Why Measuring Key Clinical Markers Matters in Cardiogenic Shock

Blog

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a critical issue in hospitals nationwide. Despite advances in interventional cardiology, CS is a high-mortality condition, with mortality ranges from 30% to 40%, and 1-year mortality approaches or exceeds 50%.

One of the main challenges is the rapid progression of CS severity. Historically, staging using the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) staging system relied heavily on clinical judgement, which often led to inconsistent diagnosis, variable escalation of care, and difficulty comparing outcomes across centers. Kapur et al argued that “the lack of uniform, granular criteria to define hypotension and hypoperfusion may limit its clinical utility.” Standardizing assessment and re-assessing as physiology evolves is therefore critical.

“Criteria for Defining Stages of Cardiogenic Shock Severity” was a large multicenter study by Kapur et al which analyzed over 3,400 CS patients across 17 hospitals across the United States. The purpose of the study was to test parameters that define SCAI stages and explore their utility as predictors of in-hospital mortality in CS.

The authors found that four key parameters: systolic blood pressure (SBP), lactate, alanine transaminase (ALT), and systemic pH were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality and clearly distinguished between SCAI stages.

The study also showed that both baseline stage and progression through stages strongly correlated with outcomes, underscoring the importance of tracking these measures early and over time.

Why measuring key parameters together matters

Each parameter – SBP, lactate, ALT and pH reflects a different physiological dimension of CS and when assessed together, give a complete picture of shock severity. This consistency makes SCAI staging more reliable, enabling clinicians to compare patients across hospitals, predict outcomes with greater confidence, and evaluate the impact of interventions.

The insights from Kapur et al. highlight the need for continuous monitoring and dynamic reassessment in CS. This is where the Etiometry platform can help.

How the Etiometry platform can support the SCAI staging system

  • Leveraging high-fidelity data to identify and classify cardiogenic shock
  • Supports clinician awareness of patient trends by flagging when pre-configured hospital criteria are met.
  • Real-time SCAI and other shock staging protocols: Enables teams to continuously monitor patient progression through stages of CS and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.
  • Hospital-wide surveillance: Assists early identification of patient deterioration across the hospital and even from feeder hospitals, not just in the ICU.
  • Informational Flags: Identifies patients who meet criteria for patient assessment based on hospital protocols.
  • Team-wide coordination: facilitates coordination across the care team, from the front line providers to the consulting physicians.


Contact Us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Name(Required)
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy andTerms of Service apply.

References

Sinha, S, Morrow, D, Kapur, N. et al. 2025 Concise Clinical Guidance: An ACC Expert Consensus Statement on the Evaluation and Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. JACC. 2025 Apr, 85 (16) 1618–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.02.018

Early Prediction of Cardiogenic Shock Using Machine Learning https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35911549/

The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2824%2901818-X/fulltext

References to earlier recognition are based on published research and do not imply predictive or diagnostic functions of the Etiometry Platform.

Related

The Documentation Gap Nobody Talks About — And What It’s Costing Your ICU

Every ICU has a documentation problem. Most don’t know the full scope of it. Clinical events happen continuously in high-acuity care — hemodynamic shifts, ventilatory changes, transient complications that resolve before the next chart entry. Clinicians respond to them. They manage through them. And then, in the relentless pace of the ICU, those events may […]

Beyond Escalation: How Clinical Intelligence Supports ICU De-Escalation Decisions

In high-acuity care, clinical attention naturally gravitates toward escalation: adding interventions, increasing support, responding to deterioration. But the other half of intensive care, knowing when and how to safely step back from those interventions, is equally demanding and equally consequential. Prolonged mechanical ventilation, extended vasoactive support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and delayed discharge carry real […]

Cardiogenic Shock in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Why Continuous Physiologic Data Matters

Cardiac surgery patients don’t come from a single mold. A valve repair patient, a transplant recipient, a CABG patient, and a patient recovering from aortic surgery each carry a different hemodynamic profile and a different trajectory through the ICU. What they share is vulnerability, particularly to one of the most dangerous complications in post-surgical critical […]