Faculty Bibliography

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.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and cardiac arrest (CA) are the most life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction. Although there is a significant overlap in the pathophysiology with approximately half the patients with CS experiencing a CA and approximately two-thirds of patients with CA developing CS, comprehensive guideline recommendations for management of CA + CS are lacking. This paper summarizes the current evidence on the incidence, pathophysiology, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by concomitant CA + CS. We discuss the hemodynamic factors and unique challenges that need to be accounted for while developing treatment strategies for these patients. A summary of expert-based step-by-step recommendations to the approach and treatment of these patients, both in the field before admission and in-hospital management, are presented.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the final common pathway of impaired cardiovascular performance that results in ineffective forward cardiac output producing clinical and biochemical signs of organ hypoperfusion. CS represents the most common cause of shock in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) and accounts for a substantial proportion of CICU patient deaths. Despite significant advances in revascularization techniques, pharmacologic therapeutics and mechanical support devices, CS remains associated with a high mortality rate. Indeed, the prevalence of CS within the CICU appears to be increasing. CS can be differentiated as phenotypes reflecting different metabolic, inflammatory, and hemodynamic profiles, depending also on anatomic substrate and congestion profile. Future prospective studies and clinical trials may further characterize these phenotypes and apply targeted intervention for each phenotype and SCAI SHOCK stage rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Overall, there are 8 key concepts of CS; 1) the mortality associated with CS; 2) Shock attributed to AMI may be declining in both incidence and associated mortality; 3) providers should think about hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammation and cardiac function in totality to assess CS; 4) CS is a dynamic process; 5) no randomized trials evaluating use of the PAC in patients with CS; 6) most data supporting neosynephrine as first line agent in CS; 7) most registries suggest that almost half of CS patients do not have any mechanical support, and the vast majority of the remainder utilize the IABP; and 8) patients with AMI CS should receive emergent PCI of the culprit vessel.

OBJECTIVE:Because the heterogeneity of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and family members represents a challenge to palliative care delivery, we aimed to determine if distinct phenotypes of palliative care needs exist. METHODS:Prospective cohort study conducted among family members of adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in six medical and surgical ICUs. The primary outcome was palliative care need measured by the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST, range from 0 (no need) to 130 (highest need)) completed 3 days after ICU admission. We also assessed quality of communication, clinician-family relationship and patient centredness of care. Latent class analysis of the NEST's 13 items was used to identify groups with similar patterns of serious palliative care needs. RESULTS:Among 257 family members, latent class analysis yielded a four-class model including complex communication needs (n=26, 10%; median NEST score 68.0), family spiritual and cultural needs (n=21, 8%; 40.0) and patient and family stress needs (n=43, 31%; 31.0), as well as a fourth group with fewer serious needs (n=167, 65%; 14.0). Interclass differences existed in quality of communication (median range 4.0-10.0, p<0.001), favourable clinician-family relationship (range 34.6%-98.2%, p<0.001) and both the patient centredness of care Eliciting Concerns (median range 4.0-5.0, p<0.001) and Decision-Making (median range 2.3-4.5, p<0.001) scales. CONCLUSIONS:Four novel phenotypes of palliative care need were identified among ICU family members with distinct differences in the severity of needs and perceived quality of the clinician-family interaction. Knowledge of need class may help to inform the development of more person-centred models of ICU-based palliative care.

Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.

BACKGROUND:The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS:COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS:=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

BACKGROUND:With the improvement in outcomes for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the practice of routine admission to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is evolving. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of patients with ACS admitted to contemporary CICUs. METHODS:Using the CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) Registry for consecutive medical CICU admissions across 26 advanced CICUs in North America between 2017 and 2020, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of ACS at CICU admission and compared patient characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes to patients admitted with a non-ACS diagnosis and across sub-populations of patients with ACS, including by indication for CICU admission. RESULTS:<0.0001), compared with patients with ACS with an admission indication beyond monitoring. CONCLUSIONS:In a registry of tertiary care CICUs, ACS represent ≈1/3 of all admissions with significant variability across hospitals. More than half of the ACS admissions to the CICU were for routine monitoring alone, with a low rate of complications and mortality. This observation highlights an opportunity for prospective studies to refine triage strategies for lower risk patients with ACS.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.