» Articles » PMID: 32900234

Invasive Hemodynamic Assessment and Classification of In-Hospital Mortality Risk Among Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Abstract

Background: Risk stratifying patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) is a major unmet need. The recently proposed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stages as an approach to identify patients at risk for in-hospital mortality remains under investigation. We studied the utility of the SCAI stages and further explored the impact of hemodynamic congestion on clinical outcomes.

Methods: The CS Working Group registry includes patients with CS from 8 medical centers enrolled between 2016 and 2019. Patients were classified by the maximum SCAI stage (B-E) reached during their hospital stay according to drug and device utilization. In-hospital mortality was evaluated for association with SCAI stages and hemodynamic congestion.

Results: Of the 1414 patients with CS, the majority were due to decompensated heart failure (50%) or myocardial infarction (MI; 35%). In-hospital mortality was 31% for the total cohort, but higher among patients with MI (41% versus 26%, MI versus heart failure, <0.0001). Risk for in-hospital mortality was associated with increasing SCAI stage (odds ratio [95% CI], 3.25 [2.63-4.02]) in both MI and heart failure cohorts. Hemodynamic data was available in 1116 (79%) patients. Elevated biventricular filling pressures were common among patients with CS, and right atrial pressure was associated with increased mortality and higher SCAI Stage.

Conclusions: Our findings support an association between the proposed SCAI staging system and in-hospital mortality among patient with heart failure and MI. We further identify that venous congestion is common and identifies patients with CS at high risk for in-hospital mortality. These findings provide may inform future management protocols and clinical studies.

Citing Articles

The Utility and Validation of SCAI-CSWG Stages in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

Rajan R, Al Jarallah M, Daoulah A, Panduranga P, Elmahrouk A, Mohamed Al Rawahi A J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2025; 4(1):102461.

PMID: 40061415 PMC: 11887555. DOI: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102461.


Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock Team in a Nonacademic Canadian Heart Centre: An Implementation Study.

El-Mughayyar D, Marshall T, DSouza K, MacLeod J, McCoy A, Morris S CJC Open. 2025; 7(2):231-238.

PMID: 40060208 PMC: 11886362. DOI: 10.1016/j.cjco.2024.11.007.


Higher vasoactive usage despite hemodynamic goals is associated with higher mortality in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.

Ortega-Hernandez J, Gonzalez-Pacheco H, Araiza-Garaygordobil D, Gopar-Nieto R, Sierra-Lara-Martinez D, Manzur-Sandoval D Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025; 12:1461714.

PMID: 40017516 PMC: 11865078. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1461714.


CytoSorb Hemadsorption in Cardiogenic Shock: A Real-World Analysis of Hemodynamics, Organ Function, and Clinical Outcomes During Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Kreutz J, Harbaum L, Barutcu C, Rehman A, Patsalis N, Mihali K Biomedicines. 2025; 13(2).

PMID: 40002736 PMC: 11853450. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines13020324.


Perioperative management of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture: a comparison of Impella with intra-aortic balloon pump.

Tani A, Aramaki K, Uno S, Morisako N, Hagiwara T, Iwasaki T Heart Vessels. 2025; .

PMID: 39864025 DOI: 10.1007/s00380-025-02513-x.


References
1.
Strom J, Zhao Y, Shen C, Chung M, Pinto D, Popma J . National trends, predictors of use, and in-hospital outcomes in mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(18):e2152-e2159. DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-D-17-00947. View

2.
Goldberg R, Makam R, Yarzebski J, McManus D, Lessard D, Gore J . Decade-Long Trends (2001-2011) in the Incidence and Hospital Death Rates Associated with the In-Hospital Development of Cardiogenic Shock after Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2016; 9(2):117-25. PMC: 4794369. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002359. View

3.
Tehrani B, Truesdell A, Sherwood M, Desai S, Tran H, Epps K . Standardized Team-Based Care for Cardiogenic Shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73(13):1659-1669. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.12.084. View

4.
Baran D, Grines C, Bailey S, Burkhoff D, Hall S, Henry T . SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the.... Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94(1):29-37. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28329. View

5.
Hochman J, Sleeper L, WEBB J, Sanborn T, White H, Talley J . Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9):625-34. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199908263410901. View