality is limited by moderate likelihood of publication bias, however, if reported, the missing studies would in fact strengthen the observed effect size. Given the lack of an international consensus definition of cardiogenic shock, inclusion criteria and definition of cardiogenic shock definitions may have differed among included studies. The reliability of our mortality analysis is limited by inconsistent definitions of mortality used by included studies. Our mortality endpoint comprises a combination of in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Furthermore, our meta-analysis does not provide information about long-term morbidity and mortality or other patient-centred outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis found increased in-hospital mortality and lower temporary MCS use in cardiogenic shock amongst female patients when compared to male patients. While this may be due to women presenting later in the disease course and a higher comorbidity burden, we cannot exclude the effect of implicit clinician bias. Further research is required to address the causes of this disparity and on how outcomes can be improved to ensure equitable management and access to therapies for women.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated are publicly available in our Supplementary Data File.

References

  1. Osman M, Syed M, Patibandla S, Sulaiman S, Kheiri B, Shah MK, et al. Fifteen-year trends in incidence of cardiogenic shock hospitalization and in-hospital mortality in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc Cardiovasc Cerebrovasc Dis. 2021;10:e021061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Naidu SS, Baran DA, Jentzer JC, Hollenberg SM, van Diepen S, Basir MB, et al. SCAI SHOCK stage classification expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79:933–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, Mujib M, Palaniswamy C, Sule S, et al. Trends in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000590.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, Katz JN, Alviar CL, Baird-Zars VM, et al. Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12:e005618.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Tavazzi G, Rossello X, Grand J, Gierlotka M, Sionis A, Ahrens I, et al. Epidemiology, monitoring, and treatment strategy in cardiogenic shock. A multinational cross-sectional survey of ESC-acute cardiovascular care association research section. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2022;11:706–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Karlsson V, Dankiewicz J, Nielsen N, Kern KB, Mooney MR, Riker RR, et al. Association of gender to outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest—a report from the International Cardiac Arrest Registry. Crit Care. 2015;19:182.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Pancholy SB, Shantha GPS, Patel T, Cheskin LJ. Sex differences in short-term and long-term all-cause mortality among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous intervention: a meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:1822–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gerber Y, Weston SA, Redfield MM, Chamberlain AM, Manemann SM, Jiang R, et al. A contemporary appraisal of the heart failure epidemic in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 2000 to 2010. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:996–1004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Levy D, Kenchaiah S, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, Kupka MJ, Ho KKL, et al. Long-term trends in the incidence of and survival with heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1397–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McNicholas BA, Madotto F, Pham T, Rezoagli E, Masterson CH, Horie S, et al. Demographics, management and outcome of females and males with acute respiratory distress syndrome in the LUNG SAFE prospective cohort study. Eur Respir J. 2019;54:1900609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ya’qoub L, Lemor A, Dabbagh M, O’Neill W, Khandelwal A, Martinez SC, et al. Racial, ethnic, and sex disparities in patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14:653–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ton VK, Kanwar MK, Li B, Blumer V, Li S, Zweck E, et al. Impact of female sex on cardiogenic shock outcomes a cardiogenic shock working group report. JACC Heart Fail. 2023;11:1742–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Elgendy IY, Wegermann ZK, Li S, Mahtta D, Grau-Sepulveda M, Smilowitz NR, et al. Sex differences in management and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. Jacc Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15:642–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lozano-Jiménez S, Iranzo-Valero R, Segovia-Cubero J, Gómez-Bueno M, Rivas-Lasarte M, Mitroi C, et al. Gender differences in cardiogenic shock patients: clinical features, risk prediction, and outcomes in a hub center. Fron Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:912802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Yan I, Schrage B, Weimann J, Dabboura S, Hilal R, Beer BN, et al. Sex differences in patients with cardiogenic shock. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8:1775–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Joseph SM, Brisco MA, Colvin M, Grady KL, Walsh MN, Cook JL, et al. Women with cardiogenic shock derive greater benefit from early mechanical circulatory support: an update from the cVAD registry. J Interv Cardiol. 2016;29:248–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, Group for the MOOS in E (MOOSE). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–12.

  18. Berger PB, Tuttle RH, Jr DRH, Topol EJ, Aylward PE, Horgan JH, et al. One-year survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, and its relation to early revascularization. Circulation. 1999;99:873–8.

