Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 10, 2025

Real-time Pressure-volume Analysis of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Mice
Published on: July 2, 2018
Stage A Cardiogenic Shock in the SCAI Classification: Limitations and Prospects for Diagnostic Improvement
Stanislav Dil1, Maria Kercheva1, Nina Belich1
1From the Cardiology Research Institute, Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tomsk, Russia.
Insights
Early identification of cardiogenic shock (CS) risk is crucial. Integrating biomarkers and dynamic monitoring can improve patient outcomes and reduce costs by enabling timely interventions.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Emergency Medicine
- Critical Care
Background:
- Cardiogenic shock (CS) presents a significant challenge in emergency cardiology with high mortality.
- Current classification systems, like Stage A, lack precision, leading to heterogeneous patient risk stratification.
- Ambiguous criteria for "extensive myocardial infarction" and overlooking microvascular dysfunction/inflammation hinder early intervention.
Purpose of the Study:
- To highlight the need for improved risk stratification in early-stage cardiogenic shock.
- To emphasize the importance of identifying patients at risk of shock progression.
- To advocate for integrating novel biomarkers and dynamic monitoring into diagnostic algorithms.
Main Methods:
- Review of existing literature on cardiogenic shock classification and progression.
- Analysis of the limitations in current diagnostic criteria for Stage A CS.
- Exploration of emerging roles for microcirculatory disturbances and inflammatory biomarkers.
Main Results:
- Stage A classification exhibits significant heterogeneity, including patients with vastly different risk profiles.
- Lack of specific biomarkers prevents accurate identification of patients likely to progress to shock.
- Microvascular dysfunction and systemic inflammation are underappreciated factors in CS progression.
Conclusions:
- Improved diagnostic algorithms incorporating imaging and inflammatory biomarkers are needed.
- Dynamic reassessment of patient status (lactate, hemodynamics, perfusion) is critical.
- A multidisciplinary approach with precision risk stratification is essential for timely and appropriate interventions in CS.
Abstract:
Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains one of the most critical challenges in emergency cardiology, associated with high mortality rates. Early recognition and prevention of its progression are pivotal, as preventing shock not only improves prognosis but also significantly reduces treatment costs compared with managing established shock. Stage A of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions classification demonstrates substantial clinical and prognostic heterogeneity in real-world practice. The criteria for stage A remain ambiguous: studies vary in defining "extensive myocardial infarction," overlook the impact of infarct localization, and fail to account for microvascular dysfunction and systemic inflammation in disease progression. This results in the inclusion of patients with diametrically opposed risks-from minimal to critical-limiting opportunities for preventive intervention. A key issue is the lack of specific biomarkers to identify patients at genuine risk of shock progression. Emerging evidence highlights the underappreciated roles of microcirculatory disturbances and inflammatory responses. Integrating imaging techniques and inflammatory biomarkers into CS diagnostic algorithms, as supported by recent studies, represents a promising direction. Dynamic reassessment of patient status, including continuous monitoring of lactate, hemodynamics, and organ perfusion markers, is another critical aspect. Early application of mechanical circulatory support in stages A-B reduces mortality but requires precise identification of the target population. Only a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dynamic risk stratification and precision methods can minimize inappropriate use of aggressive therapies or ensure their timely application, thereby improving outcomes in patients at risk of CS.
More Related Videos
06:10Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
07:39Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure