Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) in critically ill cardiac patients remains debated. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to characterize the current use of PACs in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) with attention to patient-level and institutional factors influencing their application and explore the association with in-hospital mortality. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of CICUs in North America. Between 2017 and 2021, participating centers contributed annual 2-month snapshots of consecutive CICU admissions. Admission diagnoses, clinical and demographic data, use of PACs, and in-hospital mortality were captured. RESULTS: Among 13,618 admissions at 34 sites, 3,827 were diagnosed with shock, with 2,583 of cardiogenic etiology. The use of mechanical circulatory support and heart failure were the patient-level factors most strongly associated with a greater likelihood of the use of a PAC (OR: 5.99 [95% CI: 5.15-6.98]; P < 0.001 and OR: 3.33 [95% CI: 2.91-3.81]; P < 0.001, respectively). The proportion of shock admissions with a PAC varied significantly by study center ranging from 8% to 73%. In analyses adjusted for factors associated with their placement, PAC use was associated with lower mortality in all shock patients admitted to a CICU (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.66-0.96]; P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of PACs that is not fully explained by patient level-factors and appears driven in part by institutional tendency. PAC use was associated with higher survival in cardiac patients with shock presenting to CICUs. Randomized trials are needed to guide the appropriate use of PACs in cardiac critical care

Clinician Approach To Subtherapeutic INR Management In Patients With A Heartmate 3 LVAD: A Regional Subgroup Analysis Of The Momentum 3 (CAP And IDE) Trials

Introduction: Patients with Heartmate 3 LVADs are recommended to be on therapeutic anticoagulation consisting of aspirin and warfarin (with a goal INR of 2-3). No specific recommendations exist for the management of subtherapeutic INRs, leading to a variation in management. This study was performed to evaluate clinician behavior in the management of subtherapeutic INRs. Methods: We performed a regional subgroup analysis of the MOMENTUM 3 (CAP and IDE) Trials including 6 centers in the Mid-America Region. All patients implanted with a HeartMate 3 device and discharged alive were included in the analysis. Patients with subtherapeutic INRs (INR \u3c 2) occurring after the index admission underwent manual chart review to determine the management strategies taken by clinicians. Management strategies were separated into three groups: no action taken, isolated adjustment of coumadin, or bridging with IV (heparin, bivalirudin) or parenteral agents (enoxaparin). Results: Among 225 patients included in the analysis, 130 (58%) patients had a total of 235 subtherapeutic INR events. Management strategy was associated with INR (p\u3c0.001; Figure 1). The most common management strategy was a change in coumadin dose (n=100, 42.5%), which occurred at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) INR of 1.70 (1.50-1.80). This was followed by no change in management (n=79, 33.6%), which occurred at a median (IQR) INR of 1.83 (1.60-1.90). Bridging events occurred the least frequently (n=56, 23.8%) at a median (IQR) INR of 1.50 (1.30-1.64). Conclusion: There was a direct relationship between INR and the management strategies of subtherapeutic INRs. At INRs closest to 2, less invasive strategies such as coumadin adjustments or no change were preferred, while bridging strategies (including enoxaparin, heparin, and bivalirudin) were used at lower INRs. The effect of bridging strategies on clinical outcomes including mortality, hospital re-admissions, thromboembolic events, and bleeding are unknown and warrants further evaluation

COVID-19 and Disruptive Modifications to Cardiac Critical Care Delivery: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a major unanticipated stress on the workforce, organizational structure, systems of care, and critical resource supplies. To ensure provider safety, to maximize efficiency, and to optimize patient outcomes, health systems need to be agile. Critical care cardiologists may be uniquely positioned to treat the numerous respiratory and cardiovascular complications of the SARS-CoV-2 and support clinicians without critical care training who may be suddenly asked to care for critically ill patients. This review draws upon the experiences of colleagues from heavily impacted regions of the United States and Europe, as well as lessons learned from military mass casualty medicine. This review offers pragmatic suggestions on how to implement scalable models for critical care delivery, cultivate educational tools for team training, and embrace technologies (e.g., telemedicine) to enable effective collaboration despite social distancing imperatives

De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P \u3c 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P \u3c 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P \u3c 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation

Prognostic Performance of the IABP-SHOCK II Risk Score Among Cardiogenic Shock Subtypes in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has potential to guide triage and decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II score, derived in Europe for acute myocardial infarct-related CS (AMI-CS), in a contemporary North American cohort, including different CS phenotypes. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) coordinated by the TIMI Study Group is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Participating centers annually contribute ≥2 months of consecutive medical CICU admissions. The IABP-SHOCK II risk score includes age \u3e73 years, prior stroke, admission glucose \u3e191 mg/dl, creatinine \u3e1.5 mg/dl, lactate \u3e5 mmol/l, and post-PCI TIMI flow grade RESULTS: Of 17,852 medical CICU admissions 5,340 patients across 35 sites were admitted with CS. In patients with AMI-CS (n=912), the IABP-SHOCK II score predicted a \u3e3-fold gradient in in-hospital mortality (low risk = 26.5%, intermediate risk =52.2%, high risk = 77.5%, p CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected international multicenter registry of patients admitted with CS, the IABP- SHOCK II score only moderately predicted in-hospital mortality in a broad population of CS regardless of etiology or irrespective of right, left, or bi-ventricular involvement

Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Cardiac ICUs With Versus Without Shock Teams.