  19. Aissaoui N, Puymirat E, Simon T, Bonnefoy-Cudraz E, Angoulvant D, Schiele F, et al. Long-term outcome in early survivors of cardiogenic shock at the acute stage of myocardial infarction: a landmark analysis from the French registry of Acute ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) Registry. Crit Care. 2014;18:516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 4 July 2023.

  21. Abdel-Qadir HM, Ivanov J, Austin PC, Tu JV, Džavík V. Sex differences in the management and outcomes of Ontario patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Can J Cardiol. 2013;29:691–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Alexander JH, TRIMPH Investigators, Reynolds HR, Stebbins AL, Dzavik V, Harrington RA, et al. Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;297:1657–66.

  23. Antoniucci D, Migliorini A, Moschi G, Valenti R, Trapani M, Parodi G, et al. Does gender affect the clinical outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention? Cathet Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;59:423–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Arnold JH, Perl L, Assali A, Codner P, Greenberg G, Samara A, et al. The impact of sex on cardiogenic shock outcomes following ST elevation myocardial infarction. J Clin Med. 2023;12:6259.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Backhaus T, Wienbergen H, Fach A, Schmucker J, Fiehn E, Garstka D, et al. Management and outcome of patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction in actual clinical practice: How important is a successful revascularisation?. Eur Heart J. 2016;2016(37):191–598.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bloom JE, Andrew E, Nehme Z, Beale A, Dawson LP, Shi WY, et al. Gender disparities in cardiogenic shock treatment and outcomes. Am J Cardiol. 2022;177:14–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Brahmbhatt D, Vishram J, Scolari F, Wang V, Overgaard C, Luk A. Female patients experience higher mortality and reduced utilisation of mechanical circulatory support and cardiac transplantation after cardiogenic shock. 2022. P. 3–282.

  28. Costa YC, Delfino F, Mauro V, D’Imperio H, Barrero C, Charask A, et al. Clinical characteristics and evolution of patients with cardiogenic shock in Argentina in the context of an acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation. Data from the nationwide ARGEN-IAM-ST Registry. Curr Prob Cardiol. 2023;48:101468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chong S-Z, Fang C-Y, Fang H-Y, Chen H-C, Chen C-J, Yang C-H, et al. Associations with the in-hospital survival following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult acute fulminant myocarditis. J Clin Med. 2018;7:452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Collado-Lledó E, Llaó I, Rivas-Lasarte M, González-Fernández V, Noriega FJ, Hernández-Perez FJ, et al. Clinical picture, management and risk stratification in patients with cardiogenic shock: Does gender matter? BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2020;20:189.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Doshi R, Patel K, Decter D, Jauhar R, Meraj P. Gender disparities with the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention complicated by cardiogenic shock: from pVAD Working Group. Indian Heart J. 2018;70:S90–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Epps KC, Tehrani BN, Rosner C, Bagchi P, Cotugno A, Damluji AA, et al. Sex-related differences in patient characteristics, hemodynamics, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock: INOVA-SHOCK registry. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023;2:100978.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Fengler K, Fuernau G, Desch S, Eitel I, Neumann F-J, Olbrich H-G, et al. Gender differences in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015;104:71–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gul B, Bellumkonda L. Usefulness of intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123:750–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guo C, Teng H, Zhang J, Li J, Xu H, Wang X, et al. Gender difference in efficacy of intra-aortic balloon pump in acute myocardial infarction patients complicating with cardiogenic shock. Chin J Cardiol. 2020;48:675–81.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Harjola V-P, Lassus J, Sionis A, Køber L, Tarvasmäki T, Spinar J, et al. Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015;17:501–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Helgestad OKL, Josiassen J, Hassager C, Jensen LO, Holmvang L, Udesen NLJ, et al. Contemporary trends in use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with acute MI and cardiogenic shock. Open Heart. 2020;7:e001214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Helgestad OKL, Josiassen J, Hassager C, Jensen LO, Holmvang L, Sørensen A, et al. Temporal trends in incidence and patient characteristics in cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction from 2010 to 2017: a Danish cohort study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21:1370–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Helming A, Cheng J, Vark LV, Kardys I, Uil CAD, Jewbali L, et al. Gender-related differences in outcome of patients with Cardiogenic shock from acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart. 2014.

