Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock.
SCAI
cardiogenic shock
classification
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2020
01 09 2020
Historique:
received:
21
11
2019
revised:
27
12
2019
accepted:
29
12
2019
pubmed:
12
1
2020
medline:
14
4
2021
entrez:
12
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have recently proposed a new classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) dividing patients into five subgroups. 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. 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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E213-E219Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Thiele H, Ohman EM, de Waha-Thiele S, Zeymer U, Desch S. Management of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: an update 2019. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(32):2671-2683.
Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, et al. Epidemiology of Shock in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(3):e005618.
Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: this document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;94(1):29-37.
Neumann JT, Sorensen NA, Schwemer T, et al. Diagnosis of myocardial infarction using a high-sensitivity troponin I 1-hour algorithm. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(4):397-404.
Jentzer JC, van Diepen S, Barsness GW, et al. Cardiogenic Shock classification to predict mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2117-2128.
Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(14):1287-1296.
Schrage B, Ibrahim K, Loehn T, et al. Impella support for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic Shock. Circulation. 2019;139(10):1249-1258.
Udesen NJ, Moller JE, Lindholm MG, et al. Rationale and design of DanGer shock: Danish-German cardiogenic shock trial. Am Heart J. 2019;214:60-68.
Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):2419-2432.
Obling L, Frydland M, Hansen R, et al. Risk factors of late cardiogenic shock and mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2018;7(1):7-15.
Basir MB, Schreiber TL, Grines CL, et al. Effect of early initiation of mechanical circulatory support on survival in cardiogenic shock. Am J Cardiol. 2017;119(6):845-851.
Masyuk M, Wernly B, Lichtenauer M, et al. Prognostic relevance of serum lactate kinetics in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(1):55-61.
Poss J, Koster J, Fuernau G, et al. Risk stratification for patients in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(15):1913-1920.
Schmidt M, Burrell A, Roberts L, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock: the survival after veno-arterial-ECMO (SAVE)-score. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(33):2246-2256.
Taleb I, Koliopoulou AG, Tandar A, et al. Shock team approach in refractory cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support: a proof of concept. Circulation. 2019;140(1):98-100.
Tehrani BN, Truesdell AG, Sherwood MW, et al. Standardized team-based care for cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(13):1659-1669.