ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Serial Assessment of Shock Severity in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Levosimendan in Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Therapeutic Use.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Prognostic validation and risk stratification of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock classification in a large, real-world intensive care unit cohort in South Korea.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Early Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support and In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with LV Dysfunction and Cardiogenic Shock Complicating AMI.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Severe hypotension but not systemic inflammation or endothelial activation predicts encephalopathy in circulatory shock.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Critical Care of the Adult With Congenital Heart Disease.JACC. Advances · 2025Review
- Expert consensus statement on the evaluation, treatment, and transfer of cardiogenic shock using a Delphi method approach: a report of the Japan Critical Care Cardiology Committee (J4 CS).Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Consistency and Risk Stratification Performance of 4 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions SHOCK Stage Definitions: A Retrospective Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Acute Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Association between mean hemodynamic variables during the first 24 h and outcomes in cardiogenic shock: identification of clinically relevant thresholds.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stage E Shock: Insights From the RECOVER III Study.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.