Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1-s2.0-S0735109719362916
1-s2.0-S0735109719362916
17, 2019
PUBLISHED BY ELSEVIER
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND A new 5-stage cardiogenic shock (CS) classification scheme was recently proposed by the Society for
Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) for the purpose of risk stratification.
OBJECTIVES This study sought to apply the SCAI shock classification in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.
METHODS The study retrospectively analyzed Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted between 2007 and 2015. SCAI CS
stages A through E were classified retrospectively using CICU admission data based on the presence of hypotension or
tachycardia, hypoperfusion, deterioration, and refractory shock. Hospital mortality in each SCAI shock stage was stratified
by cardiac arrest (CA).
RESULTS Among the 10,004 unique patients, 43.1% had acute coronary syndrome, 46.1% had heart failure, and 12.1%
had CA. The proportion of patients in SCAI CS stages A through E was 46.0%, 30.0%, 15.7%, 7.3%, and 1.0% and
unadjusted hospital mortality in these stages was 3.0%, 7.1%, 12.4%, 40.4%, and 67.0% (p < 0.001), respectively. After
multivariable adjustment, each higher SCAI shock stage was associated with increased hospital mortality (adjusted odds
ratio: 1.53 to 6.80; all p < 0.001) compared with SCAI shock stage A, as was CA (adjusted odds ratio: 3.99; 95%
confidence interval: 3.27 to 4.86; p < 0.001). Results were consistent in the subset of patients with acute coronary
syndrome or heart failure.
CONCLUSIONS When assessed at the time of CICU admission, the SCAI CS classification, including presence or absence
of CA, provided robust hospital mortality risk stratification. This classification system could be implemented as a clinical
and research tool to identify, communicate, and predict the risk of death in patients with, and at risk for, CS.
(J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:2117–28) © 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
Listen to this manuscript’s From the aDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; bDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care
audio summary by Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; cDepartment of Critical Care Medicine and
Editor-in-Chief Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; dCarl and Edyth
Dr. Valentin Fuster on Lindner Center for Research and Education, Christ Hospital Health Network, Cincinnati, Ohio; eDepartment of Cardiovascular
JACC.org. Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; fWestchester Heart and Vascular Institute, Westchester Medical Center and New York
Medical College, Valhalla, New York; and the gSentara Heart Hospital, Advanced Heart Failure Center and Eastern Virginia Medical
School, Norfolk, Virginia. Dr. Baran has served as a consultant for Abiomed, Abbott, Getinge, and LivaNova; and has served as a
speaker for Novartis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to
disclose.
Manuscript received May 22, 2019; revised manuscript received July 5, 2019, accepted July 7, 2019.
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019 Jentzer et al. 2119
OCTOBER 29, 2019:2117–28 Shock Classification Stratifies Mortality Risk
C ENTR AL I LL U STRA T I O N Definitions of SCAI Shock Stages A Through E, With Associated Cardiac Intensive Care
Unit and Hospital Mortality in Each SCAI Shock Stage
0%
%
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Stage E (”Extremis“) Hypoperfusion WITH deterioration
Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Mortality
AND refractory shock Hospital Mortality
Cardiac intensive care unit and hospital mortality increased as a function of higher Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention shock stage.
Mayo Clinic CICU is a closed, 16-bed unit serving radiographic, invasive hemodynamic, and physical
critically ill cardiac medical patients. Post-operative examination data were not available (13–15). All rele-
cardiac surgery patients and patients receiving vant data were extracted electronically from the
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) sup- medical record using the Multidisciplinary Epidemi-
port are cared for in a separate cardiovascular surgical ology and Translational Research in Intensive Care
intensive care unit. To minimize the risk of survival Data Mart, a repository storing clinical data from all
and treatment biases associated with CICU read- intensive care unit admissions at the Mayo Clinic
mission, only data from each patient’s first CICU Rochester (16). The admission value of all vital signs,
admission were analyzed. According to Minnesota clinical measurements, and laboratory values was
state law statute 144.295, patients may decline defined as either the first value recorded after CICU
authorization for inclusion in observational research admission or the value recorded closest to CICU
studies; patients who declined Minnesota Research admission. In addition, vital signs were recorded
Authorization were excluded from the study. every 15 min during the first hour after CICU admis-
sion. Peak vasoactive medication (vasopressor and
DATA SOURCES. We recorded demographic, vital inotrope) doses were used to calculate the vasoactive-
sign, laboratory, clinical, and outcome data, as well inotropic score and norepinephrine-equivalent vaso-
as procedures and therapies performed during the pressor dose (17–19). Admission diagnoses included
CICU and hospital stay, as previously described; all International Classification of Diseases-9th
T A B L E 2 Definition of CS Stages Used in this Study, Based on the SCAI Consensus Statement Classification
Stage A (“at risk”) Patients without CS who are hemodynamically stable but have acute cardiovascular disease putting them at risk of developing CS
Stage B (“beginning”) Patients without CS who display hemodynamic instability, including hypotension and/or tachycardia, but with normal perfusion
Stage C (“classic”) Patients with CS, manifested by hypoperfusion (lactic acidosis, oliguria, cool/clammy periphery, or altered mentation) requiring
intervention
Stage D (“deteriorating)” Patients with CS whose hemodynamic instability and/or hypoperfusion fails to respond to initial interventions
Stage E (“extremis”) Patients with CS and overt or impending circulatory collapse, including CA with ongoing resuscitation
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
2120 Jentzer et al. JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019
F I G U R E 1 Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria and Distribution of SCAI Shock Stages
The final study population included 10,004 unique patients. CICU ¼ cardiac intensive care unit; SCAI ¼ Society for Cardiovascular Angiography
and Intervention.
Revision diagnostic codes recorded on the day of DEFINITION OF SHOCK STAGES. We defined hypo-
CICU admission and the day before or after CICU tension or tachycardia, hypoperfusion, deterioration,
admission; these admission diagnoses were not and refractory shock using data from CICU admission
mutually exclusive, and the primary admission diag- through the first 24 h in the CICU (Table 1). Hypo-
nosis could not be determined. Admission diagnoses tension and tachycardia were defined within the first
of interest included acute coronary syndrome 1 h of CICU admission. The definition of hypo-
(ACS), heart failure (HF), supraventricular tachy- perfusion included an elevated lactate level on
cardia, atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, admission or AKI developing within 24 h after
ventricular tachycardia, shock, CA, respiratory admission. Deterioration was defined as increasing
failure, and sepsis. vasoactive drug requirements after the first hour or a
The APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health rising lactate level after admission. We used prag-
Evaluation)-III score, APACHE-IV predicted hospital matic and simplified definitions to divide patients
mortality, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment into the 5 SCAI shock stages with increasing severity
score were automatically calculated for all patients (A through E) using combinations of these variables
using data from the first 24 h of CICU admission using (Central Illustration). Importantly, the SCAI shock
previously validated electronic algorithms, with classification system (Table 2) involves details such as
missing variables imputed as normal as the default rapid escalation of inotropes or addition of temporary
(13–15,20–22). The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, which
and individual comorbidities were determined from were not available in the database (12) Late deterio-
the medical record using a previously validated elec- ration was defined as increasing vasopressor re-
tronic algorithm (23). Severe acute kidney injury (AKI) quirements after 24 h.
during the CICU stay was defined as doubling of serum STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. The primary endpoint was
creatinine from baseline, increase in serum creatinine all-cause hospital mortality; secondary endpoints
to $4.0 mg/dl, or new dialysis initiation; patients with included CICU mortality. Hospital disposition and all-
a prior history of dialysis were excluded from this cause mortality were determined using electronic
analysis (14). review of medical records. Categorical variables are
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019 Jentzer et al. 2121
OCTOBER 29, 2019:2117–28 Shock Classification Stratifies Mortality Risk
T A B L E 3 Baseline Characteristics, Comorbidities, Admission Diagnoses, and Therapies of Patients According to SCAI Shock Stage
With Data, % Stage A (n ¼ 4,602) Stage B (n ¼ 2,998) Stage C (n ¼ 1,575) Stage D (n ¼ 732) Stage E (n ¼ 97) p Value
Demographics
Age, yrs 100.0 67.1 14.7 66.4 15.7 69.9 16.0 68.7 14.1 68.3 14.7 <0.001
Female 100.0 1,562 (33.9) 1,216 (40.6) 654 (41.5) 278 (38.0) 36 (37.1) <0.001
White 100.0 4,289 (93.2) 2,779 (92.7) 1,430 (90.8) 659 (90.0) 79 (81.4) <0.001
Comorbidities
Charlson Comorbidity Index 99.8 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.1 2.6 <0.001
History of MI 99.8 914 (19.9) 581 (19.4) 311 (19.8) 160 (21.9) 14 (14.4) 0.79
History of HF 99.8 746 (16.2) 638 (21.3) 339 (21.6) 212 (29.0) 18 (18.6) <0.001
History of diabetes mellitus 99.8 1,222 (26.6) 851 (28.5) 483 (30.8) 257 (35.2) 24 (24.7) <0.001
History of CKD 99.8 770 (16.8) 604 (20.2) 418 (26.6) 221 (30.2) 18 (20.4) <0.001
Prior dialysis 100.0 131 (2.8) 130 (4.3) 192 (12.2) 107 (14.6) 11 (11.3) <0.001
Admission ICD-9 diagnoses*
ACS 99.0 2,111 (46.4) 1,172 (39.4) 634 (40.7) 300 (41.3) 50 (52.6) <0.001
HF 99.0 1,675 (36.8) 1,562 (52.5) 758 (48.7) 513 (70.7) 56 (59.0) <0.001
Cardiac arrest 99.0 330 (7.3) 311 (10.5) 219 (14.1) 280 (38.6) 53 (55.8) <0.001
Shock 99.0 217 (4.8) 449 (15.1) 166 (10.7) 429 (59.1) 88 (92.6) <0.001
Respiratory failure 99.0 506 (11.1) 660 (22.2) 389 (25.0) 460 (63.4) 64 (67.4) <0.001
Sepsis 99.0 102 (2.2) 205 (6.9) 100 (6.4) 163 (22.4) 35 (36.8) <0.001
AF/SVT 99.0 1,165 (25.6) 1,150 (38.7) 571 (36.7) 304 (41.9) 30 (31.6) <0.001
VT/VF 99.0 665 (14.6) 516 (17.4) 247 (15.9) 158 (21.8) 22 (23.2) <0.001
Therapies and procedures
Vasoactives first 1 h 100.0 126 (2.7) 339 (11.3) 90 (5.7) 249 (34.0) 81 (83.5) <0.001
Number of vasoactives first 1 h 100.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.4 1.0 <0.001
VIS first 1 h 99.1 0.2 1.6 1.3 10.5 1.4 12.1 5.4 15.3 30.1 46.7 <0.001
NEE first 1 h 100.0 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.15 0.29 0.47 <0.001
Invasive ventilator first 24 h 100.0 257 (5.6) 419 (14.0) 232 (14.7) 417 (57.0) 73 (75.3) <0.001
Dialysis 100.0 119 (2.6) 138 (4.6) 72 (4.6) 137 (18.7) 21 (21.6) <0.001
CRRT 100.0 9 (0.2) 30 (1.0) 23 (1.5) 94 (12.8) 11 (11.3) <0.001
IABP during hospitalization 100.0 266 (5.8) 330 (11.0) 69 (4.4) 162 (22.1) 38 (39.2) <0.001
Impella 100.0 5 (0.1) 7 (0.2) 4 (0.2) 3 (0.4) 2 (2.1) 0.004
ECMO 100.0 15 (0.3) 28 (0.9) 8 (0.5) 16 (2.2) 5 (5.2) 0.02
PAC 100.0 239 (5.2) 245 (8.2) 49 (3.1) 163 (22.3) 25 (25.8) <0.001
Coronary angiogram 100.0 2,694 (58.5) 1,471 (49.1) 720 (45.7) 349 (47.7) 50 (51.6) <0.001
PCI 100.0 1,834 (39.8) 932 (31.1) 430 (27.3) 205 (28.0) 26 (26.8) <0.001
RBC transfusion 100.0 308 (6.7) 403 (13.4) 197 (12.5) 228 (31.2) 37 (28.1) <0.001
Values are mean SD or n (%), unless otherwise indicated. The p value is for the trend across SCAI shock stages A to E. *Admission diagnoses are not mutually exclusive and sum to >100%.
ACS ¼ acute coronary syndrome; AF ¼ atrial fibrillation; CICU ¼ cardiac intensive care unit; CKD ¼ chronic kidney disease; CRRT ¼ continuous renal-replacement therapy; ECMO ¼ extracorporeal membrane
oxygenation; HF ¼ heart failure; ICD-9 ¼ International Classification of Diseases-9th Revision; MI ¼ myocardial infarction; PAC ¼ pulmonary artery catheter; PCI ¼ percutaneous coronary intervention;
RBC ¼ red blood cell; SVT ¼ supraventricular tachycardia; VF ¼ ventricular fibrillation; VT ¼ ventricular tachycardia; other abbreviations as in Tables 1 and 2.
reported as number and percentage and the Pearson Two-tailed p values <0.05 were considered statisti-
chi-square test was used to compare groups. Contin- cally significant. Statistical analyses were performed
uous variables are reported as mean SD. Trends using JMP Pro version 14.1.0 (SAS Institute, Cary,
across the SCAI shock stages were determined using North Carolina).
linear regression. Logistic regression was used to
determine the association between the SCAI shock RESULTS
stages and hospital mortality before and after adjust-
ing for age, sex, CCI, APACHE-IV predicted hospital STUDY POPULATION. We screened 12,904 adult ad-
mortality, admission diagnosis of CA, and the use of missions to the CICU during the study period and
vasoactive medications, intra-aortic balloon pump, excluded 2,900 patients (1,877 readmissions, 755 pa-
coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary inter- tients without Minnesota Research Authorization,
vention, and mechanical ventilation. Discrimination and 268 patients whose admission did not occur
was assessed using the area under the receiver- entirely within the study period), as demonstrated in
operating characteristic curve (C-statistic) value. Figure 1 (13–15). The final study population of 10,004
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
2122 Jentzer et al. JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019
T A B L E 4 Severity of Illness Scores, Vital Signs, and Laboratory Data of Patients According to SCAI Shock Stage
With Data, % Stage A (n ¼ 4,602) Stage B (n ¼ 2,998) Stage C (n ¼ 1,575) Stage D (n ¼ 732) Stage E (n ¼ 97) p Value
Severity of illness
APACHE-III score 100.0 51.3 18.2 60.8 20.4 69.5 24.4 97.4 31.5 118.5 38.8 <0.001
APACHE-IV predicted hospital mortality, % 100.0 9.9 11.6 15.8 16.7 22.0 20.7 48.4 28.1 64.8 27.8 <0.001
Day 1 SOFA score 99.9 2.3 2.0 3.4 2.7 4.4 2.9 9.1 3.9 11.4 3.9 <0.001
Severe AKI 89.2 257 (6.1) 333 (12.4) 233 (17.8) 269 (44.2) 40 (49.4) <0.001
Late deterioration 100.0 188 (4.1) 190 (6.3) 108 (6.9) 205 (28.0) 17 (17.5) <0.001
Admission vital sign data
Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg 99.4 130.8 22.9 114.4 26.1 123.0 27.7 113.8 27.9 99.8 25.3 <0.001
Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg 96.2 72.1 14.5 67.1 18.6 68.8 17.8 65.7 19.5 57.6 19.4 <0.001
Mean arterial pressure, mm Hg 96.2 87.2 15.1 79.6 19.6 83.1 18.9 79.9 20.9 70.1 20.9 <0.001
Heart rate, beats/min 99.4 72.4 13.9 93.1 26.8 84.8 25.5 89.4 24.7 95.5 27.9 <0.001
Shock index* 99.4 0.57 0.15 0.84 0.29 0.72 0.28 0.83 0.29 1.04 0.38 <0.001
Respiratory rate, breaths/min 95.9 17.3 5.2 19.1 6.0 19.3 5.9 20.2 5.9 21.8 6.5 <0.001
Pulse oximetry, % 99.4 96.6 4.2 95.6 5.6 95.2 7.3 93.2 9.0 86.5 16.8 <0.001
Glasgow Coma Scale 97.3 14.5 2.0 13.9 2.9 13.6 3.3 9.8 5.1 8.3 5.1 <0.001
Urine output first 24 h, l 97.0 2.16 1.10 2.26 1.42 1.02 1.12 1.25 1.33 1.41 2.41 <0.001
Admission laboratory data
Creatinine, mg/dl 96.3 1.2 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.2 <0.001
BUN, mg/dl 96.0 23.5 16.4 27.0 18.9 30.0 20.4 36.0 23.1 34.6 20.5 <0.001
ALT, U/ml 46.5 51.9 139.5 76.2 222.2 127.3 529.8 270.8 675.0 644.5 1211.5 <0.001
Peak troponin T, mg/dl 63.3 1.8 3.3 1.7 3.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 6.9 4.0 6.5 <0.001
Hemoglobin, g/l 96.4 12.5 2.0 11.9 2.2 11.9 2.3 11.8 2.5 11.6 2.5 <0.001
Arterial pH 32.3 7.39 0.08 7.36 0.10 7.36 0.10 7.30 0.11 7.20 0.15 <0.001
Bicarbonate, mEq/l 96.9 24.6 3.7 23.9 4.4 23.4 4.6 21.2 5.3 16.7 6.5 <0.001
Anion gap, mEq/l 89.3 11.0 2.9 11.5 3.2 12.6 3.8 14.4 4.3 20.6 8.7 <0.001
Lactate, mmol/l 21.3 1.2 0.4 1.3 0.4 3.0 2.3 3.6 2.3 10.6 5.1 <0.001
Values are mean SD or n (%), unless otherwise indicated. The p value is for the trend across SCAI shock stages A to E. *Shock index is defined as the ratio of heart rate to systolic blood pressure.
AKI ¼ acute kidney injury; ALT ¼ alanine aminotransferase; APACHE ¼ Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; BUN ¼ blood urea nitrogen; SCAI ¼ Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and
Intervention; SOFA ¼ Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.
unique patients had a mean age of 67.4 15.2 years, hypotension and 2,956 (29.5%) who met criteria for
including 3,746 (37.4%) women. The mean CCI was tachycardia; 1,134 (11.3%) patients met criteria for
2.4 2.6 and the mean APACHE-IV predicted hospital both hypotension and tachycardia. Hypoperfusion
mortality was 16.9 20.0% overall. Admission di- was present in 2,404 (24.0%) patients, including an
agnoses (not mutually exclusive) included ACS in admission lactate level >2 mmol/l in 888 (41.6%) of
4,267 (43.1%) patients, HF in 4,564 (46.1%) patients, 2,135 patients with available data. Deterioration
and CA in 1,193 (12.1%) patients; 2,704 (27.3%) pa- within 24 h of admission occurred in 2,075 (20.7%)
tients had neither ACS nor HF as an admis- patients, and refractory shock was identified in 153
sion diagnosis. (1.5%) patients. Late deterioration after 24 h occurred
A total of 2,468 (24.7%) patients received vasoac- in 708 (7.1%) patients.
tive drugs during the CICU stay, including vasopres- The proportion of patients with SCAI shock stages
sors in 2,090 (20.9%) and inotropes in 928 (9.3%). A through E were 46.0%, 30.0%, 15.7%, 7.3%, and
Among patients receiving vasoactive drugs, 1,182 1.0%, respectively (Figure 1). Baseline demographics,
(47.9%) received >1 vasoactive drug. An intra-aortic comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and critical care
balloon pump was placed during the CICU stay in therapies varied significantly across the SCAI shock
865 (8.6%) patients and Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, stages (Table 3). The prevalence of CA increased
Massachusetts) or ECMO support was used during the across the SCAI shock stages, from 7.3% in stage A to
hospitalization in 21 (0.2%) and 72 (0.7%) patients, 55.8% in stage E. As the SCAI shock stage increased,
respectively. there were more extensive vital sign and laboratory
Hypotension or tachycardia during the first hour in abnormalities, higher severity of illness scores, and
the CICU was present in 4,367 (43.7%) patients, more frequent AKI (Table 4). The use and dosage of
including 2,545 (25.4%) who met criteria for vasoactive medications and supportive therapies
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019 Jentzer et al. 2123
OCTOBER 29, 2019:2117–28 Shock Classification Stratifies Mortality Risk
F I G U R E 2 Hospital Mortality as a Function of SCAI Shock Stage Among Patients With and Without an Admission Diagnosis of CA
80%
70%
Observed Hospital Mortality (%)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Stage A Stage B Stage C Stage D Stage E
SCAI Shock Stage
Hospital mortality was higher among patients with an admission diagnosis of cardiac arrest (CA) in each Society for Cardiovascular
Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage (all p < 0.001).
