What are the 4 stages of cardiogenic shock?

Data source

The CSWG registry was initiated in 2016 with 17 clinical sites across the United States contributing CS patient data. We previously detailed definitions of database parameters and clinical outcomes, and methods for data entry and monitoring.4,14 Briefly, participating sites include community and university hospitals who contribute real-world data to the registry, which includes a standardized set of data elements (patient, procedural, and outcomes) that were predefined by CSWG steering

Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics of the 3,455 CS patients whose outcomes were analyzed are summarized in Table 1. Patients averaged 62 ± 15 years of age and were predominantly male (71%) and White (59%), with the primary cause of CS identified as MI in 32% (n = 1,110), HF in 52% (n = 1,790), and other causes in 16% (n = 555) (Figure 1). Compared with HF patients with CS, MI patients were older with higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes, but with a lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation,

Discussion

We report a novel approach to defining SCAI shock stages using simple, specific, and accessible parameters that are readily available on admission and throughout hospitalization for CS (Central Illustration). Using the multicenter CSWG registry data, we first identified the following: 1) a significant association with higher mortality among MI-CS compared with HF-CS patients; 2) a significant association with OHCA and mortality; and 3) a direct association of increasing treatment intensity with

Conclusions

We address a critical gap in the field of CS by providing a structured clinically actionable framework to define SCAI stages using simple yet specific parameters at the time of presentation and throughout hospitalization. Using one of the largest multicenter registries focused on CS in the United States, we identify that CS remains highly lethal in real-world practice. We show that by employing a uniform definition for SCAI stages, we can begin to understand the clinical trajectories of CS in 2

Funding Support and Author Disclosures

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health RO1 grants (to Dr Kapur) (R01HL139785-01; R01HL159089-01) and institutional grants from Abiomed Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Abbott Laboratories, Getinge Inc, and LivaNova Inc to Tufts Medical Center. The sponsors had no input on collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, nor in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr Kapur has received consulting honoraria and institutional grant support from Abbott

Recommended articles (6)

Data source

The CSWG registry was initiated in 2016 with 17 clinical sites across the United States contributing CS patient data. We previously detailed definitions of database parameters and clinical outcomes, and methods for data entry and monitoring.4,14 Briefly, participating sites include community and university hospitals who contribute real-world data to the registry, which includes a standardized set of data elements (patient, procedural, and outcomes) that were predefined by CSWG steering

Patient characteristics

Patient characteristics of the 3,455 CS patients whose outcomes were analyzed are summarized in Table 1. Patients averaged 62 ± 15 years of age and were predominantly male (71%) and White (59%), with the primary cause of CS identified as MI in 32% (n = 1,110), HF in 52% (n = 1,790), and other causes in 16% (n = 555) (Figure 1). Compared with HF patients with CS, MI patients were older with higher prevalence of hypertension and diabetes, but with a lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation,

Discussion

We report a novel approach to defining SCAI shock stages using simple, specific, and accessible parameters that are readily available on admission and throughout hospitalization for CS (Central Illustration). Using the multicenter CSWG registry data, we first identified the following: 1) a significant association with higher mortality among MI-CS compared with HF-CS patients; 2) a significant association with OHCA and mortality; and 3) a direct association of increasing treatment intensity with

Conclusions

We address a critical gap in the field of CS by providing a structured clinically actionable framework to define SCAI stages using simple yet specific parameters at the time of presentation and throughout hospitalization. Using one of the largest multicenter registries focused on CS in the United States, we identify that CS remains highly lethal in real-world practice. We show that by employing a uniform definition for SCAI stages, we can begin to understand the clinical trajectories of CS in 2

Funding Support and Author Disclosures

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health RO1 grants (to Dr Kapur) (R01HL139785-01; R01HL159089-01) and institutional grants from Abiomed Inc, Boston Scientific Inc, Abbott Laboratories, Getinge Inc, and LivaNova Inc to Tufts Medical Center. The sponsors had no input on collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, nor in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr Kapur has received consulting honoraria and institutional grant support from Abbott

Recommended articles (6)