Clinician and Algorithmic Application of the 2019 and 2022 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Stages in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry. (2nd December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patel, Siddharth M.; Berg, David D.; Bohula, Erin A.; Baird-Zars, Vivian M.; Barnett, Christopher F.; Barsness, Gregory W.; Chaudhry, Sunit-Preet; Daniels, Lori B.; van Diepen, Sean; Ghafghazi, Shahab; Goldfarb, Michael J.; Jentzer, Jacob C.; Katz, Jason N.; Kenigsberg, Benjamin B.; Lawler, Patrick R.; Miller, P. Elliot; Papolos, Alexander I.; Park, Jeong-Gun; Potter, Brian J.; Prasad, Rajnish; Singam, N. Sarma V.; Sinha, Shashank S.; Solomon, Michael A.; Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.; Morrow, David A.
• Is Part Of: Circulation. Volume 16:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: e009714
• Publication Date: 2022-12-02
• Subjects: cardiogenic shock -- critical care cardiology -- patients -- quantitative metric -- risk stratification; Heart failure -- Periodicals; 616.129005
• DOI: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.122.009714
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1941-3289

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Algorithmic application of the 2019 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages effectively stratifies mortality risk for patients with cardiogenic shock. However, clinician assessment of SCAI staging may differ. Moreover, the implications of the 2022 SCAI criteria update remain incompletely defined. Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). Between 2019 and 2021, participating centers (n=32) contributed at least a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. In-hospital mortality was assessed across 3 separate staging methods: clinician assessment, Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network algorithmic application of the 2019 SCAI criteria, and a revision of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network application using the 2022 SCAI criteria. Results: Of 9612 admissions, 1340 (13.9%) presented with cardiogenic shock with in-hospital mortality of 35.2%. Both clinician and algorithm-based staging using the 2019 SCAI criteria identified a stepwise gradient of mortality risk (stage C–E: 19.0% to 83.7% and 14.6% to 52.2%, respectively; P trend <0.001 for each). Clinician assignment of SCAI stages identified higher risk patients compared with algorithm-based assignment (stage D: 49.9% versus 29.3%; stage E: 83.7% versus 52.2%). Algorithmic application of the 2022 SCAI criteria, with incorporation of the vasoactive-inotropic score, more closely approximated clinician staging (mortality for stage C-E: 21.9% to 70.5%; P trend <0.001). Conclusions: Both clinician and algorithm-based application of the 2019 SCAI stages identify a stepwise gradient of mortality risk, although clinician-staging may better allocate higher risk patients into advanced SCAI stages. Updated algorithmic staging using the 2022 SCAI criteria and vasoactive-inotropic score further refines risk stratification.