Right Heart Catheterization in Cardiogenic Shock Is Associated With Improved Outcomes: Insights From the Nationwide Readmissions Database

Background The usefulness of right heart catherization (RHC) has long been debated, and thus, we aimed to study the real-world impact of the use of RHC in cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results In the Nationwide Readmissions Database using ( ), we identified 236 156 patient hospitalizations with car...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Heart Association 2021-09, Vol.10 (17), p.e019843-e019843
Main Authors: Ranka, Sagar, Mastoris, Ioannis, Kapur, Navin K, Tedford, Ryan J, Rali, Aniket, Acharya, Prakash, Weidling, Robert, Goyal, Amandeep, Sauer, Andrew J, Gupta, Bhanu, Haglund, Nicholas, Gupta, Kamal, Fang, James C, Lindenfeld, JoAnn, Shah, Zubair
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cardiac Catheterization
cardiogenic shock
catheterization
Databases, Factual
Heart Failure - epidemiology
Heart Failure - therapy
Humans
Original Research
outcome
Patient Readmission
readmission
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Shock, Cardiogenic - epidemiology
Shock, Cardiogenic - therapy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The usefulness of right heart catherization (RHC) has long been debated, and thus, we aimed to study the real-world impact of the use of RHC in cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results In the Nationwide Readmissions Database using ( ), we identified 236 156 patient hospitalizations with cardiogenic shock between 2016 and 2017. We sought to evaluate the impact of RHC during index hospitalization on management strategies, complications, and outcomes as well as on 30-day readmission rate. A total 25 840 patients (9.6%) received RHC on index admission. The RHC group had significantly more comorbidities compared with the non-RHC group. During the index admission, the RHC group had lower death (25.8% versus 39.5%,
ISSN:2047-9980
2047-9980
DOI:10.1161/JAHA.120.019843