including mechanical ventilation, MCS, and dialysis shock stages B through E were 2.44, 4.56, 21.80, and
increased across the SCAI shock stages (Table 4). The 65.22, respectively. The unadjusted OR value for
prevalence of late deterioration increased as a func- hospital mortality was 12.17 (95% confidence interval
tion of SCAI shock stage, being highest in SCAI shock [CI]: 10.34 to 14.31; p < 0.001) in patients meeting
stage D (Table 4). criteria for SCAI shock stage D or E, compared with
SCAI shock stages A through C. The SCAI shock clas-
CICU AND HOSPITAL MORTALITY. There was a step- sification itself had an area under the receiver-
wise increase in unadjusted CICU and hospital mor- operating characteristic curve value of 0.765 for
tality with each higher SCAI shock stage in the overall hospital mortality overall, 0.775 among patients with
population, with hospital mortality rising from 3.0% ACS, and 0.732 among patients with HF.
in SCAI shock stage A to 67.0% in SCAI shock stage E After multivariable adjustment, each higher SCAI
(p < 0.001) (Central Illustration). Unadjusted hospital shock stage was associated with increased hospital
mortality was higher among patients with CA at each mortality compared with SCAI shock stage A (all
SCAI shock stage (Figure 2) (all p < 0.001). The same p < 0.001), as was CA (adjusted OR: 3.99; 95% CI: 3.27
stepwise increase in hospital mortality was seen in to 4.86, 95% CI; p < 0.001); the final multivariable
patients with ACS and HF and in patients without a model area under the receiver-operating character-
diagnosis of either ACS or HF (Figure 3). Patients with istic curve value was 0.883 in the overall population.
late deterioration had higher mortality overall (31.4% Compared with SCAI shock stage A, the adjusted OR
vs. 7.4%; p < 0.001), and in each SCAI shock stage values for hospital mortality in SCAI shock stages B
except stage E (Figure 4). through E were 1.53, 2.62, 3.07, and 6.80, respectively
Compared with SCAI shock stage A, the unadjusted (Figure 5). Each higher SCAI shock stage was associ-
odds ratio (OR) values for hospital mortality in SCAI ated with higher adjusted hospital mortality
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
2124 Jentzer et al. JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019
80%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ACS HF Neither ACS nor HF
(n = 4,267) (n = 4,564) (n = 2,704)
Stage A Stage B Stage C Stage D Stage E
Hospital mortality as a function of Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage among patients with acute
coronary syndrome (ACS) (left), heart failure (HF) (middle), or neither ACS nor HF (right). Hospital mortality increased as a function of higher
SCAI shock stage in patients with ACS or HF.
compared with SCAI shock stage A among patients hospital mortality than hemodynamically stable pa-
with ACS (all p < 0.001), HF (all p < 0.001), and tients without shock (SCAI shock stage A). An
neither ACS nor HF (all p < 0.001). Likewise, CA was admission diagnosis of CA increased the risk of hos-
associated with higher adjusted hospital mortality in pital mortality among patients with each SCAI shock
each of these subgroups (all p < 0.001). stage, supporting its inclusion as an effect modifier in
the SCAI shock classification schema. These data
DISCUSSION support the validity of the recent SCAI classification
of CS stages for mortality risk stratification as a
Using a large cohort of unselected CICU patients, we framework for future CS clinical practice and
validated the association between the recently research. Our examination of a mixed CICU cohort
described SCAI shock classification and hospital allowed us to demonstrate the predictive ability of
mortality. We stratified patients into 5 SCAI shock this classification system in patients with diagnoses
stages at the time of CICU admission, reflecting a of ACS and HF, which are the dominant causes of CS,
continuum of increasing shock severity using a as well as in patients without these diagnoses. The
simplified definition based on hypotension or tachy- strong association between SCAI shock stages and
cardia, hypoperfusion, deterioration, and refractory mortality in a heterogeneous CICU population, even
shock, which can be easily applied in clinical practice. after adjustment for known predictors of mortality,
This functional SCAI shock stages classification emphasizes the robustness of this classification sys-
effectively stratified mortality risk and performed tem and its potential to be applied in other critically
similarly in patients with admission diagnoses of ACS ill patient cohorts.
and HF, even when adjusting for the higher illness The SCAI shock classification was developed using
severity and greater use of hemodynamic support at expert consensus for the purpose of describing CS
higher shock stages. Patients with refractory shock severity to clarify communication of patient status
(SCAI shock stage E) had >20-fold higher crude between providers in different care settings to
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019 Jentzer et al. 2125
OCTOBER 29, 2019:2117–28 Shock Classification Stratifies Mortality Risk
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
2126 Jentzer et al. JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019
Stage A
(Referent)
Stage B
SCAI Shock Stage
Stage C
Stage D
Stage E
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Adjusted OR for Hospital Mortality
Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for hospital mortality with each Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and
Intervention (SCAI) shock stage derived from multivariable logistic regression, using stage A as referent. Higher SCAI shock stages had
incrementally higher adjusted odds for hospital mortality.
future studies should address whether brief CA epi- or clinical deterioration, to highlight their escalating
sodes have any prognostic importance and whether mortality risk in real time and facilitate early
the presence of brain injury from CA modifies the transfer or involvement of palliative care services if
response to CS therapies (26). indicated (1).
Van Diepen et al. (1) have proposed a “hub-and- We propose that the relative efficacy of various
spoke” care model involving transfer to tertiary cen- therapeutic interventions at each CS stage should be
ters for patients with CS, as has been instituted for further explored, as CS severity might determine the
other high-acuity medical conditions such as trauma. need for and clinical response to specific therapies.
Uncertainty remains regarding when transfer to a For example, temporary MCS devices can effectively
higher level of care is warranted, and ideally this increase cardiac output in CS, yet none of these
should be determined early in the course if a patient temporary MCS devices has resulted in a proven
is not responding as expected to initial therapy. improvement in survival in published randomized
Based on the high risk of mortality after the onset of clinical trials of CS patients (1,8,9,27). Notwith-
hemodynamic deterioration (SCAI shock stage D), we standing their established hemodynamic benefits, the
propose that patients with hypoperfusion (SCAI shock invasive nature and acquisition costs of temporary
stage C) who do not rapidly stabilize (i.e., progression MCS devices emphasize the need to evaluate when
to SCAI shock stage D) should be considered for and in whom these devices may be most effective for
transfer to a higher level of care before development improving patient-centered outcomes (1,8,27). We
of overt deterioration. The simple functional defini- suspect that each temporary MCS device will have a
tions used in this study could be leveraged by an different risk-benefit profile at a given CS stage, but
electronic medical record system to identify patients this hypothesis will need to be tested in future
with new onset or increasing severity of shock studies.
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019 Jentzer et al. 2127
OCTOBER 29, 2019:2117–28 Shock Classification Stratifies Mortality Risk
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.
2128 Jentzer et al. JACC VOL. 74, NO. 17, 2019
REFERENCES
1. van Diepen S, Katz JN, Albert NM, et al. Classification of Cardiogenic Shock: this document 22. Harrison AM, Yadav H, Pickering BW, Cartin-
Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: was endorsed by the American College of Cardi- Ceba R, Herasevich V. Validation of computerized
a scientific statement from the American Heart ology (ACC), the American Heart Association automatic calculation of the sequential organ
Association. Circulation 2017;136:e232–68. (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine failure assessment score. Crit Care Res Pract 2013;
(SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons in 2013:975672.
2. Kolte D, Khera S, Aronow WS, et al. Trends in
April 2019. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;94:
incidence, management, and outcomes of cardio- 23. Singh B, Singh A, Ahmed A, et al. Derivation
29–37.
genic shock complicating ST-elevation myocardial and validation of automated electronic search
infarction in the United States. J Am Heart Assoc 13. Jentzer JC, Bennett C, Wiley BM, et al. Pre- strategies to extract Charlson comorbidities from
2014;3:e000590. dictive value of the sequential organ failure electronic medical records. Mayo Clin Proc 2012;
assessment score for mortality in a contemporary 87:817–24.
3. Hunziker L, Radovanovic D, Jeger R, et al.
Twenty-year trends in the incidence and outcome cardiac intensive care unit population. J Am Heart 24. Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, et al.
of cardiogenic shock in AMIS Plus registry. Circ Assoc 2018;7:e008169. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the
Cardiovasc Interv 2019;12:e007293. 14. Jentzer JC, Murphree DH, Wiley B, et al. current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:
Comparison of mortality risk prediction among 535–41.
