Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant mortality, and there is a movement towards regional 'hub-and-spoke' triage systems to coordinate care and resources. Limited data exist on outcomes of patients treated at CS transfer hubs.

No abstract

Introduction: There is lack of information regarding the mortality benefits between different medications in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Purpose: We aimed to identify if there is any difference in mortality between the use of different rate controlling medications in patients with permanent AF. Methods: We identified patients with permanent AF without history of heart failure (HF) by using the TriNetX research database which provides information from electronic medical records from several health care institutions primarily based in the United States. Patients were divided in 4 cohorts, those taking metoprolol, diltiazem, carvedilol, or atenolol. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to equilibrate the cohorts based on past medical history and medications. The cohorts were compared amongst each other after PSM. Results: There was no difference in mortality, emergency room visits, or hospitalizations with the use of different rate-controlling medications. Conclusion: This study suggests that there is no difference in mortality with the use of metoprolol, carvedilol, atenolol, or diltiazem in patients with permanent AF without history of HF.