Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40894343›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025

Predictive value of the cardiogenic shock working group-modified SCAI criteria in early-stage heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

Tijmen H Ris, Morsal Atazadah, Roel Hoek, Jeroen Hoogland, Tim Balthazar, Federico Pappalardo, Paul Knaapen, Mariëlle C van de Veerdonk, Alexander Nap

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Rethinking early risk stratification in heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tijmen H RisDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Morsal AtazadahDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Roel HoekDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jeroen HooglandDepartment of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Tim BalthazarDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospital Brussels, Jette, Belgium.
Federico PappalardoKore University, Enna and Policlinico Centro Cuore GB Morgagni, Catania, Italy.
Paul KnaapenDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mariëlle C van de VeerdonkDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alexander NapDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Cardiogenic Shock Working Group-modified Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (CSWG-SCAI) has been validated in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) related to heart failure (HF). Its prognostic value in patients with early-stage HF-CS has been scarcely investigated. Methods: In 208 patients with HF-CS, the relationship between the CSWG-SCAI stage at diagnosis, at 24 and 48 h, the maximum CSWG-SCAI stage, and in-hospital mortality were assessed. In addition, the added value of urine output (UO) to the CSWG-SCAI was evaluated. Results: At HF-CS diagnosis, stages A and B were most prevalent (33 % and 36 %), while stage C dominated at 24 h (51 %), 48 h (44 %) and maximum CSWG-SCAI (37 %). In total, 87 (42 %) patients died during hospitalization. At HF-CS diagnosis, lower stages (A/B) showed similar prognostic value compared to more severe stages (C/D/E) (p = 0.994). The CSWG-SCAI was associated with in-hospital mortality at 24 h (p = 0.005), 48 h (p = 0.005) and at maximum CSWG SCAI (p < 0.001). Stage deterioration after 24 h was associated with mortality (deteriorated vs. improved: p < 0.001). SCAI-UO showed modest additive predictive value at 48 h (AUC 0.67 vs. AUC 0.70; p = 0.015) and maximum SCAI compared to CSWG-SCAI (AUC 0.66 vs. AUC 0.69; p = 0.032). Conclusions: At the time of HF-CS diagnosis, the CSWG-SCAI classification failed to predict in-hospital mortality, suggesting that it may not adequately capture the severity of early-stage HF-CS. The CSWG-SCAI classification was associated with in-hospital mortality at 24 and 48 h and at maximum CSWG-SCAI. Incorporating UO into the CSWG-SCAI criteria minimally improved risk stratification.

Indexed as

Cardiogenic shockCardiogenic shock working group-modified society for cardiovascular angiography and interventionsHeart failure related cardiogenic shockMortalityUrine output

Identifiers

PMID40894343
PMCPMC12398876

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.