4. Berg DD, Bohula EA, van Diepen S, et al.
Epidemiology of shock in contemporary cardiac patients >/¼70 versus <70 years of age in a 25. Gupta N, Kontos MC, Gupta A, et al. Charac-
intensive care units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Out- cardiac intensive care unit. Am J Cardiol 2018;122: teristics and outcomes in patients undergoing
comes 2019;12:e005618. 1773–8. percutaneous coronary intervention following
15. Bennett CE, Wright RS, Jentzer J, et al. cardiac arrest (from the NCDR). Am J Cardiol 2014;
5. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early
Severity of illness assessment with application of 113:1087–92.
revascularization in acute myocardial infarction
complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK In- the APACHE IV predicted mortality and outcome 26. Jentzer JC, Herrmann J, Prasad A,
vestigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize trends analysis in an academic cardiac intensive Barsness GW, Bell MR. Utility and challenges of an
Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl care unit. J Crit Care 2018;50:242–6. early invasive strategy in patients resuscitated
J Med 1999;341:625–34. from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. J Am Coll
16. Herasevich V, Pickering BW, Dong Y,
Cardiol Intv 2019;12:697–708.
6. Investigators T, Alexander JH, Reynolds HR, Peters SG, Gajic O. Informatics infrastructure for
et al. Effect of tilarginine acetate in patients with syndrome surveillance, decision support, report- 27. Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al. 2015
acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: ing, and modeling of critical illness. Mayo Clin Proc SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus
the TRIUMPH randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010;85:247–54. Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical
2007;297:1657–66. Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular
17. Nguyen HV, Havalad V, Aponte-Patel L, et al.
Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation,
7. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in Temporary biventricular pacing decreases the
the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad
patients with acute myocardial infarction and vasoactive-inotropic score after cardiac surgery: a
Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion;
cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2017;377:2419–32. substudy of a randomized clinical trial. J Thorac
Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association
Cardiovasc Surg 2013;146:296–301.
8. Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percu- of Interventional Cardiology-Association Cana-
taneous short-term active mechanical support 18. Jentzer JC, Vallabhajosyula S, Khanna AK, dienne de Cardiologie d’intervention. J Am Coll
devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review Chawla LS, Busse LW, Kashani KB. Management of Cardiol 2015;65:e7–26.
and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized refractory vasodilatory shock. Chest 2018;154:
28. Hasdai D, Holmes DR Jr., Califf RM, et al.
trials. Eur Heart J 2017;38:3523–31. 416–26.
Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial
9. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intra- 19. Jentzer JC, Wiley B, Bennett C, et al. Temporal infarction: predictors of death. GUSTO In-
aortic balloon support for myocardial infarction trends and clinical outcomes associated with vestigators. Global Utilization of Streptokinase
with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 2012;367: vasopressor and inotrope use in the cardiac and Tissue-Plasminogen Activator for Occluded
1287–96. intensive care unit. Shock 2019 Jun 4 [E-pub Coronary Arteries. Am Heart J 1999;138:21–31.
10. Harjola VP, Lassus J, Sionis A, et al. Clinical ahead of print].
29. Stretch R, Sauer CM, Yuh DD, Bonde P. Na-
picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality 20. Chandra S, Kashyap R, Trillo-Alvarez CA, et al. tional trends in the utilization of short-term me-
in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail 2015;17: Mapping physicians’ admission diagnoses to chanical circulatory support: incidence, outcomes,
501–9. structured concepts towards fully automatic and cost analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:
11. Poss J, Koster J, Fuernau G, et al. Risk strati- calculation of acute physiology and chronic health 1407–15.
fication for patients in cardiogenic shock after evaluation score. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000216.
acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol
21. Aakre C, Franco PM, Ferreyra M, Kitson J, Li M,
2017;69:1913–20.
Herasevich V. Prospective validation of a near KEY WORDS cardiac intensive care unit,
12. Baran DA, Grines CL, Bailey S, et al. SCAI real-time EHR-integrated automated SOFA score cardiogenic shock, critical care, mortality,
Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the calculator. Int J Med Inform 2017;103:1–6. shock
Descargado para Anonymous User (n/a) en National Consortium of Scientific Information Resources and Technology de ClinicalKey.es por Elsevier en julio 14, 2020.
Para uso personal exclusivamente. No se permiten otros usos sin autorización. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.