Association of Mechanical Circulatory Support With In‐Hospital Outcomes in Non‐Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Inpatient Study
Open Access
- 23 July 2026
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Clinical Cardiology
- Vol. 49 (7) , e70416
Abstract
Introduction: Cardiogenic shock (CS) carries high morbidity and mortality. However, evidence for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non‐ischemic CS remains limited, as prior trials have focused on infarct‐related shock. Methods: We performed a retrospective cross‐sectional study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2017–2019), identifying hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis of CS and excluding acute myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into mutually exclusive groups: no MCS, intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) only, Impella only, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only. Primary outcomes were in‐hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), and total hospital cost. Survey‐weighted multivariable models adjusted for demographics, hospital characteristics, and comorbidity burden using Elixhauser and Charlson indices. Results: Among 104 045 hospitalizations, 6040 received MCS. IABP was most common, followed by Impella and ECMO. Among patients receiving a single MCS strategy, overall in‐hospital mortality was 29.5%., with lower mortality in the IABP group (19.9%) compared with Impella (37.4%) and ECMO (44.3%). After adjustment, IABP was associated with lower observed in‐hospital mortality versus no MCS (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53–0.64; p < 0.01), whereas Impella and ECMO showed increased aOR. IABP and ECMO were associated with longer LOS, while Impella was not. All MCS strategies were associated with higher costs, with ECMO showing the greatest increase (cost ratio 3.30, 95% CI 3.12–3.50). Conclusion: In non‐ischemic CS, MCS strategies demonstrate distinct profiles of mortality and resource utilization. IABP was associated with lower observed in‐hospital mortality, whereas all MCS were linked to higher costs, highlighting heterogeneity in outcomes and the need for further research.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Impact of Comorbidity Burden on Outcome in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: A Cardiogenic Shock Working Group analysisEuropean Journal of Heart Failure, 2025
- The Comparative Epidemiology, Pathophysiology and Management of Cardiogenic Shock Associated With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Advanced Heart FailureCanadian Journal of Cardiology, 2025
- MI2AMI-CS: A meta-analysis comparing Impella and IABP outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction-related Cardiogenic ShockInternational Journal of Cardiology, 2024
- Cardiogenic Shock in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: Dynamic Mechanical Circulatory Support and Pathophysiology IllustrationCurrent Problems in Cardiology, 2023
- Clinical Outcomes and Cost Associated With an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic ShockJAMA Internal Medicine, 2022
- Impella Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-AnalysisCardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 2022
- Outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shockCatheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 2021
- Association of Use of an Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device vs Intra-aortic Balloon Pump With In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding Among Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic ShockJAMA, 2020
- Comparison of the Hemodynamic Response to Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Resulting from Acute Myocardial Infarction Versus Acute Decompensated Heart FailureThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2019
- A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping for Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock Caused by Myocardial InfarctionJACC, 2008