Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · 2019 · 1K citations · 35 references
MedicineCardiologyEmergency MedicineCardiovascular NursingClinical Classification SystemsInterventional CardiologyCardiac EmergenciesCardiogenic ShockHeart FailureShock ManagementClassification Schema DesignInterventional AngiographyShock ClassificationShock Severity Classification
Cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction has had little improvement in outcomes over 30 years, and no robust classification scheme exists to stratify its severity. The authors aimed to develop a practical classification system for cardiogenic shock. A multidisciplinary panel of cardiology, emergency, critical care, and nursing experts collaborated to create the schema. They proposed a five‑stage (A–E) system, where stages A–E reflect increasing hypoperfusion and instability, and the model is simple, clinically applicable, but requires future validation.
Abstract Background The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. Methods A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. Results A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is “at risk” for cardiogenic shock, stage B is “beginning” shock, stage C is “classic” cardiogenic shock, stage D is “deteriorating”, and E is “extremis”. The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. Conclusion This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre‐hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.
35
2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Patrick T. O’Gara, Frederick G. Kushner, Deborah D. Ascheim et al. · Circulation · 2012 · 4.7K citations
Intraaortic Balloon Support for Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock
Hölger Thiele, Uwe Zeymer, Franz–Josef Neumann et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2012 · 2.8K citations · Full text
Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness
Cynthia Binanay, Robert M. Califf, Vic Hasselblad et al. · JAMA · 2005 · 1.5K citations · Full text