Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,017

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019

Open access
Baran, David A., Grines, Cindy L., Bailey, Steven, Burkhoff, Daniel, Hall, Shelley A., Henry, Timothy D., Hollenberg, Steven M., Kapur, Navin K., O'Neill, William, Ornato, Joseph P., Stelling, Kelly, Thiele, Holger, van Diepen, Sean, Naidu, Srihari S.·2019·Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
DOI 10.1002/ccd.28329
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. Results: A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is “at risk” for cardiogenic shock, stage B is “beginning” shock, stage C is “classic” cardiogenic shock, stage D is “deteriorating”, and E is “extremis”. The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. Conclusion: This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre‐hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ccd.28329

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,017

Metadata

Authors
Baran, D. A., Grines, C. L., Bailey, S., Burkhoff, D., Hall, S. A., Henry, T. D., Hollenberg, S. M., Kapur, N. K., O'Neill, W., Ornato, J. P., Stelling, K., Thiele, H., van Diepen, S., & Naidu, S. S.
Venue
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-19
Volume
94
Issue
1
Pages
29-37
ISSN
  • 1522-1946 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-726X
DOI
10.1002/ccd.28329
OpenAlex
W2945771063
Cited by
1,017
References
34
FWCI
38.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.