Key result
Review compares cardiogenic shock risk models for contemporary AMI and HF management.
Why the study?
Cardiogenic shock mortality remains above 50%, and limited information exists regarding differences between risk scoring systems and their applicability to acute myocardial infarction versus advanced decompensated heart failure CS.
This review provides a comprehensive appraisal of published risk prediction models for cardiogenic shock, discussing their similarities, differences, limitations, and applicability to contemporary care.
Informs CS risk model selection for AMI and HF; leaves open prospective validation in contemporary cohorts.
Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhat et al. (2022) conducted a review in Cardiogenic shock. Risk prediction models was evaluated. A review of published cardiogenic shock risk prediction models highlights their similarities, differences, and suitability for contemporary management of acute myocardial infarction and heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: