Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35321103›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

The CSP (Cardiogenic Shock Prognosis) Score: A Tool for Risk Stratification of Cardiogenic Shock.

Yu-Tzu Tien, Wen-Jone Chen, Chien-Hua Huang, Chen-Hsu Wang, Wei-Ting Chen, Chi-Sheng Hung, Jr-Jiun Lin, Ching-Chang Huang, Wei-Tien Chang, Min-Shan Tsai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Predictors of short-term mortality in cardiogenic shock: insights from an Egyptian multicenter registry.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yu-Tzu TienDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Wen-Jone ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chien-Hua HuangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chen-Hsu WangMedical Intensive Care Unit, Cathay General Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Wei-Ting ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Chi-Sheng HungDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Jr-Jiun LinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Ching-Chang HuangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Wei-Tien ChangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Min-Shan TsaiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, National Taiwan University Medical College and Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a critical condition and the leading cause of mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Scores that predict mortality have been established, but a patient's clinical course is often nonlinear. Thus, factors present during acute care management may be explored. This study intended to develop a risk-predictive model for patients with CS. Methods: In this observational study, adult patients who received inotropic support at the Emergency Room (ER) from January 2017 to August 2020 and were admitted to the cardiac care unit (CCU) with a diagnosis of CS were enrolled in this study. Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, inotropic support for bradycardia, and survival <24 h after ER arrival were excluded. A total of 311 patients were enrolled and categorized into derivation ( Results: A history of coronary artery disease, multiple inotrope use, ejection fraction <40%, lower hemoglobin concentration, longer cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration, albumin infusion, and renal replacement therapy were identified as independent prognostic factors for in-hospital mortality. The cardiogenic shock prognosis (CSP) score was established as a nomogram and three risk groups were identified: low-risk (score 115, 0% of mortality), medium-risk (score 116-209, 8.75% of mortality), and high-risk (score 210, 66.67% of mortality). The area-under-the-curve (AUC) of the CSP score was 0.941, and the discrimination value in the validation cohort was consistent (AUC = 0.813). Conclusions: The CSP score represents a risk-predictive model for in-hospital mortality in patients with CS in acute care settings. Patients identified as the high-risk category may have a poor prognosis.

Indexed as

cardiogenic shockcardiogenic shock prognosis scorehospital mortalitynomogramprognosisrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID35321103
PMCPMC8936130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.