Background: The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state.Methods: A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema.Results: A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is “at risk” for cardiogenic shock, stage B is “beginning” shock, stage C is “classic” cardiogenic shock, stage D is “deteriorating”, and E is “extremis”. The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse.Conclusion: This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre‐hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.

Endomyocardial biopsy is the standard method of monitoring for rejection in recipients of a cardiac transplant. However, this procedure is uncomfortable, and there are risks associated with it. Gene-expression profiling of peripheral-blood specimens has been shown to correlate with the results of an endomyocardial biopsy.

Cardiac transplantation remains the only definitive treatment for end‐stage heart failure. Transplantation rates are limited by a shortage of donor hearts. This shortage is magnified because many hearts are discarded because of strict selection criteria and concern for regulatory reprimand for less‐than‐optimal posttransplant outcomes. There is no standardized approach to donor selection despite proposals to liberalize acceptance criteria. A donor heart selection conference was organized to facilitate discussion and generate ideas for future research. The event was attended by 66 participants from 41 centers with considerable experience in cardiac donor selection. There were state‐of‐the‐art presentations on donor selection, with subsequent breakout sessions on standardizing the process and increasing utilization of donor hearts. Participants debated misconceptions and established agreement on donor and recipient risk factors for donor selection and identified the components necessary for a future donor risk score. Ideas for future initiatives include modification of regulatory practices to consider extended criteria donors when evaluating outcomes and prospective studies aimed at identifying the factors leading to nonacceptance of available donor hearts. With agreement on the most important donor and recipient risk factors, it is anticipated that a consistent approach to donor selection will improve rates of heart transplantation.

Background: The systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) frequently occurs in patients with cardiogenic shock and may aggravate shock severity and organ failure. We sought to determine the association of SIRS with illness severity and survival across the spectrum of shock severity in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 8995 unique patients admitted to the Mayo Clinic CICU between 2007 and 2015. Patients with ≥2/4 SIRS criteria based on admission laboratory and vital sign data were considered to have SIRS. Patients were stratified by the 2019 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock stages using admission data. The association between SIRS and mortality was evaluated across SCAI shock stage using logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models for hospital and 1-year mortality, respectively. Results: The study population had a mean age of 67.5±15.2 years, including 37.2% women. SIRS was present in 33.9% of patients upon CICU admission and was more prevalent in advanced SCAI shock stages. Patients with SIRS had higher illness severity, worse shock, and more organ failure, with an increased risk of mortality during hospitalization (16.8% versus 3.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.7–2.5]; P <0.001) and at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.3–1.6]; P <0.001). After multivariable adjustment, SIRS was associated with higher hospital and 1-year mortality among patients in SCAI shock stages A through D (all P <0.01) but not SCAI shock stage E. Conclusions: One-third of CICU patients meet clinical criteria for SIRS at the time of admission, and these patients have higher illness severity and worse outcomes across the spectrum of SCAI shock stages. The presence of SIRS identified CICU patients at increased risk of short-term and long-term mortality. Further study is needed to determine whether systemic inflammation truly drives SIRS in this population and whether patients with SIRS respond differently to supportive therapies for shock.