Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) typically manage critically ill patients with acute cardiovascular (CV) conditions but may serve patients with non-CV critical illness when medical ICU (MICU) beds are unavailable. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profiles and outcomes of "MICU overflow" admissions to the CICU. METHODS:We used the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry to compare CICU admissions without acute or major cardiac issues (MICU overflow) vs those with acute CV illness. RESULTS:Among 19,912 CICU admissions (2018-2023), 923 (4.6%) were MICU overflow, ranging from 0% to 26% across centers. MICU overflow admissions had higher median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than CV admissions (5 vs 3; P < 0.001) and more commonly presented with respiratory failure (50.5% vs 24.6%; P < 0.001) and noncardiogenic shock (30.9% vs 8.0%; P < 0.001). MICU overflow status was associated with similar ICU mortality (adjusted OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.90-1.43; P = 0.28) but higher hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.48-2.19; P < 0.001) vs CV illness. In units where the CICU team managed all admissions, ICU mortality was higher among MICU overflow admissions than CV admissions (adjusted OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.02-1.80; P = 0.04), whereas in CICUs where off-unit MICU teams managed MICU overflow admissions, this mortality imbalance was not present (adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.47-1.11; P = 0.14; P interaction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:MICU overflow admissions constitute a meaningful proportion of the CICU population and present with more multisystem disease and experience higher hospital mortality compared with acute CV admissions, underscoring the need for multidisciplinary CICU teams with broad critical care expertise.

BACKGROUND:Mixed cardiogenic and septic shock has been shown to have a higher mortality than cardiogenic shock alone and presents a unique hemodynamic phenotype. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate whether higher circulatory support with veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) was associated with increased survival to discharge in patients with mixed shock. METHODS:flow) circulatory support on VA-ECLS at 24 hours post-ECLS initiation. RESULTS:A total of 452 patients supported with VA-ECLS with mixed shock were identified. Overall mortality was 63% (n = 285). Older age (adjusted OR [aOR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001), pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cardiac arrest (aOR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.11-2.65; P = 0.016), and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (aOR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.28; P = 0.043) were associated with increased mortality. Patients receiving higher VA-ECLS support at 24 hours were numerically more likely to survive to discharge (42.6% vs 33.8%, P = 0.063). When evaluated as a continuous variable, higher VA-ECLS flow at 24 hours was associated with an aOR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.87-1.97; P = 0.19) for survival to discharge. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with mixed shock requiring VA-ECLS have a high mortality. Patients with mixed shock receiving higher support at 24 hours had a trend toward increased survival to discharge compared to those with lower support. These results are hypothesis-generating, and further studies are needed.

BACKGROUND:Acute decompensated heart failure (HF) can progress to cardiogenic shock, and patients with cancer are at an increased risk of HF compared to patients without cancer. However, limited data exist on outcomes of patients admitted for HF-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) with cancer versus without cancer. METHODS:Adult patients admitted for HF-CS between 2014-2020 were identified using the National Readmission Database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match 1 patient with cancer to 10 patients without cancer. Primary outcomes were in-hospital death, major bleeding, and thrombotic complications. Exploratory outcomes were 90-day readmission rates among patients who survived initial hospitalization. Temporal trends were also explored. RESULTS:Of 137,316 admissions for HF-CS, 7,306 (5.3%) had active cancer. After PSM, patients with cancer had increased odds of in-hospital death (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 - 1.18), thrombotic complications (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.21), and major bleeding (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17 - 1.31) compared to patients without cancer, with risks differing by cancer type. In exploratory analyses, rates of readmission were similar for patients with and without cancer. From 2014-2020, patients with cancer had no significant change in in-hospital mortality (ptrend = 0.43), while patients without cancer had decreased mortality over time (ptrend < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients admitted for HF-CS, patients with cancer are at increased risk of in-hospital death, thrombotic complications, and major bleeding compared to patients without cancer. Future studies are needed to guide nuanced evaluation and management of this population to improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND:ARIES-HM3 (Antiplatelet Removal and Hemocompatibility Events With the HeartMate 3 Pump) demonstrated that aspirin avoidance with a fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) reduces bleeding complications and does not increase thromboembolism. Whether a concomitant surgical procedure modifies the observed safety and benefits remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This prespecified analysis of ARIES-HM3 studied clinical outcomes when concomitant surgical procedures are performed during LVAD implantation with excluding aspirin but maintaining a vitamin K antagonist. METHODS:Among 628 patients randomized to receive either placebo or aspirin with a vitamin K antagonist, 589 (296 placebo and 293 aspirin) contributed to the primary endpoint analysis. Sub-categorization with receiving a concomitant surgical procedure (valvular procedure/coronary artery bypass grafting or nonvalvular procedure) was done and the composite primary endpoint of survival free from major nonsurgical (>14 days postimplant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events at 12 months was assessed. RESULTS: = 0.231, 0.298, and 0.735 for any procedure, valvular/coronary artery bypass grafting, and nonvalvular procedures, respectively). There was a similar reduction in nonsurgical major hemorrhagic events with placebo compared with aspirin, observed in patients with or without any concomitant procedure: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.44-0.94) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.46-0.93). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings support the safety and efficacy of aspirin avoidance from the antithrombotic regimen in HM3 LVAD patients undergoing concomitant surgical procedures. (Antiplatelet Removal and Hemocompatibility Events With the HeartMate 3 Pump [ARIES-HM3]; NCT04069156).

