Literature DB >> 31925996

Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock.

Benedikt Schrage1,2, Salim Dabboura1, Isabell Yan1, Rafel Hilal1, Johannes T Neumann1,2, Nils A Sörensen1,2, Alina Goßling1, Peter Moritz Becher1, Hanno Grahn1, Tobias Wagner1, Moritz Seiffert1, Stefan Kluge3, Hermann Reichenspurner4, Stefan Blankenberg1,2, Dirk Westermann1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have recently proposed a new classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) dividing patients into five subgroups.
OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to apply the SCAI classification to a cohort of patients presenting with CS and to evaluate its ability to predict 30-day survival.
METHODS: SCAI CS subgroups were interpreted based on the recent consensus statement and then applied to N = 1,007 consecutive patients presenting with CS or large myocardial infarction (MI) between October 2009 and October 2017. The association between SCAI classification and 30-day all-cause mortality was assessed by logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS: Mean age in the study cohort was 67 (±15) years, 72% were male. Mean lactate at baseline was 6.05 (±5.13) mmol/l and 51% of the patients had prior cardiac arrest. Overall survival probability was 50.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 47.5-54.0%). In view of the SCAI classification, the survival probability was 96.4% (95% CI 93.7-99.0%) in class A, 66.1% (95% CI 50.2-87.1%) in class B, 46.1% (95% CI 40.6-52.4%) in class C, 33.1% (95% CI 26.6-41.1%) in class D, and 22.6% (95% CI 17.1-30.0%) in class E. Higher SCAI classification was significantly associated with lower 30-day survival (p < .01).
CONCLUSION: In this large clinical cohort, the SCAI classification was significantly associated with 30-day survival. This finding supports the rationale of the SCAI CS classification and calls for a validation in a prospective trial.
© 2020 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SCAI; cardiogenic shock; classification

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31925996     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28707

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  22 in total

Review 1.  Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories.

Authors:  Behnam N Tehrani; Abdulla A Damluji; Wayne B Batchelor
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2022

2.  Cardiogenic Shock From Heart Failure Versus Acute Myocardial Infarction: Clinical Characteristics, Hospital Course, and 1-Year Outcomes.

Authors:  Shashank S Sinha; Carolyn M Rosner; Behnam N Tehrani; Aneel Maini; Alexander G Truesdell; Seiyon Ben Lee; Pramita Bagchi; James Cameron; Abdulla A Damluji; Mehul Desai; Shashank S Desai; Kelly C Epps; Christopher deFilippi; M Casey Flanagan; Leonard Genovese; Hala Moukhachen; James J Park; Mitchell A Psotka; Anika Raja; Palak Shah; Matthew W Sherwood; Ramesh Singh; Daniel Tang; Karl D Young; Timothy Welch; Christopher M O'Connor; Wayne B Batchelor
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 10.447

3.  Vasoactive pharmacologic therapy in cardiogenic shock: a critical review.

Authors:  Rasha Kaddoura; Amr Elmoheen; Ehab Badawy; Mahmoud F Eltawagny; Mohamed A Seif; Khalid Bashir; Amar M Salam
Journal:  J Drug Assess       Date:  2021-07-20

4.  Echocardiographic left ventricular stroke work index: An integrated noninvasive measure of shock severity.

Authors:  Jacob C Jentzer; Brandon M Wiley; Nandan S Anavekar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  The Stages of CS: Clinical and Translational Update.

Authors:  David A Baran; Ashleigh Long; Jacob C Jentzer
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2020-11-14

6.  Right Atrial Pressure Is Associated With Outcomes in Patient With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Authors:  Carlos D Davila; Michele Esposito; Colin S Hirst; Kevin Morine; Lena Jorde; Sarah Newman; Vikram Paruchuri; Evan Whitehead; Katherine L Thayer; Navin K Kapur
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-02-11

7.  Predicting mortality in cardiogenic shock secondary to ACS requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: The ACS-MCS score.

Authors:  Qussay Marashly; Iosif Taleb; Christos P Kyriakopoulos; Elizabeth Dranow; Tara L Jones; Anwar Tandar; Sean D Overton; Joseph E Tonna; Kathleen Stoddard; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Line Kemeyou; Antigone G Koliopoulou; Kevin S Shah; Kimiya Nourian; Tyler J Richins; Tyson S Burnham; Frederick G Welt; Stephen H McKellar; Jose Nativi-Nicolau; Stavros G Drakos
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 8.  Overview of Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) Support for the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Adamantios Tsangaris; Tamas Alexy; Rajat Kalra; Marinos Kosmopoulos; Andrea Elliott; Jason A Bartos; Demetris Yannopoulos
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2021-07-07

9.  Transradial access in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Stratified analysis by shock severity.

Authors:  Behnam N Tehrani; Abdulla A Damluji; Matthew W Sherwood; Carolyn Rosner; Alexander G Truesdell; Kelly C Epps; Edward Howard; Scott D Barnett; Anika Raja; Christopher R deFilippi; Charles E Murphy; Christopher M O'Connor; Wayne B Batchelor
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.585

10.  Patient Characteristics, Treatment and Outcome in Non-Ischemic vs. Ischemic Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  Benedikt Schrage; Jessica Weimann; Salim Dabboura; Isabell Yan; Rafel Hilal; Peter Moritz Becher; Moritz Seiffert; Alexander M Bernhardt; Stefan Kluge; Hermann Reichenspurner; Stefan Blankenberg; Dirk Westermann
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-03-28       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.