Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 7;4(2):102462.
doi: 10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102462. eCollection 2025 Feb.

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stage E Shock: Insights From the RECOVER III Study

Ivan D Hanson  1 , Andres Palomo  1 , Adam Tawney  1 , Simon R Dixon  1 , Dana Bentley  2 , Srihari S Naidu  3 , Mir B Basir  4 , William W O'Neill  4
Affiliations

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stage E Shock: Insights From the RECOVER III Study

Ivan D Hanson et al. J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. .

Abstract

Background: The present analysis reports characteristics and outcomes of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) stage E shock patients with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who improved to stage C or D within 24 hours of Impella support ("responders") vs those patients who remained in stage E ("nonresponders").

Methods: The SCAI shock stage was assigned prior to initiation of Impella, and a second SCAI shock classification was performed within 24 hours of Impella support. SCAI shock stage was assigned independently by 2 reviewers; in cases where there was a discrepancy, a third reviewer adjudicated the stage assignment. Criteria such as a low pH (≤7.1), the need for multiple vasopressors/mechanical circulatory support devices, or the need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation were used to define stage E shock.

Results: Of the 415 RECOVER III patients, 298 presented in stage E shock; 152 (51.1%) were responders and 145 (48.8%) were nonresponders. Kaplan-Meier 30-day survival estimates were 56.9% and 28.6% in responders and nonresponders, respectively (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, fewer inotropic medications during Impella support (P < .0001), more lesions treated (P = .01), Impella support initiated pre-PCI (P = .03), and baseline white blood cell (P = .048) were all significant predictors for responsiveness to therapy.

Conclusions: Stage E patients who improved to stage C/D within 24 hours of Impella support had significantly better survival than those who remained in stage E. Predictors of responsiveness to therapy were mostly related to shock treatment strategy, and not baseline characteristics. This suggests that whether stage E patients will improve with Impella support is difficult to determine at the time support is initiated, and the SCAI shock stage should be repeated within 24 hours to more accurately determine the prognosis.

Keywords: SCAI shock class; acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock; mechanical circulatory support; percutaneous coronary intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Central Illustration
Central Illustration
Visualization of change in the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) shock stage from baseline to ≤24-hour assessment, in patients classified as those in SCAI shock stage E at baseline assessment. A total of 51% of SCAI shock stage E patients improved in the SCAI shock stage within 24 hours of initiation of Impella support (ie, “responders”) and 49% remained in stage E (“nonresponders”). Survival at discharge in responders and nonresponders was 62% and 31%, respectively. PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.
Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier survival curve estimates in Society of Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions shock stage E patients who improved in shock stage within 24 hours of initiation of Impella support (responders) and those who remained in stage E (nonresponders).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. van Diepen S., Katz J.N., Albert N.M., et al. Contemporary management of cardiogenic shock: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;136(16):e232–e268. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000525. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hochman J.S., Sleeper L.A., Webb J.G., et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(9):625–634. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199908263410901. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Møller J.E., Engstrøm T., Jensen L.O., et al. Microaxial flow pump or standard care in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(15):1382–1393. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2312572. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Basir M.B., Lemor A., Gorgis S., et al. Early utilization of mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(23) doi: 10.1161/JAHA.123.031401. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hanson I.D., Tagami T., Mando R., et al. SCAI shock classification in acute myocardial infarction: insights from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;96(6):1137–1142. doi: 10.1002/ccd.29139. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources