Acute coronary syndrome-cardiogenic shock (ACS-CS) confers a 30-day mortality rate of ~50%. A simple bed-side risk score for 30-day all-cause mortality may aid in rapid prognostication in these high-risk patients.

Methods

We analyzed data from consecutive patients with ACS-CS enrolled in the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR), a state-wide procedure-based clinical quality registry, between 2013 and 2021. Internal validation was performed in 1000 bootstrapped samples to derive variables that were in > 60% of models for the prediction of 30-day mortality. Model performance was evaluated using C-statistic, and Hosmer Lemeshow (HL) statistic.

Results

Of 1564 patients with ACS-CS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 1403 presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 161 with non-STEMI. Age was 66 ± 13 years, and 74% were males. In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 42% and 45%. Selected predictors of 30-day mortality included age (odds ratio (OR) 1.4 [1.3, 1.6] per 10 year increase), female sex (OR 1.4 [1.1, 1.8]), diabetes (OR 1.5 [1.2, 2.0]), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m² (OR 2.2 [1.3, 3.5]), <60 mL/min/1.73 m² (OR 1.5 [1.1, 2.0], left ventricular ejection fraction < 35% (OR 4.6 [3.5, 6.1]), out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OR 2.3 [1.8, 3.1]), pre-procedural intubation (OR 2.1 [1.6, 2.7], mechanical circulatory support (OR 1.5 [1.1, 2.1]), STEMI (OR 2.6 [1.7, 3.8]), and multivessel PCI (OR 1.5 [1.1, 2.1], all p < 0.01). Internal validation of 1000 bootstrapped samples resulted in 15 clinical and procedural variables, which demonstrated excellent fit and performance (C-statistic = 0.8, HL p = 0.44) for the prediction of 30-day mortality.

Conclusion

A risk score incorporating only peri-procedural (clinical and procedural) variables accurately stratified 30-day mortality risk among patients with ACS-CS who underwent PCI. Further studies are required to externally validate the VCOR ACS-CS risk score, however, its simplicity potentially facilitates translation into clinical practice.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