  40. Isorni M-A, Aissaoui N, Angoulvant D, Bonello L, Lemesle G, Delmas C, et al. Temporal trends in clinical characteristics and management according to sex in patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: the FAST-MI programme. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2018;111:555–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jerónimo A, Ferrández-Escarabajal M, Ferrera C, Noriega FJ, Diz-Díaz J, Fernández-Jiménez R, et al. Cardiogenic shock clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes in patients admitted to the acute cardiac care unit of a tertiary hospital: Does gender play a role? J Clin Med. 2020;9:3117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim Y, Jang WJ, Park IH, Oh JH, Yang JH, Gwon H-C, et al. Prognostic effect of sex according to shock severity in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Hell J Cardiol. 2023.

  43. Klein LW, Shaw RE, Krone RJ, Brindis RG, Anderson HV, Block PC, et al. Mortality after emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction and usefulness of a mortality prediction model. Am J Cardiol. 2005;96:35–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Koeth O, Zahn R, Heer T, Bauer T, Juenger C, Klein B, et al. Gender differences in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Clin Res Cardiol. 2009;98:781–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kołodziej M, Kurzawski J, Janion-Sadowska A, Gierlotka M, Poloński L, Gąsior M, et al. Mortality of women with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock—results from the PL-ACS registry. Med Stud. 2016;3:157–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Krasivskyi I, Ivanov B, Vehrenberg J, Eghbalzadeh K, Gerfer S, Gaisendrees C, et al. Sex-related differences in short-term outcomes after mobile VA-ECMO implantation: five-year experience of an ECMO retrieval program. Life. 2022;12:1746.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Kubo S, Yamaji K, Inohara T, Kohsaka S, Tanaka H, Ishii H, et al. In-hospital outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome with cardiogenic shock (from a Japanese Nationwide Registry [J-PCI Registry]). Am J Cardiol. 2019;123:1595–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Kunadian V, Qiu W, Bawamia B, Veerasamy M, Jamieson S, Zaman A. Gender comparisons in cardiogenic shock during ST elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112:636–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kwon W, Lee SH, Yang JH, Choi KH, Park TK, Lee JM, et al. Impact of the obesity paradox between sexes on in-hospital mortality in cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc. 2022;11:e024143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Lauten A, Engström AE, Jung C, Empen K, Erne P, Cook S, et al. Percutaneous left-ventricular support with the impella-2.5–assist device in acute cardiogenic shock. Circ Heart Fail. 2018;6:23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee KH, Harrison W, Chow KL, Lee M, Kerr AJ. Cardiogenic shock prior to percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: outcomes and predictors of mortality (ANZACS-QI 73). Heart Lung Circ. 2024.

  52. Lopez-Carranza M, Sancho-Fernandez H, Sancez-Roman J, Lucerna F, Campanaria-Garcia A, Loza-Vazquez A, et al. Cardiogenic shock. ARIAM analysis ten years on. ICM Experimental. 2016.

  53. Mamas MA, Anderson SG, Ratib K, Routledge H, Neyses L, Fraser DG, Buchan I, Belder MA de, Ludman P, Nolan J, Society BCI, Research NI for CO. Arterial access site utilization in cardiogenic shock in the United Kingdom: is radial access feasible? Am Heart J 2014;167:900–8.

  54. Manzo-Silberman S, Martin A-C, Boissier F, Hauw-Berlemont C, Aissaoui N, Lamblin N, et al. Investigators for the F. Sex disparities in cardiogenic shock: insights from the FRENSHOCK registry. J Crit Care 2024;82:154785.

