Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2020
SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: Insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hanson Ivan D, Tagami Travis, Mando Ramy, Kara Balla Abdalla, Dixon Simon R, Timmis Steven, Almany Steven, Naidu Srihari S, Baran David, Lemor Alejandro, Gorgis Sarah, O'Neill William, Basir Mir B, National Cardiogenic Shock Investigators
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We applied the cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) shock staging system to patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) who were enrolled in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI).
BACKGROUND: The SCAI shock staging system provides a framework for evaluation of patients with CS based on clinical and hemodynamic parameters, but has not been validated in patients with AMI-CS managed with a contemporary treatment algorithm that incorporates early use of Impella.
METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in NCSI were identified, all of whom were managed with invasive hemodynamic guidance and supported with Impella. Patients were retrospectively categorized into appropriate SCAI shock stages, and outcomes were assessed accordingly.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the analysis; 182 patients (61%) presented in Stage C shock, 25 (8%) in Stage D, and 93 (31%) in Stage E. Survival to hospital discharge was 76, 76, and 58%, respectively (p = .006). Survival was <20% among patients in Stage E at 24 hr, regardless of baseline stage. There was near perfect agreement in shock staging between two independent clinicians at baseline (kappa = 0.975, 95% CI, 0.95-1.00, p < .001) and at 24 hr (kappa = 0.985, 95% CI, 0.77-1.00, p < .001).
CONCLUSION: In patients with AMI-CS enrolled in NCSI, SCAI Shock classification was reproducible, and predicted survival when applied at presentation and at 24 hr.
BACKGROUND: The SCAI shock staging system provides a framework for evaluation of patients with CS based on clinical and hemodynamic parameters, but has not been validated in patients with AMI-CS managed with a contemporary treatment algorithm that incorporates early use of Impella.
METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in NCSI were identified, all of whom were managed with invasive hemodynamic guidance and supported with Impella. Patients were retrospectively categorized into appropriate SCAI shock stages, and outcomes were assessed accordingly.
RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the analysis; 182 patients (61%) presented in Stage C shock, 25 (8%) in Stage D, and 93 (31%) in Stage E. Survival to hospital discharge was 76, 76, and 58%, respectively (p = .006). Survival was <20% among patients in Stage E at 24 hr, regardless of baseline stage. There was near perfect agreement in shock staging between two independent clinicians at baseline (kappa = 0.975, 95% CI, 0.95-1.00, p < .001) and at 24 hr (kappa = 0.985, 95% CI, 0.77-1.00, p < .001).
CONCLUSION: In patients with AMI-CS enrolled in NCSI, SCAI Shock classification was reproducible, and predicted survival when applied at presentation and at 24 hr.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedDecision Support TechniquesFemaleHeart-Assist DevicesHemodynamicsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNon-ST Elevated Myocardial InfarctionPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionSeverity of Illness IndexShock, CardiogenicTerminology as TopicUnited States