The Changing Landscape of Cardiogenic Shock: One Step Closer to Speaking a Common Tongue

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 Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC), International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT), Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in December 2021.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsVol. 1Issue 1100008PreviewSince its development and release in 2019, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stage classification for adult patients has been widely cited and increasingly incorporated, owing to its simplicity across all clinical settings, easily understood and visualized framework, and notable endorsement by relevant societies and organizations that manage cardiogenic shock (CS).1 Ensuing validation studies over the course of the subsequent 2 ​years documented both its ease and rapidity of use as well as its ability to meaningfully discriminate patient risk across the spectrum of CS, including various phenotypes, presentations, and health care settings. Full-Text PDF Open AccessA Warm Welcome to The First Issue of JSCAIJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsVol. 1Issue 1100013PreviewIt is my great privilege to have been entrusted with the launch of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (JSCAI). JSCAI is a powerful vehicle for authors to contribute and disseminate new clinical and scientific evidence related to all aspects of interventional cardiovascular medicine. As we release our first issue of the JSCAI, I hope you will enjoy the content and be motivated to contribute to our interventional community by submitting your next scientific manuscript. Full-Text PDF Open Access “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”George Bernard Shaw (1944) The clinical syndrome we recognize as cardiogenic shock (CS) traces back to seminal observations made over 100 ​years ago.1Ginsberg F. Parrillo J.E. Cardiogenic shock: a historical perspective.Crit Care Clin. 2009; 25: 103-114Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar In 1912, Dr James B. Herrick reported on preclinical and human experiences wherein acute obstruction of an epicardial coronary artery did not result in immediate death, thereby contradicting the prevailing belief of the day.1Ginsberg F. Parrillo J.E. Cardiogenic shock: a historical perspective.Crit Care Clin. 2009; 25: 103-114Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar,2Herrick J.B. Landmark article (JAMA 1912) Clinical feature of sudden obstruction of the coronary arteries.JAMA. 1983; 250: 1757-1762Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar Rather, patients lingered in varying states of hemodynamic compromise, descriptions of which chronicle progression from what is now known as SCAI stage C to stages D/E CS and ultimately death in the majority of patients. Dr Herrick also noted that occasionally, “functionally complete recovery ensues” and that “no simple picture of the condition can, therefore, be drawn.”2Herrick J.B. Landmark article (JAMA 1912) Clinical feature of sudden obstruction of the coronary arteries.JAMA. 1983; 250: 1757-1762Crossref PubMed Scopus (29) Google Scholar The latter statement, which still holds true today, underscores the critical importance of ongoing work such as the SCAI SHOCK Clinical Expert Consensus Update.3Naidu S.S. Baran D.A. Jentzer J.C. et al.SCAI SHOCK stages classification clinical expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2022; 1100008Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar On the path to modern CS care, several notable historic milestones provide context for points specifically highlighted in the current consensus document. In 1942, Drs Stead and Ebert detailed 2 distinct phenotypes of a “shock syndrome produced by failure of the heart” using clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data.4Stead E.A. Ebert R.V. Shock syndrome produced by failure of the heart.Arch Int Med. 1942; 69: 369-383Crossref Scopus (13) Google Scholar In 1967, Drs Killip and Kimball described 4 distinct classes of “myocardial derangement” in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), assigning for the first time specific blood pressure parameters to a shock diagnosis.5Killip III, T. Kimball J.T. Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit.Am J Cardiol. 1967; 20: 457-464Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1645) Google Scholar In the same year, the first human intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implant was performed by Kantrowitz et al in a young patient with AMI with CS (AMICS), successfully bridging the patient to recovery and discharge.6Kantrowitz A. Tjønneland S. Freed P.S. et al.Initial clinical experience with intraaortic balloon pumping in cardiogenic shock.JAMA. 1968; 203: 113-118Crossref PubMed Scopus (583) Google Scholar In 1970, Drs Swan and Ganz first described the use of their eponymous flow-directed catheter, ushering in the era of invasive hemodynamic assessment.7Swan H.J.C. Ganz W. Forrester J. et al.Catheterization of the heart in man with use of a flow-directed balloon-tipped catheter.N Engl J Med. 1970; 283: 447-451Crossref PubMed Scopus (1480) Google Scholar Despite numerous iterative advances, however, mortality in CS remained extremely high. Reports began to emerge in the mid-1980s of modest improvements in survival with early surgical revascularization and with fibrinolytic therapy.1Ginsberg F. Parrillo J.E. Cardiogenic shock: a historical perspective.Crit Care Clin. 2009; 25: 103-114Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar In 1988, Lee and colleagues published a 10-year retrospective experience comparing serial cohorts of patients with AMICS, treated with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and observed dramatic improvement in 30-day survival from 17% with conventional therapy to 50% with the addition of successful coronary angioplasty.8Lee L. Bates E.R. Pitt B. et al.Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty improves survival in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.Circulation. 1988; 78: 1345-1351Crossref PubMed Scopus (227) Google Scholar Definitive proof of this concept came in 1999 with the landmark SHOCK trial, the first prospective, randomized study in AMICS comparing a strategy of early revascularization to initial medical stabilization with drug therapy and IABP. Numerical improvements in 30-day mortality with early revascularization became statistically significant 6 and 12 months later, establishing emergent PCI as the default therapy for AMICS.9Hochman J.S. Sleeper L.A. Webb J.G. et al.Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 625-634Crossref PubMed Scopus (2174) Google Scholar As the number of CS registries and RCTs grew, so too did variability in reported survival, ascribable in part to unquantified differences in baseline severity of illness, i.e., the proportion of patients who were already in extremis at the time of study entry.1Ginsberg F. Parrillo J.E. Cardiogenic shock: a historical perspective.Crit Care Clin. 2009; 25: 103-114Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 3Naidu S.S. Baran D.A. Jentzer J.C. et al.SCAI SHOCK stages classification clinical expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2022; 1100008Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar Twenty years later and 107 ​years after the first credible description of CS, the 2019 SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of CS codified CS diagnosis and risk stratification, quickly gaining multisociety endorsement as well as wide recognition by clinicians.10Baran D.A. Grines C.L. Bailey S. et al.SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019; 94: 29-37PubMed Google Scholar In this inaugural issue of the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (JSCAI), Naidu SS, on behalf of the SCAI SHOCK Writing Group, presents the revised SCAI SHOCK Stages Classification Clinical Expert Consensus Update. This document expands the scope of the original schema through validation of its discriminatory capacity, more granular recommendations for bedside, hemodynamic, and laboratory assessment of shock severity and by expanding the breadth of CS assessment along a proposed 3-axis model of evaluation and prognostication. First, the updated statement offers broad validation of the original SCAI SHOCK schema across differing CS states and treatment environments, encompassing data from more than 25,000 patients studied in the context of 9 (predominantly retrospective) studies conducted since the 2019 statement. SCAI SHOCK staging reliably predicted mortality, although it should be noted that retrospective, single (rather than prospective and/or serial) assignment of stage was performed in the majority of studies with variability in study-specific criteria for assigning stages C-E, inconsistent differentiation between acute versus chronic renal dysfunction as a marker of hypoperfusion, and limited availability of hemodynamic data. Table 3 of the revised schema offers much-needed guidance for improving the precision of CS staging, vis-à-vis numerical cutoff values, categories broken down by typical clinical features, and therapy-based criteria to judge transitions between stages.3Naidu S.S. Baran D.A. Jentzer J.C. et al.SCAI SHOCK stages classification clinical expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2022; 1100008Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar Despite this, it should be recognized that many aspects of CS staging still entail some degree of subjectivity and thus may result in variable staging, even within a given center. Similarly, timing and implementation of therapies that follow staging, such as mechanical circulatory support (MCS), are highly variable and will impact how the recovery/deterioration pathways outlined in Figure 5 are applied within a given system of care.3Naidu S.S. Baran D.A. Jentzer J.C. et al.SCAI SHOCK stages classification clinical expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2022; 1100008Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar Greater visual clarity is given to the SCAI SHOCK pyramid figure (Figure 4), now depicted in gradations of color to reflect increasing severity within each stage. The inherent heterogeneity of cardiac arrest (CA) is acknowledged, and accordingly, the “A” modifier is now designated only for patients with CA with suspected anoxic brain injury. The revised statement also incorporates a 3-axis model (Figure 3) to aid in CS prognostication, separating out various modifiable and nonmodifiable factors that determine shock phenotype and, in turn, drive mortality.3Naidu S.S. Baran D.A. Jentzer J.C. et al.SCAI SHOCK stages classification clinical expert consensus update: a review and incorporation of validation studies.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. 2022; 1100008Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Google Scholar While this construct appropriately recognizes the impact of cardiometabolic derangements, systemic inflammation, and congestion profile on outcomes, it is not immediately translatable to clinical decision-making. Furthermore, its applicability may vary based on CS etiology and chronicity of the preshock state, as in patients with chronic heart failure progressing to CS. In summary, the 2021 SCAI SHOCK Stages update meaningfully advances CS risk stratification and prognostication without departing from the simplicity of the original model. That stated, many opportunities exist to further improve the utility of the model. The “A” modifier is now applicable only to CA with neurologic injury, but this determination usually takes time and is affected by numerous factors; moreover, end-organ damage sustained during the arrest often independently contributes to poor outcomes. The deliberate omission of age as a criterion is also problematic, as advanced age predicts poor outcomes across the spectrum of critical illness; further consideration of these 2 variables would be welcome. Similarly, incorporation of serial hemodynamic and laboratory assessments and standardization of the methodology and frequency of clinical assessment may sharpen the calibration of the model and may help inform optimal timing of therapies such as mechanical circulatory support. Ultimately, however, the clinical impact of this statement will less likely hinge on further refinements, but rather on broad adoption by the global community of cardiovascular clinicians and trialists as the new lingua franca for acute cardiogenic shock. Dr Nathan has served as a consultant to Abiomed, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc, and Getinge. Dr O'Neill has served as a consultant to Abiomed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.