García-García Cosme, López-Sobrino Teresa, Sanz-Girgas Esther, Cueto Maria R, Aboal Jaime, Pastor Pablo, Buera Irene, Sionis Alessandro, Andrea Rut, Rodríguez-López Judit, Sánchez-Salado Jose Carlos, Tomas Carlos, Bañeras Jordi, Ariza Albert, Lupón Josep, Bayés-Genís Antoni, Rueda Ferran
Department of Medicine, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Cardiology Department, Heart Institute, Hosptial Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain.
ESC Heart Fail. 2025 Apr;12(2):1336-1345. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.15148. Epub 2024 Nov 25.
Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains elevated, with the potential for CS causes to impact prognosis and risk stratification. The aim was to investigate in-hospital prognosis and mortality in CS patients according to aetiology. We also assessed the prognostic accuracy of CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores.
Shock-CAT study was a multicentre, prospective, observational study conducted from December 2018 to November 2019 in eight university hospitals in Catalonia, including non-selected consecutive CS patients. Data on clinical presentation, management, including mechanical circulatory support (MCS) were analysed comparing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) related CS and non-AMI-CS. The accuracy of CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II scores to assess 90 day mortality risk were also compared.
A total of 382 CS patients were included, age 65.3 (SD 13.9) years, 75.1% men. Patients were classified as AMI-CS (n = 232, 60.7%) and non-AMI-CS (n = 150, 39.3%). In the AMI-CS group, 77.6% were STEMI. Main aetiologies for non-AMI-CS were heart failure (36.2%), arrhythmias (22.1%) and valve disease (8.0%). AMI-CS patients required more MCS than non-AMI-CS (43.1% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher in AMI-CS (37.1 vs. 26.7%, P = 0.035), with a two-fold increased risk after multivariate adjustment (odds ratio 2.24, P = 0.019). The IABP-SHOCK II had superior discrimination for predicting 90 day mortality when compared with CardShock in AMI-CS patients [area under the curve (AUC) 0.74 vs. 0.66, P = 0.047] although both scores performed similarly in non-AMI-CS (AUC 0.64 vs. 0.62, P = 0.693).
In our cohort, AMI-CS mortality was increased by two-fold when compared with non-AMI-CS. IABP-SHOCK II score provides better 90 day mortality risk prediction than CardShock score in AMI-CS, but both scores performed similar in non-AMI-CS patients.
心源性休克(CS)的死亡率仍然居高不下,CS的病因有可能影响预后和风险分层。本研究旨在根据病因调查CS患者的院内预后和死亡率。我们还评估了CardShock和IABP-SHOCK II评分的预后准确性。
Shock-CAT研究是一项多中心、前瞻性、观察性研究,于2018年12月至2019年11月在加泰罗尼亚的八所大学医院进行,纳入未经过筛选的连续性CS患者。分析了临床表现、治疗管理(包括机械循环支持(MCS))的数据,比较急性心肌梗死(AMI)相关CS和非AMI-CS患者。还比较了CardShock和IABP-SHOCK II评分评估90天死亡风险的准确性。
共纳入382例CS患者,年龄65.3(标准差13.9)岁,男性占75.1%。患者分为AMI-CS组(n = 232,60.7%)和非AMI-CS组(n = 150,39.3%)。在AMI-CS组中,77.6%为ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)。非AMI-CS的主要病因是心力衰竭(36.2%)、心律失常(22.1%)和瓣膜病(8.0%)。AMI-CS患者比非AMI-CS患者需要更多的MCS(43.1%对16.7%,P < 0.001)。AMI-CS患者的院内死亡率更高(37.1%对26.7%,P = 0.035),多因素调整后风险增加两倍(比值比2.24,P = 0.019)。与CardShock相比,IABP-SHOCK II在预测AMI-CS患者90天死亡率方面具有更好的辨别力[曲线下面积(AUC)0.74对0.66,P = 0.047],尽管在非AMI-CS患者中两者评分表现相似(AUC 0.64对0.62,P = 0.693)。
在我们的队列中,与非AMI-CS相比,AMI-CS的死亡率增加了两倍。在AMI-CS患者中,IABP-SHOCK II评分比CardShock评分能更好地预测90天死亡风险,但在非AMI-CS患者中两者评分表现相似。