SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock

By D. Baran, C. Grines, S. Bailey, D. Burkhoff, S. Hall, T. Henry, S. Hollenberg, N. Kapur, W. O’Neill, J. Ornato and 4 more. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2019

837 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state.

Subfields: Biomedical Engineering, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Epidemiology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/590723f8dc0184c33c1039fb24e799018aa4c522

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

1. S. Anker
2. Gerasimos Filippatos
3. J. Januzzi
4. C. Yancy
5. M. Drazner

Citations in the corpus

• Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure. (2021, background): “In cardiogenic shock, the symptoms and signs reflecting HF include hypotension unresponsive to volume repletion, altered mental status, cool extremities, and laboratory evidence of end organ dysfunction such as elevated lactate levels due to hypoperfusion.(55) Cardiogenic shock is an extreme form of”
• SCAI SHOCK Stage Classification Expert Consensus Update: A Review and Incorporation of Validation Studies (2022, background): “1 Ensuing validation studies over the course of the subsequent 2 years documented both its ease and rapidity of use as well as its ability Abbreviations: ACS, acute coronary syndrome; AMI, acute myocardial infarction; CA, cardiac arrest; CCCTN, Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network; CICU, cardiac ”