Abstract:Background The SCAI shock classification aims to provide a simple and practical stratification of the severity of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and to immediately offer them crucial treatments such as mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Additionally, the IABP shock II risk score is designed to predict 30-day mortality in patients with CS following acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and the SAVE score can also predict in-hospital mortality for patients after veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) insertion due to refractory CS. However, previous studies on SCAI staging in patients with MCS have been inconsistent, and the association with prognosis remains unclear. Purpose The aim of this study is to investigate the correlation between the SCAI shock stage and prognosis in ACS patients requiring advanced MCS, and to compare it with other prognostic scores. Methods From January 2012 to July 2023, 137 ACS patients with advanced MCS (excluding IABP) were evaluated. Upon ICU admission, patients were categorized into SCAI stages B to E. The IABP shock II score and the SAVE score were also calculated to serve as prognostic tools. The type of MCS was categorized as Impella, VA-ECMO with IABP, and ECPELLA (VA-ECMO with Impella). We compared the 90-day survival rates with the SCAI shock stage and other prognostic tools. Result The distribution for SCAI classifications stage B to E was 13 (10%), 38 (28%), 21 (15%), and 65 (47%), respectively. There were no significant differences among the groups regarding age, gender, comorbidities, the ratio of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, door-to-balloon time, and onset-to-reperfusion time. In SCAI Stage E, a significantly higher proportion of patients (86%) underwent extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, exhibiting elevated lactate and peak CK-MB levels, along with higher IABP Shock II and lower SAVE scores, compared to other stages. A Kaplan-Meier analysis of 90-day mortality, based on the SCAI, the IABP Shock II, the SAVE categories, and the type of MCS, demonstrated that outcomes deteriorated as the stage advanced across all classifications. In the univariate Cox regression analysis for 90-day mortality, significant differences in outcomes were observed across the four classifications. However, in the multivariate Cox regression analysis that incorporated all four classifications, only the type of MCS (Impella vs. ECMO with IABP; hazard ratio [HR] 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 - 0.78, p = 0.012) and the SCAI classification (stage E vs. stage C; HR 3.03; 95% CI, 1.51 - 6.08, p = 0.002) demonstrated a significant association with 90-day mortality. Conclusion The SCAI shock stage upon ICU admission suggests the potential for convenient prediction of mid-term outcomes in ACS patients who received advanced MCS.

Early vs. Delayed Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Trends and outcomes of different mechanical circulatory support modalities for acute myocardial infarction associated cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing early revascularization

Factors associated with 30-day mortality in patients receiving mechanical circulatory support for cardiogenic shock

Complication Rates Of Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support In Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Complications and Outcomes in 39,864 Patients Receiving Standard Care Plus Mechanical Circulatory Support or Standard Care Alone for Infarct-Associated Cardiogenic Shock

Predictors of Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock despite Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump: Opportunities for Advanced Mechanical Circulatory Support in Asia

US trends of in-hospital morbidity and mortality for acute myocardial infarctions complicated by cardiogenic shock

Safety Of Mechanical Circulatory Support Use For Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Among Octogenerians: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis Of United States

Timing of veno‐arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with cardiogenic shock

Temporary mechanical circulatory support devices: updates from recent studies

Comparison Of Outcomes In Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Ecpella Versus Va-ecmo With Iabp

Long-term 5-year outcome of the randomized IMPRESS in severe shock trial: percutaneous mechanical circulatory support vs. intra-aortic balloon pump in cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction

Short- and long-term adverse events in patients on temporary circulatory support before durable ventricular assist device: An IMACS registry analysis

Anticoagulation Medications, Monitoring, and Outcomes in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support after Cardiac Surgery

Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support and survival in patients resuscitated from Out of Hospital cardiac arrest: A study from the CARES surveillance group

Utility of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

Early Identification Of Explicit Treatment Strategies And Outcomes In Cardiogenic Shock

Characteristics of High-Performing Hospitals in Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction

Evaluating the efficacy and safety of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices in acute cardiogenic shock: A subgroup-specific systematic review

Classification of 90-day mortality risk among patients with cardiogenic shock requiring advanced mechanical circulatory support