ArticleEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2026
A practical 5-stage clinical scale for electrical storm: the STORM classification.
Article in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsElectrical storm (ES) is a highly heterogeneous condition with wide-ranging clinical presentations. The absence of standardized classification hampers risk stratification and limits effective multidisciplinary coordination.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop a classification system based on simple clinical characteristics and stratify 30-day mortality in patients with ES. METHODS AND
resultsPatients admitted to intensive care units for ES between 2010 and 2023 across four tertiary centres were retrospectively included. The five-stage STORM severity-response classification, based on treatment intensity during hospitalization, incorporated four clinically relevant parameters: signs of acute heart failure or haemodynamic instability, need for inotropes or vasopressors, use of advanced supportive therapies (including deep sedation) and renal replacement therapy, and implementation of mechanical circulatory support. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. A total of 788 patients were included. The cohort was predominantly male (84.3%), with a median age of 66.0 years (57.0-74.0). The majority had ischaemic cardiomyopathy (65.6%), with a median LVEF of 30.0% (20.0-45.0). According to the STORM classification, 421 patients (53.4%) were categorized as STORM-1, 45 (5.7%) as STORM-2, 86 (10.9%) as STORM-3, 220 (27.9%) as STORM-4 and 16 (2.0%) as STORM-5. Overall, 117 patients (14.8%) died within 30 days. A stepwise increase in 30-day mortality was observed across STORM stages - 5.0%, 6.7%, 20.9%, 30.5% and 50.0% for stages 1 through 5, respectively (P < 0.01).
conclusionThe STORM classification may facilitate standardized multidisciplinary management strategies and effectively stratifies 30-day mortality risk in patients with ES, ranging from 5% in stage 1% to 50% in stage 5. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.