Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37930059›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023

Serial Assessment of Shock Severity in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients.

Jacob C Jentzer, Sean Van Diepen, Parag C Patel, Timothy D Henry, David A Morrow, David A Baran, Kianoush B Kashani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stage E Shock: Insights From the RECOVER III Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Jacob C JentzerDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester MN USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6366-2859
Sean Van DiepenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine and Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine University of Alberta Hospital Edmonton Alberta Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6688-828X
Parag C PatelDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Mayo Clinic Florida Jacksonville FL USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2761-5895
Timothy D HenryThe Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at The Christ Hospital and The Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Institute Cincinnati OH USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1123-0533
David A MorrowTIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School Boston MA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9589-5382
David A BaranDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine Cleveland Clinic Florida Weston FL USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7754-9953
Kianoush B KashaniDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine Mayo Clinic Rochester Rochester MN USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2184-3683

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCaTS UL1 Supplement - Dr. Timothy Curry)UL1TR002377 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI VESNA D GAROVIC · 2017 to 2026
$78.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002377
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne-time assessment of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification robustly predicts mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to determine whether serial SCAI shock classification could improve risk stratification. METHODS AND

resultsUnique admissions to a single academic level 1 CICU from 2015 to 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Electronic health record data were used to assign the SCAI shock stage during 4-hour blocks of the first 24 hours of CICU admission. Shock was defined as hypoperfusion (SCAI shock stage C, D, or E). In-hospital death was evaluated using logistic regression. Among 2918 unique CICU patients, 1537 (52.7%) met criteria for shock during ≥1 block, and 266 (9.1%) died in the hospital. The SCAI shock stage on admission was: A, 37.6%; B, 31.5%; C, 25.9%; D, 1.8%; and E, 3.3%. Patients who met SCAI criteria for shock on admission (first 4 hours) and those with worsening SCAI shock stage after admission were at higher risk for in-hospital death. Each higher admission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.18-1.56]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70), maximum (adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.37-1.85]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.73) and mean (adjusted odds ratio, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.99-2.95]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.78) SCAI shock stage was incrementally associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate. Discrimination was highest for the mean SCAI shock stage (

conclusionsDynamic assessment of shock using serial SCAI shock classification assignment can improve mortality risk stratification in CICU patients by quantifying the magnitude and duration of shock.

Indexed as

Coronary Care UnitsShockHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentShock, Cardiogeniccardiac intensive care unitcardiogenicheart failuremortalitymyocardial infarctionshock

Identifiers

PMID37930059
PMCPMC10727310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.