SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock

David A. Baran(Eastern Virginia Medical School), Cindy L. Grines(North Shore University Hospital), Steven R. Bailey(Louisiana State University in Shreveport), Daniel Burkhoff(Research Foundation of The City University of New York), Shelley Hall(Baylor University Medical Center), Timothy D. Henry(Christ Hospital), Steven M. Hollenberg(Cooper University Hospital), Navin K. Kapur(Tufts Medical Center), William W. O’Neill(Henry Ford Health System), Joseph P. Ornato(Virginia Commonwealth University), Kelly Stelling(Eastern Virginia Medical School), Hölger Thiele(Leipzig Heart Institute), Sean van Diepen(University of Alberta), Srihari S. Naidu(Westchester Medical Center)
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
May 19, 2019
Cited by 1,011Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. RESULTS: A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is "at risk" for cardiogenic shock, stage B is "beginning" shock, stage C is "classic" cardiogenic shock, stage D is "deteriorating", and E is "extremis". The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. CONCLUSION: This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre-hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis