Defining levels of care in cardiogenic shock

BackgroundExpert opinion and professional society statements have called for multi-tier care systems for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). However, little is known about how to pragmatically define centers with different levels of care (LOC) for CS.MethodsEleven of 23 hospitals within our healthcare system sharing a common electronic health record were classified as different LOC according to their highest mechanical circulatory support (MCS) capabilities: Level 1 (L-1)—durable left ventricular assist device, Level 1A (L-1A)—extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Level 2 (L-2)—intra-aortic balloon pump and percutaneous ventricular assist device; and Level 3 (L-3)—no MCS. All adult patients treated for CS (International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 code R57.0) between 2016 and 2022 were included. Etiologies of CS were identified using associated diagnostic codes. Management strategies and outcomes across LOC were compared.ResultsHigher LOC centers had higher volumes: L-1 (n = 1): 2,831 patients, L-1A (n = 4): 3,452, L-2 (n = 1): 340, and L-3 (n = 5): 780. Emergency room admissions were more common in lower LOC (96% at L-3 vs. 46% L-1; p < 0.001), while hospital transfers were predominant at higher LOC (40% at L-1 vs. 2.7% at L-3; p < 0.001). Men comprised 61% of the cohort. Patients were younger in the higher LOC [69 (60–78) years at L-1 vs. 77 (67–85) years at L-3; p < 0.001]. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS and acute heart failure (AHF)-CS were concentrated in higher LOC centers while other etiologies of CS were more common in L-2 and L-3 (p < 0.001). Cardiac arrest on admission was more prevalent in lower LOC centers (L-1: 2.8% vs. L-3: 12.1%; p < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS received more percutaneous coronary intervention in lower LOC (51% L-2 vs. 29% L-1; p < 0.01) but more coronary arterial bypass graft surgery at higher LOC (L-1: 42% vs. L-1A: 23%; p < 0.001). MCS use was consistent across levels for AMI-CS but was more frequent in higher LOC for AHF-CS patients (L-1: 28% vs. L-2: 10%; p < 0.001). Despite increasing in-hospital mortality with decreasing LOC, no significant difference was seen after multivariable adjustment.ConclusionThis is the first report describing a pragmatic classification of LOC for CS which, based on MCS capabilities, can discriminate between centers with distinct demographics, practice patterns, and outcomes. This classification may serve as the basis for future research and the creation of CS systems of care

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 \u3c 0.001 and OR: 3.33 [95% CI: 2.91-3.81]; P \u3c 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

Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units.

Background Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressurecardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5-8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1-8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9-10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0-3.6) for patients without shock (