References

1S. Noaman, S. Vogrin, D. Dinh, et al., “Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Volume and Cardiac Surgery Availability Effect on Acute Coronary Syndrome-Related Cardiogenic Shock,” JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 15, no. 8 (2022): 876–886.
10.1016/j.jcin.2022.01.283
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2A. K. Jacobs, J. K. French, J. Col, et al., “Cardiogenic Shock With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Report From the SHOCK Trial Registry,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 36, no. 3 Suppl A (2000): 1091–1096.
10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00888-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3C. Vahdatpour, D. Collins, and S. Goldberg, “Cardiogenic Shock,” Journal of the American Heart Association 8, no. 8 (2019): e011991.
10.1161/JAHA.119.011991
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4C. S. Rihal, S. S. Naidu, M. M. Givertz, et al., “2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS Clinical Expert Consensus Statement on the Use of Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Cardiovascular Care: Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana De Cardiologia Intervencion; Affirmation of Value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne De Cardiologie D'intervention,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 65, no. 19 (2015): 7.
10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.036
PubMed Google Scholar
5T. A. Bjarnason, A. Mentias, S. Panaich, et al., “Diffusion of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in US Markets,” Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions 15, no. 8 (2022): e011778.
10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.011778
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6M. B. Basir, N. K. Kapur, K. Patel, et al., “Improved Outcomes Associated With the Use of Shock Protocols: Updates From the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 93, no. 7 (2019): 1173–1183.
10.1002/ccd.28307
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7R. J. Batchelor, A. Wheelahan, W. C. Zheng, D. Stub, Y. Yang, and W. Chan, “Impella Versus Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 14 (2022): 3955.
10.3390/jcm11143955
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8M. B. Basir, T. L. Schreiber, C. L. Grines, et al., “Effect of Early Initiation of Mechanical Circulatory Support on Survival in Cardiogenic Shock,” American Journal of Cardiology 119, no. 6 (2017): 845–851.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.11.037
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9J. E. Møller, T. Engstrøm, L. O. Jensen, et al., “Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock,” New England Journal of Medicine 390, no. 15 (2024): 1382–1393.
10.1056/NEJMoa2312572
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10P. I. M. Moraes, C. R. Alves, M. T. Souza, et al., “Cardiogenic Shock After ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score Validation in a Cohort Treated With Pharmacoinvasive Strategy,” Open Heart 6, no. 2 (2019): e001069.
10.1136/openhrt-2019-001069
PubMed Google Scholar
11V. P. Harjola, J. Lassus, A. Sionis, et al., “Clinical Picture and Risk Prediction of Short-Term Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock,” European Journal of Heart Failure 17, no. 5 (2015): 501–509.
10.1002/ejhf.260
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12N. D'Elia, S. Vogrin, A. L. Brennan, et al., “Electrocardiographic Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome Cardiogenic Shock in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention—A Propensity Score Analysis,” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine: Including Molecular Interventions 65 (2024): 58–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.02.022.
10.1016/j.carrev.2024.02.022
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13D. Stub, J. Lefkovits, A. L. Brennan, et al., “The Establishment of the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR): Monitoring and Optimising Outcomes for Cardiac Patients in Victoria,” Heart, Lung and Circulation 27, no. 4 (2018): 451–463.
10.1016/j.hlc.2017.07.013
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14K. Thygesen, J. S. Alpert, A. S. Jaffe, et al., “Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018),” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 72, no. 18 (2018): 2231–2264.
10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15T. J. Ryan, D. P. Faxon, R. M. Gunnar, et al., “Guidelines for Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty),” Circulation 78, no. 2 (1988): 486–502.
10.1161/01.CIR.78.2.486
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16P. W. Armstrong, Y. Fu, W. C. Chang, et al., “Acute Coronary Syndromes in the Gusto-Iib Trial: Prognostic Insights and Impact of Recurrent Ischemia,” Circulation 98, no. 18 (1998): 1860–1868.
10.1161/01.CIR.98.18.1860
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17M. Jakl, J. Stasek, P. Kala, et al., “Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Shock: Outcome Analysis Based on Initial Electrocardiogram,” Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal 48, no. 1 (2014): 13–19.
10.3109/14017431.2013.865074
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18G. Chatzis, B. Markus, S. Syntila, et al., “Comparison of Mortality Risk Models in Patients With Postcardiac Arrest Cardiogenic Shock and Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support,” Journal of Interventional Cardiology 2021 (2021): 8843935.
10.1155/2021/8843935
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19J. Pöss, J. Köster, G. Fuernau, et al., “Risk Stratification for Patients in Cardiogenic Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 69, no. 15 (2017): 1913–1920.
10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.027
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20R. J. H. Miller, D. Southern, S. B. Wilton, et al., “Comparative Prognostic Accuracy of Risk Prediction Models for Cardiogenic Shock,” Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 35, no. 12 (2020): 1513–1519.
10.1177/0885066619878125
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21M. Rivas-Lasarte, J. Sans-Roselló, E. Collado-Lledó, et al., “External Validation and Comparison of the Cardshock and IABP-SHOCK II Risk Scores in Real-World Cardiogenic Shock Patients,” European Heart Journal. Acute Cardiovascular Care 10, no. 1 (2020): 16–24, https://doi.org/10.1177/2048872619895230.
10.1177/2048872619895230
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22W. C. Zheng, S. Noaman, R. J. Batchelor, et al., “Determinants of Undertaking Coronary Angiography and Adverse Prognostic Predictors Among Patients Presenting With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and a Shockable Rhythm,” American Journal of Cardiology 171 (2022): 75–83.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2022.01.053
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23A. Garcia-Alvarez, D. Arzamendi, P. Loma-Osorio, et al., “Early Risk Stratification of Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention,” American Journal of Cardiology 103, no. 8 (2009): 1073–1077.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.12.033
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24H. Thiele, I. Akin, M. Sandri, et al., “PCI Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock,” New England Journal of Medicine 377, no. 25 (2017): 2419–2432.
10.1056/NEJMoa1710261
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25W. C. Zheng, S. Noaman, R. J. Batchelor, et al., “Evaluation of Factors Associated With Selection for Coronary Angiography and in-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Presenting With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 100, no. 7 (2022): 1159–1170, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30442.
10.1002/ccd.30442
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26M. Hongisto, J. Lassus, T. Tarvasmäki, et al., “Mortality Risk Prediction in Elderly Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: Results From the CardShock Study,” ESC Heart Failure 8, no. 2 (2021): 1398–1407.
10.1002/ehf2.13224
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27B. Backhouse, F. Dade, J. E. Bloom, et al., “Protocolised Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock in Australia-Initial Experience From a Hub-and-Spoke Model,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (2025), https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.31462.
10.1002/ccd.31462
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28J. M. Cheng, A. M. Helming, L. C. van Vark, et al., “A Simple Risk Chart for Initial Risk Assessment of 30-day Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock From ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction,” European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care 5, no. 2 (2016): 101–107.
10.1177/2048872615568966
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Volume106, Issue1

July 1, 2025

Pages 303-316

SCAI Member Sign in

Development of an Acute Coronary Syndrome-Cardiogenic Shock Risk Score for 30-day Mortality From the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR ACS-CS Risk Score)

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Development of an Acute Coronary Syndrome-Cardiogenic Shock Risk Score for 30-day Mortality From the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR ACS-CS Risk Score)

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Related

Information