Literature DB >> 32672388

SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.

Ivan D Hanson1, Travis Tagami1, Ramy Mando1, Abdalla Kara Balla1, Simon R Dixon1, Steven Timmis1, Steven Almany1, Srihari S Naidu2, David Baran3, Alejandro Lemor4, Sarah Gorgis4, William O'Neill4, Mir B Basir4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We applied the cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) shock staging system to patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) who were enrolled in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI).
BACKGROUND: The SCAI shock staging system provides a framework for evaluation of patients with CS based on clinical and hemodynamic parameters, but has not been validated in patients with AMI-CS managed with a contemporary treatment algorithm that incorporates early use of Impella.
METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in NCSI were identified, all of whom were managed with invasive hemodynamic guidance and supported with Impella. Patients were retrospectively categorized into appropriate SCAI shock stages, and outcomes were assessed accordingly.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the analysis; 182 patients (61%) presented in Stage C shock, 25 (8%) in Stage D, and 93 (31%) in Stage E. Survival to hospital discharge was 76, 76, and 58%, respectively (p = .006). Survival was <20% among patients in Stage E at 24 hr, regardless of baseline stage. There was near perfect agreement in shock staging between two independent clinicians at baseline (kappa = 0.975, 95% CI, 0.95-1.00, p < .001) and at 24 hr (kappa = 0.985, 95% CI, 0.77-1.00, p < .001).
CONCLUSION: In patients with AMI-CS enrolled in NCSI, SCAI Shock classification was reproducible, and predicted survival when applied at presentation and at 24 hr.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SCAI shock stage; acute myocardial infarction; cardiogenic shock; impella

Year:  2020        PMID: 32672388     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29139

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


  9 in total

1.  Acute Cardiac Unloading and Recovery: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Acute Cardiac Unloading and REcovery (A-CURE) symposium held on 14 December 2020.

Authors: 
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-03-23

2.  Resources for cardiovascular healthcare associated with 30-day mortality in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Masanobu Ishii; Kenichi Tsujita; Hiroshi Okamoto; Satoshi Koto; Takeshi Nishi; Michikazu Nakai; Yoko Sumita; Yoshitaka Iwanaga; Nobuyoshi Azuma; Satoaki Matoba; Ken-Ichi Hirata; Yutaka Hikichi; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Yuji Ikari; Shiro Uemura
Journal:  Eur Heart J Open       Date:  2021-12-31

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

Review 4.  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

5.  Vasoactive pharmacological management according to SCAI class in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  Nanna Louise Junker Udesen; Ole Kristian Lerche Helgestad; Jakob Josiassen; Christian Hassager; Henrik Frederiksen Højgaard; Louise Linde; Jesper Kjaergaard; Lene Holmvang; Lisette Okkels Jensen; Henrik Schmidt; Hanne Berg Ravn; Jacob Eifer Møller
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Application of the SCAI classification to admission of patients with cardiogenic shock: Analysis of a tertiary care center in a middle-income country.

Authors:  Héctor González-Pacheco; Rodrigo Gopar-Nieto; Diego Araiza-Garaygordobil; José Luis Briseño-Cruz; Guering Eid-Lidt; Jorge Arturo Ortega-Hernandez; Daniel Sierra-Lara; Alfredo Altamirano-Castillo; Salvador Mendoza-García; Daniel Manzur-Sandoval; Klayder Melissa Aguilar-Montaño; Heriberto Ontiveros-Mercado; Jorge Iván García-Espinosa; Pablo Esteban Pérez-Pinetta; Alexandra Arias-Mendoza
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-16       Impact factor: 3.752

7.  PRospective REgistry of PAtients in REfractory cardiogenic shock-The PREPARE CardShock registry.

Authors:  Dirk von Lewinski; Lukas Herold; Christian Stoffel; Sascha Pätzold; Friedrich Fruhwald; Siegfried Altmanninger-Sock; Ewald Kolesnik; Markus Wallner; Peter Rainer; Heiko Bugger; Nicolas Verheyen; Ursula Rohrer; Martin Manninger-Wünscher; Daniel Scherr; Dietmar Renz; Ameli Yates; Andreas Zirlik; Gabor G Toth
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 2.585

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.  Budget Impact Analysis of Impella CP® Utilization in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock in France: A Health Economic Analysis.

Authors:  Clément Delmas; Mathieu Pernot; Alexandre Le Guyader; Romain Joret; Stéphane Roze; Guillaume Lebreton
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2022-01-23       Impact factor: 3.845

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.