Implementation of Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Classification in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Secondary to Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Spanish University Hospital

Overview

Journal Acute Crit Care

Specialty Critical Care

Date 2024 Jun 12

PMID 38863356

Authors

Javier Perez Cervera

Carlos Antonio Aranda Lopez

Rosa Navarro Romero

Javier Corral Macias

Juan Manuel Nogales Asensio

Jose Ramon Lopez Minguez

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Killip-Kimball classification has been used for estimating death risk in patients suffering acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Killip-Kimball stage IV corresponds to cardiogenic shock. However, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification provides a more precise tool to classify patients according to shock severity. The aim of this study was to apply this classification to a cohort of Killip IV patients and to analyze the differences in death risk estimation between the two classifications.

Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study of 100 consecutive patients hospitalized for "Killip IV AMI" between 2016 and 2023 was performed to reclassify patients according to SCAI stage.

Results: Distribution of patients according to SCAI stages was B=4%, C=53%, D=27%, E=16%. Thirty-day mortality increased progressively according to these stages (B=0%, C=11.88%, D=55.56%, E=87.50%; P<0.001). The exclusive use of Killip IV stage overestimated death risk compared to SCAI C (35% vs. 11.88%, P=0.002) and underestimated it compared to SCAI D and E stages (35% vs. 55.56% and 87.50%, P=0.03 and P<0.001, respectively). Age >69 years, creatinine >1.15 mg/dl and advanced SCAI stages (SCAI D and E) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Mechanical circulatory support use showed an almost significant benefit in advanced SCAI stages (D and E hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-1.06; P=0.058).

Conclusions: SCAI classification showed superior death risk estimation compared to Killip IV. Age, creatinine levels and advanced SCAI stages were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Mechanical circulatory support could play a beneficial role in advanced SCAI stages.

References

Harjola V, Lassus J, Sionis A, Kober L, Tarvasmaki T, Spinar J . Clinical picture and risk prediction of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015; 17(5):501-9. DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.260. View

Hunziker L, Radovanovic D, Jeger R, Pedrazzini G, Cuculi F, Urban P . Twenty-Year Trends in the Incidence and Outcome of Cardiogenic Shock in AMIS Plus Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 12(4):e007293. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007293. View

Zweck E, Kanwar M, Li S, Sinha S, Garan A, Hernandez-Montfort J . Clinical Course of Patients in Cardiogenic Shock Stratified by Phenotype. JACC Heart Fail. 2023; 11(10):1304-1315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2023.05.007. View

Damluji A, Forman D, van Diepen S, Alexander K, Page 2nd R, Hummel S . Older Adults in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: Factoring Geriatric Syndromes in the Management, Prognosis, and Process of Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019; 141(2):e6-e32. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000741. View

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

Naidu S, Baran D, Jentzer J, Hollenberg S, van Diepen S, Basir M . SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: A Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies: This statement was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American Heart.... J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022; 79(9):933-946. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.01.018. View

Koreny M, Delle Karth G, Geppert A, Neunteufl T, Priglinger U, Heinz G . Prognosis of patients who develop acute renal failure during the first 24 hours of cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction. Am J Med. 2002; 112(2):115-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9343(01)01070-1. View

Fuernau G, Poenisch C, Eitel I, Denks D, de Waha S, Poss J . Prognostic impact of established and novel renal function biomarkers in myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: A biomarker substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial. Int J Cardiol. 2015; 191:159-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.04.242. View

Berg D, Kaur G, Bohula E, Baird-Zars V, Alviar C, Barnett C . Prognostic significance of haemodynamic parameters in patients with cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2023; 12(10):651-660. PMC: 10599641. DOI: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuad095. View

10.

Schrage B, Becher P, Gossling A, Savarese G, Dabboura S, Yan I . Temporal trends in incidence, causes, use of mechanical circulatory support and mortality in cardiogenic shock. ESC Heart Fail. 2021; 8(2):1295-1303. PMC: 8006704. DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.13202. View

11.

Schrage B, Dabboura S, Yan I, Hilal R, Neumann J, Sorensen N . Application of the SCAI classification in a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 96(3):E213-E219. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.28707. View

12.

Kim Y, Park J, Essa M, Lansky A, Sugeng L . Frequency of Management of Cardiogenic Shock With Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices According to Race. Am J Cardiol. 2020; 125(12):1782-1787. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2020.03.025. View

13.

Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, Fuernau G, de Waha S, Meyer-Saraei R . PCI Strategies in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(25):2419-2432. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1710261. View

14.

Ho H, Ong H, Arasaratnam P, Ooi Y, Tan J, Loh K . Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in the contemporary era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Int J Cardiol Heart Vessel. 2018; 3:88-89. PMC: 5801433. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijchv.2014.04.001. View

15.

Baran D, Long A, Badiye A, Stelling K . Prospective validation of the SCAI shock classification: Single center analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 96(7):1339-1347. PMC: 7821022. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29319. View

16.

Berg D, Bohula E, van Diepen S, Katz J, Alviar C, Baird-Zars V . Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019; 12(3):e005618. PMC: 11032172. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.005618. View

17.

KILLIP 3rd T, KIMBALL J . Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients. Am J Cardiol. 1967; 20(4):457-64. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9149(67)90023-9. View

18.

Belletti A, Lerose C, Zangrillo A, Landoni G . Vasoactive-Inotropic Score: Evolution, Clinical Utility, and Pitfalls. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020; 35(10):3067-3077. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.09.117. View

19.

Poss J, Koster J, Fuernau G, Eitel I, de Waha S, Ouarrak T . Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(15):1913-1920. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.027. View

20.

Gonzalez-Pacheco H, Gopar-Nieto R, Araiza-Garaygordobil D, Briseno-Cruz J, Eid-Lidt G, Ortega-Hernandez J . Application of the SCAI classification to admission of patients with cardiogenic shock: Analysis of a tertiary care center in a middle-income country. PLoS One. 2022; 17(8):e0273086. PMC: 9380918. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273086. View