Admission Respiratory Support Strategies Amongst Patients with Cardiogenic Shock

Clicks: 6
ID: 322860
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #10 of 28 articles by views in European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory failure frequently complicates cardiogenic shock (CS), yet the optimal initial ventilatory strategy remains uncertain. Whether a noninvasive ventilation (NIV)-first approach is associated with worse outcomes compared to direct invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is unclear. METHODS: We performed a cohort study using a multicenter, nationally representative database including adults with CS who received NIV or IMV on the first hospital day. Patients were categorized as NIV only, direct IMV, or NIV before IMV. Inverse probability of treatment weighting balanced baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Sensitivity analyses excluded mechanical circulatory support and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and additionally incorporated lactate adjustment and entropy weighting. RESULTS: Among 81,892 patients with CS, 13.7% received NIV alone, 81.9% direct IMV, and 4.4% NIV before IMV on the first day of admission. In-hospital mortality was 37.2%, 57.7%, and 52.1%, respectively. After adjustment, IMV and NIV before IMV had higher mortality than NIV (absolute risk difference 11.8%, 95% CI 10.4-13.3, and 12.9%, 95% CI 10.6-15.1; both p<0.001). Mortality did not differ between direct IMV and NIV before IMV (risk difference 1.0%, 95% CI -1.0-3.0; p=0.279). Notably, sensitivity analyses including lactate and when stratified by SCAI D shock showed higher mortality with NIV before IMV compared to direct IMV. CONCLUSIONS: Direct IMV and NIV before IMV were associated with worse outcomes than NIV alone. Results for direct IMV compared to NIV before IMV were not consistent between analyses and support the urgent need for a prospective study of respiratory support strategies.
Reference Key
openalex_W7171546226 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Santiago Callegari, Jose Victor Jimenez, Israel Safiriyu, Alexandra Schwann, Aniket S. Rali, Carlos L Alviar, Guido Tavazzi, Mark Jacobs, Tariq Ali, P. Elliott Miller
Journal European Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ehjacc/zuag103
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.