ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2025
Application of the Updated Cardiogenic Shock Working Group SCAI Classification for Cardiogenic Shock: A Single-Centre Analysis.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Factors associated with native heart survival and intermediate-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.European heart journal open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2019, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) proposed an algorithm to assess cardiogenic shock (CS) severity, known as SCAI classification. In 2022, the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group (CSWG) modified the original classification using specific parameters to better define hypotension and hypoperfusion with the goal to further refine stratification.
methodsConsecutive patients with CS who were managed at a quaternary academic medical centre from May 2015 to December 2021 were evaluated (N = 1162). Our study cohort comprised patients who developed CS after admission. In-hospital mortality per SCAI stage at shock onset was assessed. The percentages of temporary mechanical circulatory support use per SCAI stage at shock onset was also reported. In our study, we included intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous ventricular assist device, and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
resultsOur study cohort comprised 742 patients with a median age of 62.0 (interquartile range, 51-72) years, mostly men (66%). Etiology of CS included 25% acute myocardial infarction and 75% non-acute myocardial infarction. In-hospital mortality per CS severity stage using the SCAI-CSWG classification was 14.30% for stage B, 20.90% for stage C, 32.70% for stage D, and 44.80% for stage E, whereas temporary mechanical circulatory support use was greatest in SCAI stage E.
conclusionsWe identified a direct relationship of in-hospital mortality per CS severity stage using the SCAI-CSWG classification in the overall cohort. These findings require further validation in prospective studies.
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.