  55. Markota A, Sinkovič A. Central venous to arterial pCO2 difference in cardiogenic shock. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2012;124:500–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Matoba T, Sakamoto K, Nakai M, Ichimura K, Mohri M, Tsujita Y, et al. Institutional characteristics and prognosis of acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock in Japan—analysis from the JROAD/JROAD-DPC database. Circ J. 2021;85:1797–805.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mehta S, Fried J, Nemeth S, Kurlansky P, Kaku Y, Melehy A, et al. Society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions shock classification to stratify outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J. 2023;69:352–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Møller JE, Engstrøm T, Jensen LO, Eiskjær H, Mangner N, Polzin A, et al. Microaxial flow pump or standard care in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2024;390:1382–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Muller G, Flecher E, Lebreton G, Luyt C-E, Trouillet J-L, Bréchot N, et al. The ENCOURAGE mortality risk score and analysis of long-term outcomes after VA-ECMO for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:370–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Musiał R, Moncznik P, Śmiałek P, Stoliński J, Sadowski J, Drwiła R. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for short-term mechanical circulation support in adults with cardiogenic shock: a single centre experience. Kardiologia Polska Pol Heart J. 2015;74:1477–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nair RM, Kumar S, Saleem T, Lee R, Higgins A, Khot UN, et al. Impact of age, gender, and body mass index on short-term outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock on mechanical circulatory support. Am J Cardiol. 2024;217:119–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nakamura M, Imamura T, Ueno H, Kinugawa K, et al. Sex-related differences in short-term prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock receiving Impella support in Japan: from the J-PVAD registry. Medicina. 2023;59:1208.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Osman M, Syed M, Kheiri B, Bianco C, Kalra A, Cigarroa JE, et al. Age stratified sex-related differences in incidence, management, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:1984–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ouweneel DM, de Brabander J, Karami M, Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, et al. Real-life use of left ventricular circulatory support with Impella in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: 12 years AMC experience. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;8:338–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Park H, Yang JH, Ahn J, Kang D, Lee PH, Kim TO, et al. Early left atrial venting versus conventional treatment for left ventricular decompression during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: the EVOLVE-ECMO randomized clinical trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2023;25:2037–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Phreaner N, Aldiwani H, Berg D, Park J-G, Katz JN, Diepen SV, et al. Abstract 14420: outcomes in women with cardiogenic shock: data from the critical care cardiology trial network (CCCTN). Circulation. 2020;142.

  67. Pöss J, Mahfoud F, Seiler S, Heine GH, Fliser D, Böhm M, et al. FGF-23 is associated with increased disease severity and early mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2013;2:211–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Prosperi-Porta G, Motazedian P, Santo PD, Jung RG, Parlow S, Abdel-Razek O, et al. No sex-based difference in cardiogenic shock: a post-hoc analysis of the DOREMI trial. J Cardiol. 2022;80:358–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Rathod KS, Koganti S, Jain AK, Rakhit R, Dalby MC, Lockie T, et al. Complete versus culprit only revascularisation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: incidence and outcomes from the London Heart Attack Group. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21:350–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Roehnisch J, Maier B, Behrens S, Schoeller R, Schuehlen H, Stockburger M, et al. ACS patients in shock: Who dies and who does not die? Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7:4–361.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Rossello X, Vila M, Rivas-Lasarte M, Ferrero-Gregori A, Sans-Roselló J, Duran-Cambra A, et al. Impact of pulmonary artery catheter use on short- and long-term mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. Cardiology. 2016;136:61–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Rubini-Gimenez M, Zeymer U, Desch S, de Waha-Thiele S, Ouarrak T, Pöss J, et al. Sex-specific management in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:e008537.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schmitt A, Schupp T, Rusnak J, Ruka M, Egner-Walter S, Mashayekhi K, et al. Does sex affect the risk of 30-day all-cause mortality in cardiogenic shock? Int J Cardiol. 2023;381:105–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, Werner N, Sinning J-M, Pappalardo F, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation. 2019;139:1249–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Schrage B, Becher PM, Bernhardt A, Bezerra H, Blankenberg S, Brunner S, et al. Left ventricular unloading is associated with lower mortality in cardiogenic shock patients treated with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: results from an International Multicenter Cohort Study. Circulation. 2020;142:2095–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Sederholm-Lawesson S, Venetsanos D, Fredriksson M, Jernberg T, Johnston N, Ravn-Fischer A, et al. A gender perspective on incidence, management, short- and long term outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction—a report from the SWEDEHEART register. Eur Heart J 2019;40.

