Back

Sex Differences in Mortality and Treatment Utilization Across Cardiogenic Shock Phenotypes: A National Cohort Study

Alencar, A. P.; li, x.; Sawant, A.; Ibrahim, A.; Bashir, M.; Bandi, V.; Bhatt, K.; Jalil, A.; Chennareddy, V.

2026-05-27 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.05.26.26354172 medRxiv
Show abstract

Abstract Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous syndrome with diverse etiologies, treatment pathways, and outcomes. Prior studies of sex differences in CS have largely focused on acute myocardial infarction-related CS or evaluated CS as a single entity. Whether sex-based differences in outcomes and treatment utilization vary across distinct CS phenotypes remains incompletely defined. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative all-payer database of United States hospitalizations. Adult hospitalizations with CS were identified using ICD-10-CM code R57.0 and categorized into clinically relevant phenotypes, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), arrhythmia-related shock, myocarditis/Takotsubo, valvular disease, and other etiologies. Survey-weighted analyses accounting for the complex sampling design were used for primary analyses. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and mechanical ventilation. Propensity score-matched analyses were performed as sensitivity analyses. Results Among 254,691 weighted CS hospitalizations, 158,747 (62.3%) occurred in men and 95,896 (37.7%) in women. In survey-weighted analyses, women had higher in-hospital mortality in AMI-related CS (36.1% versus 31.3%; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.19-1.28), HF-related CS (30.5% versus 25.8%; OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30), and arrhythmia-related CS (37.3% versus 31.6%; OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.20-1.38). Women were less likely to receive ECMO (2.4% versus 2.9%), IABP/Impella (13.1% versus 18.9%), or any MCS (14.6% versus 20.4%), but were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation (44.9% versus 42.9%). In propensity-matched analyses, mortality differences were attenuated but persisted in AMI-related, HF-related, and valvular CS. Conclusions Sex differences in CS outcomes and treatment utilization are strongly phenotype dependent. Women experienced higher mortality in major CS phenotypes while receiving less advanced mechanical circulatory support. These findings support early recognition, rapid phenotype classification, and sex-conscious but non-delayed escalation strategies for women with CS.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
39.7%
2
Circulation
66 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.2%
4
Circulation: Heart Failure
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
5
International Journal of Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
6
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
7
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
8
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
42 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.9%
10
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
11
Critical Care Explorations
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.7%
13
The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Heart Rhythm
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
15
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
16
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.9%
17
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
18
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.7%
19
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
20
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
21
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.5%