Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1093/ehjacc/zuae098
David D Berg, Erin A Bohula, Siddharth M Patel, Carlos E Alfonso, Carlos L Alviar, Vivian M Baird-Zars, Christopher F Barnett, Gregory W Barsness, Courtney E Bennett, Sunit-Preet Chaudhry, Christopher B Fordyce, Shahab Ghafghazi, Umesh K Gidwani, Michael J Goldfarb, Jason N Katz, Venu Menon, P Elliott Miller, L Kristin Newby, Alexander I Papolos, Jeong-Gun Park, Matthew J Pierce, Alastair G Proudfoot, Shashank S Sinha, Lakshmi Sridharan, Andrea D Thompson, Sean van Diepen, David A Morrow
{"title":"Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions.","authors":"David D Berg, Erin A Bohula, Siddharth M Patel, Carlos E Alfonso, Carlos L Alviar, Vivian M Baird-Zars, Christopher F Barnett, Gregory W Barsness, Courtney E Bennett, Sunit-Preet Chaudhry, Christopher B Fordyce, Shahab Ghafghazi, Umesh K Gidwani, Michael J Goldfarb, Jason N Katz, Venu Menon, P Elliott Miller, L Kristin Newby, Alexander I Papolos, Jeong-Gun Park, Matthew J Pierce, Alastair G Proudfoot, Shashank S Sinha, Lakshmi Sridharan, Andrea D Thompson, Sean van Diepen, David A Morrow","doi":"10.1093/ehjacc/zuae098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":11861,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11518926/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuae098","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.

Methods and results: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用休克学术研究联盟 (SHARC) 共识定义的心源性休克流行病学。
背景:休克学术研究联盟(SHARC)最近提出了务实的共识定义,以规范登记册和临床试验中的心源性休克(CS)分类。我们旨在使用 SHARC 定义描述心脏重症监护病房(CICU)人群中的当代 CS 流行病学:重症监护心脏病学试验网络(CCCTN)是由 TIMI 研究小组(马萨诸塞州波士顿)协调的先进重症监护病房的跨国研究网络。CS被定义为导致SBPR的心脏疾病:在符合休克标准(2017-2023 年)的 8974 名患者中,65% 患有孤立性 CS,17% 患有混合性休克。在CS患者(n=5869)中,27%患有AMI-CS(65%为STEMI),59%患有HF-CS(72%为急性-慢性,28%为新发),14%为继发性CS。AMI-CS和新发HF-CS患者最有可能同时患有心脏骤停(p结论:SHARC关于CS分类的共识定义可实际应用于当代登记中,并揭示了具有不同表型和结局的CS亚群,这些表型和结局可能与临床实践和未来研究相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.90%
发文量
325
期刊介绍: The European Heart Journal - Acute Cardiovascular Care (EHJ-ACVC) offers a unique integrative approach by combining the expertise of the different sub specialties of cardiology, emergency and intensive care medicine in the management of patients with acute cardiovascular syndromes. Reading through the journal, cardiologists and all other healthcare professionals can access continuous updates that may help them to improve the quality of care and the outcome for patients with acute cardiovascular diseases.
期刊最新文献
Answer: An unusual presentation of acute myocardial infarction. A warm November rain: illuminating new approaches in cardiogenic shock management. Frontloading the Fight: Early versus Delayed Percutaneous Sympathetic Blockade in Cardiac Electrical Storms. Sudden cardiac death after early-onset myocardial infarction: a multicentre longitudinal cohort study with a 20-year follow-up. Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1