  77. Shah T, Chou J, Grines C, Chieffo A, Bellumkonda L, Sugeng L, et al. Impact of sex and timing of Impella support in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:B78–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Sharma YP, Krishnappa D, Kanabar K, Kasinadhuni G, Sharma R, Kishore K, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome in patients with a delayed presentation after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and complicated by cardiogenic shock. Indian Heart J. 2019;71:387–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Shin D-G, Shin S-D, Han D, Kang M-K, Lee S-H, Kim J, et al. Features of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation relative to cardiogenic shock onset: a single-centre experience. Medicina. 2021;57:886.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Vis MM, Boom W, Baan J, de Winter RJ, et al. Efficacy and timing of intra-aortic counterpulsation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Neth Heart J. 2012;20:402–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Sobieraj M, Singh A, Khawaja T, Scatola A, Gjonaj J, Meraj P. Gender disparities in survival outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock treated with advanced mechanical circulatory support. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:B809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sundermeyer J, Kellner C, Beer BN, Besch L, Dettling A, Bertoldi LF, et al. Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure–related cardiogenic shock. Clin Res Cardiol. 2024;113:612–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Takagi K, Blet A, Levy B, Deniau B, Azibani F, Feliot E, et al. Circulating dipeptidyl peptidase 3 and alteration in haemodynamics in cardiogenic shock: results from the OptimaCC trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22:279–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Akin I, Behnes M, Rassaf T, Mahabadi AA, et al. Extracorporeal life support in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:1286–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Torgersen C, Schmittinger CA, Wagner S, Ulmer H, Takala J, Jakob SM, et al. Hemodynamic variables and mortality in cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2009;13:R157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Truong C, Hamden R, Krause TM, Aguilar D, Patnaik S, Tung P, et al. Geographical and baseline characteristics among Medicare beneficiaries who experienced cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Tsai M-L, Hsieh M-J, Chen C-C, Wu VC-C, Lan W-C, Huang Y-T, et al. Prognosis of patients with cardiogenic shock following acute myocardial infarction: the difference between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Medicine. 2022;101:e30426.

  88. Tsao N-W, Shih C-M, Yeh J-S, Kao Y-T, Hsieh M-H, Ou K-L, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation–assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention may improve survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by profound cardiogenic shock. J Crit Care. 2012;27:530.e1-530.e11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Vaknin-Assa H, Perl L, Codner P, Grinberg G, Samara A, Orvin K, et al. The impact of sex on clinical cardiogenic shock outcomes following ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:S5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Valente S, Lazzeri C, Vecchio S, Giglioli C, Margheri M, Bernardo P, et al. Predictors of in-hospital mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock. Int J Cardiol. 2007;114:176–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Wang AS, Nemeth S, Vinogradsky A, Kurlansky P, Brodie D, Fried J, et al. Disparities in the treatment of cardiogenic shock: does sex matter? Eur J Cardio-Thorac. 2022;62:ezac543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Wang Y, Liu L, Li X, Dang Y, Li Y, Wang J, et al. Nomogram for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol. 2022;2022:8994106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Warren A, McCall P, Proudfoot A, Gillon S, Abu-Arafeh A, McKnight AJ, et al. EPidemiology Of Cardiogenic sHock in Scotland (EPOCHS): a multicentre, prospective observational study of the prevalence, management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock in Scotland. J Intensive Care Soc. 2023;25:147–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Wayangankar SA, Bangalore S, McCoy LA, Jneid H, Latif F, Karrowni W, et al. Temporal trends and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions for cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction a report from the CathPCI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:341–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Wong SC, Sleeper LA, Monrad ES, Menegus MA, Palazzo A, Dzavik V, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:1395–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Yoo J, Jeong M, Ahn Y, Park S, Park K, Sim D, et al. Long-term clinical follow-up in survivors undergoing successful PCI in the patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. EuroPCR 2013. 2013.

  97. Zhang RL, Richards TJ, Bhama JK, Sappington PL, Esper SA, Teuteberg JJ, et al. Mortality differences between men and women following the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) after myocardial infarction. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:S247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Zhao N, Pan Z, Yang Q, Chen J, Ruan D, Huang M, et al. Effect of sex on the association between arterial partial pressure of oxygen and in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Transl Med. 2022;0:0–0.

  99. Lawless M, Appelman Y, Beltrame JF, Navarese EP, Ratcovich H, Wilkinson C, et al. Sex differences in treatment and outcomes amongst myocardial infarction patients presenting with and without obstructive coronary arteries: a prospective multicentre study. Eur Hear J Open. 2023;3:oead033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Makaryus AN, Sison C, Kohansieh M, Makaryus JN. Implications of gender difference in coronary calcification as assessed by CT coronary angiography. Clin Med Insights: Cardiol 2014;8s4:CMC.S18764.

  101. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, Fuernau G, de Waha S, de, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2419–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Regitz-Zagrosek V. Sex and gender differences in heart failure. Int J Heart Fail. 2020;2:157–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Damluji AA, van Diepen S, Katz JN, Menon V, Tamis-Holland JE, Bakitas M, et al. On mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;144:e16–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Murakami T, Komiyama T, Kobayashi H, Ikari Y. Gender differences in takotsubo syndrome. Biology. 2022;11:653.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Vallabhajosyula S, Dunlay SM, Murphree DH, Barsness GW, Sandhu GS, Lerman A, et al. Cardiogenic shock in takotsubo cardiomyopathy versus acute myocardial infarction an 8-year national perspective on clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes. JACC: Heart Fail 2019;7:469–476.

