Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. RESULTS: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%-50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%-100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity

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

Characteristics, Therapies, and Outcomes of In-Hospital vs Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Patients Presenting to Cardiac Intensive Care Units: From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common reason for admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), though the relative burden of morbidity, mortality, and resource use between admissions with in-hospital (IH) and out-of-hospital (OH) CA is unknown. We compared characteristics, care patterns, and outcomes of admissions to contemporary CICUs after IHCA or OHCA. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in the US and Canada. Participating centers contributed data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2021. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions by IHCA vs OHCA. RESULTS: We analyzed 2,075 admissions across 29 centers (50.3% IHCA, 49.7% OHCA). Admissions with IHCA were older (median 66 vs 62 years), more commonly had coronary disease (38.3% vs 29.7%), atrial fibrillation (26.7% vs 15.6%), and heart failure (36.3% vs 22.1%), and were less commonly comatose on CICU arrival (34.2% vs 71.7%), p CONCLUSION: Despite a greater burden of comorbidities, CICU admissions after IHCA have lower lactate, greater invasive therapy utilization, and lower crude mortality than admissions after OHCA