Cardiac intensive care unit: where we are in 2023

Cardiac intensive care has been a constantly evolving area of research and innovation since the beginning of the 21st century. The story began in 1961 with Desmond Julian's pioneering creation of a coronary intensive care unit to improve the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction, considered the major cause of death in the world. These units have continued to progress over time, with the introduction of new therapeutic means such as fibrinolysis, invasive hemodynamic monitoring using the Swan-Ganz catheter, and mechanical circulatory assistance, with significant advances in percutaneous interventional coronary and structural procedures. Since acute cardiovascular disease is not limited to the management of acute coronary syndromes and includes other emergencies such as severe arrhythmias, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, high-risk pulmonary embolism, severe conduction disorders, and post-implantation monitoring of percutaneous valves, as well as other non-cardiac emergencies, such as septic shock, severe respiratory failure, severe renal failure and the management of cardiac arrest after resuscitation, the conversion of coronary intensive care units into cardiac intensive care units represented an important priority. Today, the cardiac intensive care units (CICU) concept is widely adopted by most healthcare systems, whatever the country's level of development. The main aim of these units remains to improve the overall morbidity and mortality of acute cardiovascular diseases, but also to manage other non-cardiac disorders, such as sepsis and respiratory failure. This diversity of tasks and responsibilities has enabled us to classify these CICUs according to several levels, depending on a variety of parameters, principally the level of care delivered, the staff assigned, the equipment and technologies available, the type of research projects carried out, and the type of connections and networking developed. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) have detailed this organization in guidelines published initially in 2005 and updated in 2018, with the aim of harmonizing the structure, organization, and care offered by the various CICUs. In this state-of-the-art report, we review the history of the CICUs from the creation of the very first unit in 1968 to the discussion of their current perspectives, with the main objective of knowing what the CICUs will have become by 2023

Is There a Causal Link Between Acute Myocarditis and COVID-19 Vaccination: An Umbrella Review of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Introduction: A few months after the beginning of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination, several reports of myocarditis secondary to the vaccines were published, sometimes with fulminant cases, but until today there is no proven causal link between these 2 events, but with many hypotheses proposed. Methods: A systematic review of current evidence regarding myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination was performed by searching several databases including PubMed/Medline and Web of Science. The quality of Meta-analysis was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool as well as other qualitative criteria. Results: Our umbrella review appraised 4 Meta-analysis of retrospective studies (range: 5-12), The number of vaccine doses included ranged from 12 to 179 million, with the number of myocarditis cases observed ranging from 343 to 1489. All types of vaccines were evaluated, with no exclusions. The overall incidence ranged from 0.89 to 2.36 cases of myocarditis per 100 000 doses of vaccine received. Heterogeny was assessed in 3 of the Meta-analysis, and was highly significant (>75%) in all included studies, and with a significant P -value ( P  < .05). Regarding publication bias, 3 of the Meta-analysis conducted the egger and begg regression, with a significant result in only 1. Regarding the assessment of the methodology by the AMSTAR-2 scale indicating that the quality was very critical in 1, low in 2, and moderate in 1 Meta-analysis. Conclusion: The quality of current non-randomized evidence on real causality and incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccine is still low

Pharmaco-invasive Therapy: A Continued Role for Fibrinolysis in the Primary PCI era

Introduction Early Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy for most patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and the European guidelines recommend pPCI to occur within 120 min of first medical contact. However, this is not always available. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients admitted for STEMI to a level I cardiac intensive care unit in a developing country, to analyze the efficacy of the pharmaco-invasive (PI) strategy versus late PCI over a 2-year follow-up. Results Four hundred and thirty-nine STEMI patients presented within the first 12 h of symptom onset, pPCI was performed in 154 patients, PI-strategy in 185 patients, and finally Late PCI in 100 patients. All-cause mortality at 2-year risk was statistically significant associated with cardiogenic shock during initial hospitalization, LM and ostio-proximal left anterior descending artery as the culprit artery, severe conductance disorders requiring the use of a temporary pacemaker, and acute kidney disease with glomerular filtration rate < 30 ml/min/1.72 m2 . For the revascularization strategy, there as a well-demonstrated benefit of the pPCI versus Late PCI strategy with (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.293; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11–0.737; P  = 0.009), as well as a benefit of the PI-strategy versus Late PCI strategy with (HR = 0.433; 95%CI 0.21–0.87; P  = 0.02). However, there was no difference between the pPCI and PI-strategy. Conclusion The PI-strategy remains a reasonable alternative for pPCI when the latter is not available, with a prognosis almost identical to pPCI in the long term whenever patients are treated early after the onset of symptoms

The Impact of Prior Antithrombotic use on Thromboembolic Events in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease and Severe COVID-19 Infection

Objective Our objective in this study was to determine the predictive factors of thromboembolic complications in patients with previous heart disease and severe covid-19 infection and the impact of previous use of antithrombotics on protection against these complications. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective study of 158 patients with heart disease admitted to an intensive care unit for severe SARS-COV-2 infection. In order to determine the predictive factors, we used logistic regression analysis. Results Out of 158 patients, 22 were complicated by a thrombo-embolic event (13.9%), mean age of our population 64.03 (SD = 15.27), with a male predominance of 98 (62%). For the predictive factors of thromboembolic complications, and after multivariate analysis, we find the short duration of hospitalization (OR = 0.92; 95%CI (0.863–0.983), P  = .014, previous use of antithrombotic drugs ((OR = 0.288, 95%CI (0.091–0.911), P  = .034 for antiplatelet agents) and (OR = 0.322, 95% CI (0, 131–0.851), P  = .021) for anticoagulants) as protective factors, and admission thrombocytosis as a risk factor (OR = 4.58, 95%CI (1.2–10.627), P  = .021). D-dimer was not detected as a risk factor, and this can be explained by the characteristics of our population. Although prior use of antithrombotic drugs protects against thromboembolic complications during severe infection, there was no benefit in mortality. Conclusion Prior use of antithrombotic drugs is a protective factor against thromboembolic complications in patients with a history of heart disease but without effect on mortality