Roeschl T, Hinrichs N, Hommel M, Pfahringer B, Balzer F, Falk V, O'Brien B, Ott SC, Potapov E, Schoenrath F, and Meyer A
Background: The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification has been shown to provide robust mortality risk stratification in a variety of cardiovascular patients., Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the SCAI shock classification in postoperative cardiac surgery intensive care unit (CSICU) patients., Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 26,792 postoperative CSICU admissions at a heart center between 2012 and 2022. Patients were classified into SCAI shock stages A to E using electronic health record data. Moreover, the impact of late deterioration (LD) as an additional risk modifier was investigated., Results: The proportions of patients in SCAI shock stages A to E were 24.4%, 18.8%, 8.4%, 35.5%, and 12.9%, and crude hospital mortality rates were 0.4%, 0.6%, 3.3%, 4.9%, and 30.2%, respectively. Similarly, the prevalence of postoperative complications and organ dysfunction increased across SCAI shock stages. After multivariable adjustment, each higher SCAI shock stage was associated with increased hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 1.26-16.59) compared with SCAI shock stage A, as was LD (adjusted OR: 8.2). The SCAI shock classification demonstrated a strong diagnostic performance for hospital mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic: 0.84), which noticeably increased when LD was incorporated into the model (area under the receiver operating characteristic: 0.90)., Conclusions: The SCAI shock classification effectively risk-stratifies postoperative CSICU patients for mortality, postoperative complications, and organ dysfunction. Its application could, therefore, be extended to the field of cardiac surgery as a triage tool in postoperative care and as a selection criterion in research., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Falk has received educational grants (including travel support), fees for lectures and speeches, fees for professional consultation, and research and study funds from Medtronic GmbH, Biotronik SE & Co, Abbott GmbH & Co KG, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Berlin Heart, Novartis Pharma GmbH, JOTEC GmbH, and Zurich Heart. Dr O’Brien has received research funding from the British Heart Foundation and the National Institute for Health Science Research; and has served as a consultant for Teleflex. Dr Schoenrath has received institutional grants from Novartis and Abbott; has received nonfinancial support from Medtronic; and has received institutional fees (speaker honoraria) from Orion Pharma outside of the submitted work. Dr Potapov has received educational grants (including travel support), fees for lectures and speeches, fees for professional consultation, and research and study funds from Medtronic GmbH, Abbott GmbH & Co KG, and Abiomed. Dr Ott has received research and study funds from Novartis Pharma GmbH; and has received consulting fees, fees for lectures, and travel grants from Abiomed Europe GmbH. Dr Balzer has received funding from Medtronic; has received grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the German Federal Ministry of Health, the Berlin Institute of Health Hans Böckler Foundation; Einstein Foundation, and the Berlin University Alliance outside the submitted work; has received personal fees from Elsevier Publishing; and has received other from Robert Koch Institute. Dr Meyer has received lecturing fees from Bayer and Medtronic; has received consulting fees from Medtronic and Pfizer; and is founder and managing director of x-cardiac GmbH. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)