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

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

Demographics, Care Patterns, and Outcomes of Patients Admitted to Cardiac Intensive Care Units: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Prospective North American Multicenter Registry of Cardiac Critical Illness.

Importance: Single-center and claims-based studies have described substantial changes in the landscape of care in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Professional societies have recommended research to guide evidence-based CICU redesigns. Objective: To characterize patients admitted to contemporary, advanced CICUs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study established the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN), an investigator-initiated multicenter network of 16 advanced, tertiary CICUs in the United States and Canada. For 2 months in each CICU, data for consecutive admissions were submitted to the central data coordinating center (TIMI Study Group). The data were collected and analyzed between September 2017 and 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographics, diagnoses, management, and outcomes. Results: Of 3049 participants, 1132 (37.1%) were women, 797 (31.4%) were individuals of color, and the median age was 65 years (25th and 75th percentiles, 55-75 years). Between September 2017 and September 2018, 3310 admissions were included, among which 2557 (77.3%) were for primary cardiac problems, 337 (10.2%) for postprocedural care, 253 (7.7%) for mixed general and cardiac problems, and 163 (4.9%) for overflow from general medical ICUs. When restricted to the initial 2 months of medical CICU admissions for each site, the primary analysis population included 3049 admissions with a high burden of noncardiovascular comorbidities. The top 2 CICU admission diagnoses were acute coronary syndrome (969 [31.8%]) and heart failure (567 [18.6%]); however, the proportion of acute coronary syndrome was highly variable across centers (15%-57%). The primary indications for CICU care included respiratory insufficiency (814 [26.7%]), shock (643 [21.1%]), unstable arrhythmia (521 [17.1%]), and cardiac arrest (265 [8.7%]). Advanced CICU therapies or monitoring were required for 1776 patients (58.2%), including intravenous vasoactive medications (1105 [36.2%]), invasive hemodynamic monitoring (938 [30.8%]), and mechanical ventilation (652 [21.4%]). The overall CICU mortality rate was 8.3% (95% CI, 7.3%-9.3%). The CICU indications that were associated with the highest mortality rates were cardiac arrest (101 [38.1%]), cardiogenic shock (140 [30.6%]), and the need for renal replacement therapy (51 [34.5%]). Notably, patients admitted solely for postprocedural observation or frequent monitoring had a mortality rate of 0.2% to 0.4%. Conclusions and Relevance: In a contemporary network of tertiary care CICUs, respiratory failure and shock predominated indications for admission and carried a poor prognosis. While patterns of practice varied considerably between centers, a substantial, low-risk population was identified. Multicenter collaborative networks, such as the CCCTN, could be used to help redesign cardiac critical care and to test new therapeutic strategies

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

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 multicenter research network to conduct randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centers and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centers in the United States and Canada. Each center enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least two 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 characterized 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 multicenter collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicenter registry-based randomized trials in patients with cardiac critical illness. CONCLUSIONS: 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 randomized controlled trials in this important patient population

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 (