Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.

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.

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<0.001 for all. IHCA admissions had lower lactate (median 4.3 vs 5.9) but greater utilization of invasive hemodynamics (34.3% vs 23.6%), mechanical circulatory support (28.4% vs 16.8%), and renal replacement therapy (15.5% vs 9.4%); p<0.001 for all. Comatose IHCA patients underwent targeted temperature management less frequently than OHCA patients (63.3% vs 84.9%, p<0.001). IHCA admissions had lower unadjusted CICU (30.8% vs 39.0%, p<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (36.1% vs 44.1%, p<0.001). 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.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE: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/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.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) outcomes remain highly heterogeneous. As such, a risk-stratification tool using readily available lab data at time of CICU admission may help inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:The primary derivation cohort included 4352 consecutive CICU admissions across 25 tertiary care CICUs included in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. Candidate lab indicators were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An integer risk score incorporating the top independent lab indicators associated with in-hospital mortality was developed. External validation was performed in a separate CICU cohort of 9716 patients from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). On multivariable analysis, lower pH [odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72-2.24], higher lactate (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22-1.62), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.45), and lower platelets (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32) were the top four independent lab indicators associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Incorporated into the CCCTN Lab-Based Risk Score, these four lab indicators identified a 20-fold gradient in mortality risk with very good discrimination (C-index 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84) in the derivation cohort. Validation of the risk score in a separate cohort of 3888 patients from the Registry demonstrated good performance (C-index of 0.82; 95% CI 0.80-0.84). Performance remained consistent in the external validation cohort (C-index 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.80). Calibration was very good in both validation cohorts (r = 0.99). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A simple integer risk score utilizing readily available lab indicators at time of CICU admission may accurately stratify in-hospital mortality risk.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in mortality among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after adjusting for baseline characteristics and comorbidities. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study at 13 acute care facilities in the New York City metropolitan area included sequentially hospitalized patients between March 1, 2020, and April 27, 2020. Last day of follow up was July 31, 2020. Patient demographic information, including race/ethnicity and comorbidities, were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS:A total of 10 869 patients were included in the study (median age, 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 54-77; range, 18-107 years]; 40.5% female). In adjusted time-to-event analysis, increased age, male sex, insurance type (Medicare and Self-Pay), unknown smoking status, and a higher score on the Charlson Comorbidity Index were significantly associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Adjusted risk of hospital mortality for Black, Asian, Hispanic, multiracial/other, and unknown race/ethnicity patients were similar to risk for White patients. CONCLUSIONS:In a large diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, patients from racial/ethnic minorities experienced similar mortality risk as White patients.

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/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 < 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 < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 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.

Background - Social influencers of health (SIOH) namely race, ethnicity and structural inequities are known to affect the incidence of out of hospital sudden death (OHSD). We sought to examine the association between SIOH and the incidence of OHSD in the diverse neighborhoods of New York City (NYC) during the first wave of COVID-19 epidemic. Methods - NYC ZIP stratified data on OHSD were obtained from the Fire Department of New York during the first wave of COVID-19 epidemic (March 1 - April 10, 2019) and the same period in 2020. To assess associates of OHSD, ZIP code-specific sociodemographic characteristics for 8,491,238 NYC residents were obtained via the US Census Bureau's 2018 American Community Survey and the New York Police Department's crime statistics. Results - Between March 1 and April 10, 2020, the number of OHSD rose to 4,334 from 1,112 compared to the year prior. Of the univariate ZIP code level variables evaluated, proportions of: Black race, Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, single parent household, unemployed inhabitants, people completing less than high school education, inhabitants with no health insurance, people financially struggling or living in poverty, percent of non-citizens and population density were associated with increased rates of OHSD within ZIP codes. In multivariable analysis, ZIP codes with higher proportions of inhabitants with less than high school education (p < 0.001) and higher proportions of Black race (p = 0.04) were independent predictors for increases in ZIP code rates of OHSD. Conclusions - Educational attainment and the proportion of Black race in NYC ZIP codes remained independent predictors of increased rates of ZIP code level OHSD during the COVID-19 outbreak even after controlling for 2019 rates. To facilitate health equity, future research should focus on characterizing the impacts of structural inequities while exploring strategies to mitigate their effects.

PROBLEM/OBJECTIVE:Racism and bias are fundamental causes of health inequities, and they negatively affect the climate of academic medical institutions across the United States. APPROACH/METHODS:In 2019, the Zucker School of Medicine and Northwell Health piloted a virtual reality (VR) racism experience as a component of professional development for medical school and health system leaders, faculty, and staff. Participants experienced a 60-minute, interactive, large-group session on microaggressions and, as individuals, a 20-minute VR module. These were followed by group reflection and debriefing. The sessions, developed in collaboration with a VR academic team, represented a response to institutional climate assessment surveys, which indicated the need for expanded professional training on cross-cultural communication and enhancing inclusion. OUTCOMES/RESULTS:In October 2019, 112 faculty and staff participated in the workshop. On a post-workshop survey, completed by 76 participants (67.9%), most respondents (90.8%) reported feeling engaged in the VR experience. Additionally, the majority agreed that VR was an effective tool for enhancing empathy (94.7%), that the session enhanced their own empathy for racial minorities (85.5%), and that their approach to communication would change (67.1%). In open-ended responses, participants frequently conveyed enthusiasm, powerful emotional and physiologic responses, and enhanced empathy. They also suggested more time for follow-up discussions. NEXT STEPS/UNASSIGNED:Next steps include assessing the scalability of the VR module, determining effective complementary engagements, and measuring the module's longitudinal effects on racial empathy, discrimination, and institutional climate. As VR becomes more common in medical education, developing VR modules to address other forms of discrimination (e.g., sexism, homophobia) could also benefit the institutional climates of medical schools and health systems as academic medicine continues to build towards health equity.