Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 554

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cardiogenic Shock Classification to Predict Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Open access
Jentzer, Jacob C., van Diepen, Sean, Barsness, Gregory W., Henry, Timothy D., Menon, Venu, Rihal, Charanjit S., Naidu, Srihari S., Baran, David A.·2019·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND A new 5-stage cardiogenic shock (CS) classification scheme was recently proposed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) for the purpose of risk stratification. OBJECTIVES This study sought to apply the SCAI shock classification in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. METHODS The study retrospectively analyzed Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted between 2007 and 2015. SCAI CS stages A through E were classified retrospectively using CICU admission data based on the presence of hypotension or tachycardia, hypoperfusion, deterioration, and refractory shock. Hospital mortality in each SCAI shock stage was stratified by cardiac arrest (CA). RESULTS Among the 10,004 unique patients, 43.1% had acute coronary syndrome, 46.1% had heart failure, and 12.1% had CA. The proportion of patients in SCAI CS stages A through E was 46.0%, 30.0%, 15.7%, 7.3%, and 1.0% and unadjusted hospital mortality in these stages was 3.0%, 7.1%, 12.4%, 40.4%, and 67.0% (p < 0.001), respectively. After multivariable adjustment, each higher SCAI shock stage was associated with increased hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.53 to 6.80; all p < 0.001) compared with SCAI shock stage A, as was CA (adjusted odds ratio: 3.99; 95% confidence interval: 3.27 to 4.86; p < 0.001). Results were consistent in the subset of patients with acute coronary syndrome or heart failure. CONCLUSIONS When assessed at the time of CICU admission, the SCAI CS classification, including presence or absence of CA, provided robust hospital mortality risk stratification. This classification system could be implemented as a clinical and research tool to identify, communicate, and predict the risk of death in patients with, and at risk for, CS.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.077

Cites

25 of 25 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

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 554

Metadata

Authors
Jentzer, J. C., van Diepen, S., Barsness, G. W., Henry, T. D., Menon, V., Rihal, C. S., Naidu, S. S., & Baran, D. A.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-10
Volume
74
Issue
17
Pages
2117-2128
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2974296394
Cited by
554
References
25
FWCI
19.90
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cardiogenic Shock Classification to Predict Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.077
The paper
Jentzer, J. C., van Diepen, S., Barsness, G. W., Henry, T. D., Menon, V., Rihal, C. S., Naidu, S. S., & Baran, D. A. (2019). Cardiogenic Shock Classification to Predict Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.077

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.