Key result
The 2019 SCAI clinical staging system for cardiogenic shock effectively discriminates patient survival.
Why the study?
Cardiogenic shock manifests with a spectrum of severity, and categorizing CS into clinical stages may improve risk stratification and patient selection for therapies.
Design
Registry study
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“There are a lot of observational data now that suggest we may be seeing a paradigm shift in shock from diagnosis to risk stratification and then ultimately management.”
“These findings confirm the efficacy of the SCAI shock stage classification, allowing physicians a staged approach to communicate with their colleagues and the broader heart team how sick a patient is in a very consistent way. Our analysis should enhance physician confidence in the protocol to appropriately identify high-risk and low-risk patients, ultimately helping tailor therapy based on level of shock to improve patient outcomes.”
“The SCAI classification system is very quickly being used to fill in knowledge gaps about cardiogenic shock that will one day help us improve clinical outcomes for patients.”
SCAI staging may aid risk stratification in cardiogenic shock; supports classification but leaves open prospective validation.
The syndrome of cardiogenic shock (CS) manifests with a spectrum of severity. Categorizing CS into clinical stages may enable improved risk stratification and patient selection for therapies. We sought to determine whether the new 2019 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lawler et al. (2020) studied this question. The 2019 SCAI clinical staging system for cardiogenic shock effectively discriminates patient survival.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: