Racial Disparities in Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: Single-Center Retrospective Study.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Rafik I Issa, Sarah K Adie, Vince D Marshall, Scott W Ketcham, Matthew C Konerman
{"title":"Racial Disparities in Cardiogenic Shock Outcomes: Single-Center Retrospective Study.","authors":"Rafik I Issa, Sarah K Adie, Vince D Marshall, Scott W Ketcham, Matthew C Konerman","doi":"10.4037/ajcc2025563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Race influences outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, the impact of race on cardiogenic shock outcomes is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to a cardiac intensive care unit for cardiogenic shock from June 2019 through June 2023. For analysis, patients were divided into 3 racial groups: White, Black, and other. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, admission source, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were collected. Primary outcomes were hospital and cardiac intensive care unit mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital and cardiac intensive care unit lengths of stay and temporary mechanical circulatory support use. Propensity score weighting was used; pairwise comparisons between each group were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 2458 patients (1959 White, 327 Black, 172 other). Black patients were younger, were less likely to be admitted from the emergency department (and more likely to be admitted from inpatient wards), and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than patients in the other 2 groups. Propensity-weighted pairwise comparisons demonstrated no significant differences in hospital and cardiac intensive care unit mortality. However, Black patients had significantly longer hospital (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; P < .001) and cardiac intensive care unit (incidence rate ratio, 1.33; P = .03) stays than did White patients but not patients in the \"other\" group. Temporary mechanical circulatory support use did not differ among groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results highlight disparities in clinical management of cardiogenic shock and the need for further research to address these inequities.</p>","PeriodicalId":7607,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Critical Care","volume":"34 5","pages":"385-389"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2025563","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Race influences outcomes in patients with cardiovascular diseases. However, the impact of race on cardiogenic shock outcomes is unclear.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to a cardiac intensive care unit for cardiogenic shock from June 2019 through June 2023. For analysis, patients were divided into 3 racial groups: White, Black, and other. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, admission source, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were collected. Primary outcomes were hospital and cardiac intensive care unit mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital and cardiac intensive care unit lengths of stay and temporary mechanical circulatory support use. Propensity score weighting was used; pairwise comparisons between each group were performed.

Results: The analysis included 2458 patients (1959 White, 327 Black, 172 other). Black patients were younger, were less likely to be admitted from the emergency department (and more likely to be admitted from inpatient wards), and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than patients in the other 2 groups. Propensity-weighted pairwise comparisons demonstrated no significant differences in hospital and cardiac intensive care unit mortality. However, Black patients had significantly longer hospital (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; P < .001) and cardiac intensive care unit (incidence rate ratio, 1.33; P = .03) stays than did White patients but not patients in the "other" group. Temporary mechanical circulatory support use did not differ among groups.

Conclusions: The results highlight disparities in clinical management of cardiogenic shock and the need for further research to address these inequities.

心源性休克结果的种族差异:单中心回顾性研究。
背景:种族影响心血管疾病患者的预后。然而,种族对心源性休克结果的影响尚不清楚。方法:本回顾性队列研究纳入了2019年6月至2023年6月期间因心源性休克入住心脏重症监护病房的成年患者。为了进行分析,患者被分为3个种族组:白人、黑人和其他种族。收集基线人口统计学、合并症、入院来源和序贯器官衰竭评估评分。主要结局是医院和心脏重症监护病房的死亡率。次要结果是住院和心脏重症监护病房的住院时间和临时机械循环支持的使用。采用倾向得分加权法;各组间进行两两比较。结果:共纳入2458例患者(白人1959例,黑人327例,其他172例)。黑人患者更年轻,从急诊科入院的可能性更小(从住院病房入院的可能性更大),顺序器官衰竭评估评分高于其他两组患者。倾向加权两两比较显示医院和心脏重症监护病房死亡率无显著差异。然而,黑人患者的住院时间(发病率比,1.31;P < .001)和心脏重症监护病房(发病率比,1.33;P = .03)明显长于白人患者,但“其他”组患者没有。临时机械循环支架的使用在各组间无差异。结论:结果突出了心源性休克临床管理的差异,需要进一步的研究来解决这些不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
103
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The editors of the American Journal of Critical Care (AJCC) invite authors to submit original manuscripts describing investigations, advances, or observations from all specialties related to the care of critically and acutely ill patients. Papers promoting collaborative practice and research are encouraged. Manuscripts will be considered on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and have been submitted solely to AJCC.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信