-
- Anusha G Bhat, Sean van Diepen, Jason N Katz, Ashequl Islam, Benham N Tehrani, Alexander G Truesdell, Navin K Kapur, David R Holmes, Venugopal Menon, Wissam A Jaber, William J Nicholson, David X Zhao, and Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula.
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.
- Shock. 2022 May 1; 57 (5): 617-629.
AbstractDespite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.Copyright © 2022 by the Shock Society.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*,_underline_or**bold**. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>and subscript<sub>text</sub>. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3., hyphens-or asterisks*. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com) - Images can be included with:
 - For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote..