Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Since the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) was first introduced into to the medical landscape, patient complexity, comorbidity, and illness severity have increased substantially over time. This evolution has required and informed the cultivation of new tools and an expanding skill set for those who deliver care in these units, and has paved the way for the emergence and growth of a distinct discipline-Critical Care Cardiology. With the genesis of this field and the need to care for comorbid and critically ill patients, numerous questions have been posed, including those related to optimal staffing models, appropriate training pathways, and the development of best practice principles to guide patient management. To address these and other challenges, to foster necessary collaborations, and to galvanize a maturing field, the Society of Critical Care Cardiology (SoCCC) was born. OBSERVATIONS/METHODS:SoCCC was created to provide an independent, yet complementary home for stakeholders within this rapidly growing discipline. Its mission is to address the unique needs and concerns of Critical Care Cardiology through an inclusive approach that prioritizes the development of early career faculty, actively engaging them to help to shape the field and to strengthen its unique practice environment - the CICU. While collaborations with larger professional societies remain essential, an independent subspecialty society like SoCCC intends to capitalize on the historical precedent and experiences shared by other successful organizations, while leveraging its nimble structure to advocate for and advance the needs of its constituency. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:While this document primarily details the history and rationale that led to the establishment of SoCCC, it also endeavors to be a practical blueprint to support future leaders who might be considering a new society for their own subspecialty.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high-mortality condition that demands rapid diagnosis, coordinated multidisciplinary management, and timely initiation of mechanical circulatory support. As more institutions implement dedicated CS teams, substantial heterogeneity has emerged in how these teams are structured, activated, and sustained. To better characterize this variability and begin defining the components of an optimal CS team, the Society of Critical Care Cardiology (SoCCC), in partnership with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), convened the Inaugural Cardiogenic Shock Teams Think Tank. Held on October 17, 2024, as a pre-conference program to SCAI SHOCK 2024 in Washington, DC, the meeting brought together national leaders in CS care, mechanical circulatory support, and resuscitation to identify shared challenges and propose practical solutions. This manuscript summarizes key insights from this inaugural Think Tank, which represents the first in an ongoing series of collaborative efforts aimed at informing the standardization and optimization of CS teams nationwide. Specifically, we review the ideal composition and core competencies of a CS team; the rationale and emerging evidence supporting dedicated team-based CS care; activation algorithms and operational workflows; and common barriers to establishing and sustaining such teams. We also outline future directions and opportunities to strengthen collaborative infrastructure, refine clinical pathways, and enhance the reliability, responsiveness, and effectiveness of cardiogenic shock teams across diverse healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND:Current CPR guidelines recommend 10 breaths/min in adult cardiac arrest patients with an advanced airway, though this is largely based on animal studies. We evaluated the association between ventilation rate and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). METHODS:) monitoring. Patients were enrolled from 25 tertiary centers in the U.S. and U.K. A subset had intra-arrest arterial blood gases collected per routine care. RESULTS:did not differ significantly, suggesting a hemodynamic mechanism. CONCLUSIONS:monitors. Thus, more studies are needed to determine the need to re-evaluate current ventilation targets during CPR in intubated patients.

BACKGROUND:This study evaluates the prognostic utility of the RV/LV diameter ratio in predicting low cardiac index (CI) in patients with acute intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective analysis of 112 patients with acute PE who underwent catheter-based therapies. The RV/LV diameter ratio was measured from standard axial views on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA). Multivariable regression models were used to assess the relationship between the RV/LV diameter ratio and invasive hemodynamic parameters. RESULTS:lower cardiac index (p = 0.002). The RV/LV ratio demonstrated moderate sensitivity (64.5 %) and high specificity (84.2 %) for predicting low cardiac index. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The RV/LV diameter ratio offers real-time risk stratification and is a predictor of low cardiac index in patients with acute PE.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Among patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, the mean change in cardiac index (CI) is modest. We sought to identify variables associated with a hemodynamic super-response or a CI increase of ≥25% postthrombectomy. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a single-center retrospective study including patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism undergoing mechanical thrombectomy with pulmonary artery catheter-derived hemodynamic indices obtained preprocedure and postprocedure. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:was associated with a hemodynamic super-response (odds ratio, 3.76 [95% CI, 1.09-13.0]). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism with the more severe hemodynamic derangements had the greatest improvement in CI post thrombectomy. This group can be identified with commonly available noninvasive indices of right ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND:In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), guidelines recommend further risk stratification (Class 1 indication). However, head-to-head comparison of different risk stratification tools are lacking. Our objective was to compare the performance of 4 scores in predicting adverse clinical events in intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of 192 intermediate-risk PE patients spanning October 2016 to July 2019. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the predictive performance of the composite PE shock (CPES) score, Bova, simplified PE shock index (sPESI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory types for the primary outcome, which was a composite of PE-related in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation and its individual components. RESULTS:A total of 28 patients (14.6%) experienced the primary composite outcome. CPES demonstrated the highest discriminatory power for predicting the primary composite outcome (AUC: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.83) as well as its individual components compared to the other risk scores (p = 0.008). The AUCs for the other scores were as follows: Bova, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.76); sPESI, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77); NEWS, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory, AUC of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51-0.68). The ESC intermediate-risk subcategory exhibited the lowest performance for the primary composite outcome and across all individual components. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CPES score outperformed other commonly used risk stratification tools for PE-related morbidity and mortality in intermediate-risk PE patients. The findings support the integration of CPES into clinical practice to enhance patient selection for escalated care and timely interventions.

Therapeutic anticoagulation is the mainstay therapy in acute pulmonary embolism (PE), however, select patients benefit from emergent reperfusion to prevent or rescue acute right ventricular failure and haemodynamic collapse. Compared to other leading causes of cardiovascular mortality such as myocardial infarction and stroke, there is a substantial paucity of literature informing on advanced therapies in PE. Recent years have seen significant evolution in the armamentarium available for PE care with the uptake of several endovascular treatment modalities and increased use of mechanical circulatory support. While several ongoing randomised controlled trials may alter the therapeutic landscape and approach to PE management, at present, we are left with multiple selections with limited guidance. In this review, we discuss the latest therapeutic options available for acute PE and offer an approach to their implementation.

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being increasingly used for the management of patients admitted with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and are endorsed by societal guidelines. Whether PERT improves outcomes remains unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute PE treated by a PERT versus no PERT.A systematic review and study level meta-analysis was conducted by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until November 10, 2024 and included studies evaluating efficacy of PERT vs no PERT in patients admitted for acute PE. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (in-hospital and 30-day mortality), major and clinically relevant bleeding, advanced therapies utilization, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission. Twenty-four retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 15,809 patients (mean age 61.6 years with 49% male) with acute PE of which 6228 were treated with a PERT and 9,581 without a PERT. Lower all-cause mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) [odds ratio (OR)= 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.93; 24 studies], major or clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.86; 15 studies), higher utilization of advanced therapies (OR= 3.16; 95% CI: 1.81 to 5.49; 19 studies), and lower hospital LOS (MD= -1.49; 95% CI: -2.59 to -0.39; 14 studies) were seen in the patients treated by a PERT compared to those not treated by a PERT. In this large meta-analysis of observational studies comparing outcomes in patients treated by PERT versus not treated by PERT, there were significantly lower short-term mortality, lower major or clinically relevant bleeding, higher utilization of advanced therapies and lower hospital length of stay with the existence of PERT. PERT should be the standard of care for the management of patients with acute PE.