SCAI SHOCK stage classification: valid for all indications and devices in patients with short-term mechanical circulatory support?

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements None. Background The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) SHOCK stage has demonstrated prognostic value in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), including patients on venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. It has also been validated in different scenarios as acute coronary syndrome -ACS- or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Purpose Our objective was to study the prognostic value of SCAI SHOCK stage in different indications and etiologies requiring different types of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Methods Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients supported with VA-ECMO or Impella CP® in a referral center. We studied the SCAI SHOCK stage at MCS implantation according different devices, indication and etiology, and its relationship with in-hospital and follow-up survival. Results 263 patients were included between 2014-March 2023 (Table). The SCAI SHOCK stage was less advanced in complex high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP-PCI) indication and more advanced in postcardiotomy shock, myocarditis, pulmonary embolism (PE), refractory cardiac arrest or electric storm (Figure A). In-hospital survival was 41.1% and it was significantly lower as SCAI SHOCK stage increased (A 83.9%, B 100%, C 66.7%, D 39.2%, E 24.5%; p=0.000), as well as in follow-up for a median time of 24.5 [47] months (figure B). This association was maintained with both types of devices separately: VA-ECMO (A 80%, B 100%, C 33.3%, D 38.9%, E 24.5%, p=0.001) and Impella (A 84%, B 100%, C 75%, D 42.9%, E 25%, p=0.005). Regarding the indication and etiology for MCS, SCAI SHOCK classification was significantly related with survival in CS indication, as well as in ACS and heart failure (HF) etiology (Figure B). However, no relationship between SCAI and survival was observed in indications as CHIP-PCI (A 83.9%, B 100%, C 50%; p=0.386), electrical storm (C 0%, D 100%, E 70%; p=0.075) and postcardiotomy shock (D 35.6%, E 20%; p=0.470), neither in etiologies as PE (D 0%, E 28.6%; p=1), infective endocarditis (D 28.6%, E 0%; p=1), myocarditis (D 100%, E 0%; p=0.250),and other causes of cardiac arrest (D 0%, E 25%; p=1), nor in patients admitted for elective cardiac surgery. Conclusions SCAI SHOCK stage classification showed prognostic value in patients with short-term MCS indicated by diverse etiologies, including both VA-ECMO and Impella CP devices. The prognostic value was maintained for the indication of CS, and in ACS and HF etiologies, but not in electrical storm, CHIP-PCI, PE, myocarditis or postcardiotomy shock. Studies are needed to validate this classification in other settings.TableFigure