BACKGROUND: Single-center studies suggest that implementation of multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) teams is associated with improved CS survival. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of CS across multiple centers with versus without shock teams. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. All consecutive medical admissions to each CICU (n = 24) were captured during annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019; n = 6,872). Shock management and CICU mortality among centers with versus without shock teams were compared using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Ten of the 24 centers had shock teams. Among 1,242 CS admissions, 44% were at shock team centers. The groups were well-balanced with respect to demographics, shock etiology, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, biochemical markers of end organ dysfunction, and invasive hemodynamics. Centers with shock teams used more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs 49%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.47-2.35; P \u3c 0.001), less overall mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (35% vs 43%; adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; P = 0.016), and more advanced types of MCS (53% vs 43% of all MCS; adjusted OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.19-2.51; P = 0.005) rather than intra-aortic balloon pumps. The presence of a shock team was independently associated with lower CICU mortality (23% vs 29%; adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94; P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter observational study, centers with shock teams were more likely to obtain invasive hemodynamics, use advanced types of MCS, and have lower risk-adjusted mortality. A standardized multidisciplinary shock team approach may improve outcomes in CS

COVID-19 and Disruptive Modifications to Cardiac Critical Care Delivery

Altres ajuts: Drs. Brusca and Solomon receive research support from the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center intramural research fund. *Drs. Katz and Sinha are co-first authors. Dr. Metkus has been a consultant for BestDoctors Inc. and Oakstone/EBIX; and has received royalties for a textbook from McGraw-Hill. Dr. Sionis has received consulting fees from Sanofi. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a major unanticipated stress on the workforce, organizational structure, systems of care, and critical resource supplies. To ensure provider safety, to maximize efficiency, and to optimize patient outcomes, health systems need to be agile. Critical care cardiologists may be uniquely positioned to treat the numerous respiratory and cardiovascular complications of the SARS-CoV-2 and support clinicians without critical care training who may be suddenly asked to care for critically ill patients. This review draws upon the experiences of colleagues from heavily impacted regions of the United States and Europe, as well as lessons learned from military mass casualty medicine. This review offers pragmatic suggestions on how to implement scalable models for critical care delivery, cultivate educational tools for team training, and embrace technologies (e.g., telemedicine) to enable effective collaboration despite social distancing imperatives

Epidemiology of Cardiogenic Shock Using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) Consensus Definitions

The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.BACKGROUNDThe Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population.The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). CS was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP<90mmHg for ≥30 minutes (or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support [MCS] to maintain SBP ≥90mmHg) with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary etiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. HF-CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS.METHODSThe Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). CS was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP<90mmHg for ≥30 minutes (or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support [MCS] to maintain SBP ≥90mmHg) with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary etiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. HF-CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS.Of 8,974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-2023), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n=5,869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (p<0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; p<0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; p<0.001).RESULTSOf 8,974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-2023), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n=5,869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (p<0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; p<0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; p<0.001).SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.CONCLUSIONSSHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research

Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN): A Cohort Profile

AIMS: The aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicentre research network to conduct randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centres and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centres in the United States and Canada. Each centre enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least 2 months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterised utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicentre collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicentre registry-based randomised trials in patients with cardiac critical illness. CONCLUSION: The CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomised controlled trials in this important patient population

Prognostic Significance of Haemodynamic Parameters in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

AIMS: Invasive haemodynamic assessment with a pulmonary artery catheter is often used to guide the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and may provide important prognostic information. We aimed to assess prognostic associations and relationships to end-organ dysfunction of presenting haemodynamic parameters in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Patients with CS (2018-2022) who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment within 24 h of CICU admission were included. Associations of haemodynamic parameters with in-hospital mortality were assessed using logistic regression, and associations with presenting serum lactate were assessed using least squares means regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients on temporary mechanical circulatory support and adjusted for vasoactive-inotropic score. Among the 3603 admissions with CS, 1473 had haemodynamic data collected within 24 h of CICU admission. The median cardiac index was 1.9 (25th-75th percentile, 1.6-2.4) L/min/m2 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 74 (66-86) mmHg. Parameters associated with mortality included low MAP, low systolic blood pressure, low systemic vascular resistance, elevated right atrial pressure (RAP), elevated RAP/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, and low pulmonary artery pulsatility index. These associations were generally consistent when controlling for the intensity of background pharmacologic and mechanical haemodynamic support. These parameters were also associated with higher presenting serum lactate. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary CS population, presenting haemodynamic parameters reflecting decreased systemic arterial tone and right ventricular dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes and systemic hypoperfusion