Long Ashleigh, Yehya Amin, Stelling Kelly, Baran David A
Sentara Heart Hospital Norfolk, VA.
Eastern Virginia Medical School Norfolk, VA.
US Cardiol. 2021 Sep 15;15:e15. doi: 10.15420/usc.2021.09. eCollection 2021.
Cardiogenic shock continues to present a daunting challenge to clinicians, despite an increasing array of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices. Mortality for cardiogenic shock has not changed meaningfully in more than 20 years. There have been many attempts to generate risk scores or frameworks to evaluate cardiogenic shock and optimize the use of resources and assist with prognostication. These include the Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock (IABP-SHOCK) II risk score, the CardShock score and the new CLIP biomarker score. This article reviews the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification of cardiogenic shock and subsequent validation studies. The SCAI classification is simple for clinicians to use as it is based on readily available information and can be adapted depending on the data set that can be accessed. The authors consider the future of the field. Underlying all these efforts is the hope that a better understanding and classification of shock will lead to meaningful improvements in mortality rates.
尽管经皮机械循环支持设备种类日益增多，但心源性休克仍然给临床医生带来严峻挑战。20多年来，心源性休克的死亡率并无显著变化。人们多次尝试生成风险评分或框架，以评估心源性休克、优化资源利用并辅助进行预后判断。这些包括心源性休克主动脉内球囊反搏（IABP-SHOCK）II风险评分、CardShock评分和新的CLIP生物标志物评分。本文回顾了心血管造影和介入学会（SCAI）的心源性休克分类及后续验证研究。SCAI分类对临床医生来说使用简便，因为它基于易于获取的信息，并且可以根据可获取的数据集进行调整。作者们探讨了该领域的未来。所有这些努力的背后都寄希望于对休克有更好的理解和分类能够切实提高死亡率。
