4.3 Article

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

Journal

CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Volume 96, Issue 3, Pages E213-E219

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28707

Keywords

cardiogenic shock; classification; SCAI

Funding

  1. University Heart Centre Hamburg
  2. Abbott Diagnostics
  3. German Research Foundation
  4. German Heart Foundation/German Foundation of Heart Research
  5. German Centre for Cardiovascular Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available