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

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.

Bibliografische Daten

OriginalspracheEnglisch
ISSN1522-1946
DOIs
StatusVeröffentlicht - 01.09.2020

Anmerkungen des Dekanats

Funding Information:
B.S. received honoraria from AstraZeneca; J.T.N. received honoraria from Siemens and Abbott Diagnostics; M.S. received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; H.R. received honoraria from Abiomed; S.B. received honoraria from Abbott, Siemens, Thermo Fisher, and Roche; D.W. received honorary from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, and Novartis. The other authors report no conflict of interest.

PubMed 31925996