  106. Bhatt AS, Berg DD, Bohula EA, Alviar CL, Baird-Zars VM, Barnett CF, et al. De Novo vs acute-on-chronic presentations of heart failure-related cardiogenic shock: insights from the critical care cardiology trials network registry. J Card Fail. 2021;27:1073–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Lichtman JH, Leifheit EC, Safdar B, Bao H, Krumholz HM, Lorenze NP, et al. Sex differences in the presentation and perception of symptoms among young patients with myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2018;137:781–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Mahmoud KD, Gu YL, Nijsten MW, de Vos R, Nieuwland W, Zijlstra F, et al. Interhospital transfer due to failed prehospital diagnosis for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: an observational study on incidence, predictors, and clinical impact. Eur Heart J: Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2013;2:166–75.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Babiolakis CS, Sharma S, Sayed N, Abunassar JG, Haseeb S, Abuzeid W. The effect of sex on door-to-balloon time in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;37:120–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Vallabhajosyula S, Ya’Qoub L, Singh M, Bell MR, Gulati R, Cheungpasitporn W, et al. Sex disparities in the management and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction in the young. Circ Heart Fail. 2020;13:007154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. New Engl J Med. 1999;341:625–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Freund A, Jobs A, Lurz P, Feistritzer H-J, de Waha-Thiele S, Meyer-Saraei R, et al. Frequency and impact of bleeding on outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock. JACC: Cardiovasc Interv 2020;13:1182–93.

  113. Lemor A, Dabbagh MF, Cohen D, Villablanca P, Tehrani B, Alaswad K, et al. Rates and impact of vascular complications in mechanical circulatory support. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:1702–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Jin X, Chandramouli C, Allocco B, Gong E, Lam CSP, Yan LL. Women’s participation in cardiovascular clinical trials from 2010 to 2017. Circulation. 2020;141:540–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Lansky A, Baron SJ, Grines CL, Tremmel JA, Al-Lamee R, Angiolillo DJ, et al. SCAI expert consensus statement on sex-specific considerations in myocardial revascularization. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2022;1:100016.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Vogel B, Tycinska A, Sambola A. Cardiogenic shock in women—a review and call to action. Int J Cardiol. 2023;386:98–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Article Processing Charges for Open Access Publication are covered from Alastair Proudfoot’s funding from Medical Research Council (MR/W03011X/1). Dr Alastair Proudfoot also receives funding from Barts Charity. Krishnaraj Rathod receives funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The rest of the authors do not declare any source of funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Thomas Fisher, Nicole Hill and Antonis Kalakoutas are joint first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Rd, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK

    Thomas Fisher

  2. Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath, Avon, BA1 3NG, UK

    Nicole Hill

  3. Barts Health NHS Trust, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK

    Antonis Kalakoutas, Krishnaraj Rathod, Alastair Proudfoot & Alex Warren

  4. Barts Health Library Services, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK

    Assad Lahlou

  5. William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and The London Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK

    Krishnaraj Rathod

  6. Critical Care and Perioperative Medicine Group, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University London, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK

    Alastair Proudfoot & Alex Warren

  7. Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA, UK

    Alex Warren

Authors
  1. Thomas Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonis Kalakoutas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Assad Lahlou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Krishnaraj Rathod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alastair Proudfoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alex Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The study was conceptualised by A.W, A.P., T.F., N.H., A.K. The full search strategy was developed in conjunction with A.W. and A.L. Literature was screened by T.F., N.H. and A.K. Arbitration of discrepancies and full-text review was undertaken by A.W. Risk of Bias was assessed by T.F., N.H., and A.K with arbitration by A.W. Data was collected and analysed by A.W. Manuscript was written, drafted and reviewed by T.F., N.K., A.K., A.P., K.R, A.W.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alex Warren.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

‘Human Ethics and Consent to Participate declarations: not applicable’. Study pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022380480).

Consent for publication

All authors have approved of and have consented to submit the final version of this manuscript to this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fisher, T., Hill, N., Kalakoutas, A. et al. Sex differences in treatments and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and epidemiological meta-analysis. Crit Care 28, 192 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04973-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04973-5

Keywords

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535