Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38845019›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2024

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

Thomas Fisher, Nicole Hill, Antonis Kalakoutas, Assad Lahlou, Krishnaraj Rathod, Alastair Proudfoot, Alex Warren

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Sex disparities in revascularization strategies and mortality in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Patient selection for complex, high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention procedures: an overview.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Sex-related presentation, outcome, and treatment in CICU: the SPOTlight STUDY.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Sex matters: Is it time for a SOFA makeover?Critical care (London, England) · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Thomas Fisher *North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Rd, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Nicole Hill *Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Combe Park, Bath, Avon, BA1 3NG, UK.
Antonis Kalakoutas *Barts Health NHS Trust, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
Assad LahlouBarts Health Library Services, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
Krishnaraj RathodBarts Health NHS Trust, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
Alastair ProudfootBarts Health NHS Trust, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
Alex WarrenBarts Health NHS Trust, W Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE, UK. alex.warren@nhs.net.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/W03011X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen 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).

conclusionEven 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.

Indexed as

Shock, CardiogenicFemaleHumansMaleSex FactorsTreatment OutcomeCardiogenic shockEpidemiologyMechanical circulatory supportMyocardial infarctionSex differences

Identifiers

PMID38845019
PMCPMC11157877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.