BACKGROUND:Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a growing proportion of cardiogenic shock (CS) related admissions to contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Limited data exists comparing non-ischemic (NICM) and ischemic cardiomyopathies (ICM) in this setting. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:We sought to examine the differences in patient characteristics, in-hospital treatments, and outcomes among individuals admitted with ICM and NICM HF-CS. The study population included CS admissions within the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry from 2017 to 2022. CS due to acute myocardial infarction or secondary causes was excluded. Admission characteristics, in-hospital treatments, and outcomes were captured. The primary outcome of all-cause in-hospital mortality for ICM versus NICM was compared using multivariable logistic regression. 2,463 hospital admissions for HF-CS including 902 (36.6%) admissions with ICM and 1561 (63.4%) admissions with NICM were included. Patients with ICM more frequently had pre-existing comorbidities, pre-admission cardiac arrest, and higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. Use of inotropes and temporary mechanical circulatory support were similar; however, the rates of mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapies were higher for ICM. Patients with ICM were less likely to undergo cardiac transplantation, but had similar rates of durable left ventricular assist device implantation. After multivariable adjustment, patients with ICM were significantly more likely to die during the index hospitalization (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.26-1.93; p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients admitted to CICUs with HF-CS, patients with ICM were sicker, less likely to undergo cardiac transplantation, and more likely to die when compared with patients with NICM.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who require invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) represent a critically ill population with limited data on optimal sedative and analgesic use. Clinical trials assessing dexmedetomidine use exclude or poorly represent patients with AMI. This study aimed to compare the use of early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual-care sedation in patients with AMI requiring IMV. METHODS:We utilized the Vizient® Clinical Data Base to identify patients aged ≥18 years admitted between 2015 and 2019 with a primary diagnosis of AMI who required IMV. Patients receiving dexmedetomidine on the first day of IMV were included in the early dexmedetomidine group while the remaining patients were assigned to the usual care group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to estimate adjusted risk differences between groups. RESULTS:We identified 15,928 patients, of which 1,620 (10.2%) received early dexmedetomidine. Patients who received early dexmedetomidine were more likely to present with cardiogenic shock (52.0% vs. 47.7%, P=0.001). In unadjusted analyses, patients receiving early dexmedetomidine had lower in-hospital mortality (33.0% vs 42.1%) and more ventilator-free days (13.6 vs 12.1) compared to usual care (both, P<0.05). After IPTW, patients receiving early dexmedetomidine had a 11.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6% to 13.5%) lower mortality and more ventilator-free days (mean difference: +2.2 days, 95% CI: 1.6-2.8 days). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Early sedation with dexmedetomidine was associated with lower mortality compared to usual care in patients with AMI requiring IMV. A randomized controlled trial of sedative agents in this population is warranted.

Critical care cardiology refers to the practice focus of and subspecialty training for the comprehensive management of life-threatening cardiovascular diseases and comorbid conditions that require advanced critical care in an intensive care unit. The development of coronary care units is often credited for a dramatic decline in mortality rates after acute myocardial infarction throughout the 1960s. As the underlying patient population became progressively sicker, changes in organizational structure, staffing, care delivery, and training paradigms lagged. The coronary care unit gradually evolved from a focus on rapid resuscitation from ventricular arrhythmias in acute myocardial infarction into a comprehensive cardiac intensive care unit designed to care for the sickest patients with cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, the cardiac intensive care unit has continued to transform with an aging population, increased clinical acuity, burgeoning cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, technologic advances in cardiovascular interventions, and increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices. Herein, we provide an update and contemporary expert perspective on the organizational structure, staffing, and care delivery in the cardiac intensive care unit; examine the challenges and opportunities present in the education and training of the next generation of physicians for critical care cardiology; and explore quality improvement initiatives and scientific investigation, including multicenter registry initiatives and randomized clinical trials, that may change clinical practice, care delivery, and the research landscape in this rapidly evolving discipline.