Faculty Bibliography

The modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) specializes in the care of a broad range of critically ill patients with both cardiac and non-cardiac serious illnesses. Despite advances, most conditions that necessitate CICU admission such as cardiogenic shock, continue to have a high burden of morbidity and mortality. The CICU often serves as the final destination for patients with end-stage disease, with one study reporting that one in five patients in the USA die in an intensive care unit (ICU) or shortly after an ICU admission. Palliative care is a broad subspecialty of medicine with an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on optimizing patient and family quality of life (QoL), decision-making, and experience. Palliative care has been shown to improve the QoL and symptom burden in patients at various stages of illness, however, the integration of palliative care in the CICU has not been well-studied. In this review, we outline the fundamental principles of high-quality palliative care in the ICU, focused on timeliness, goal-concordant decision-making, and family-centred care. We differentiate between primary palliative care, which is delivered by the primary CICU team, and secondary palliative care, which is provided by the consulting palliative care team, and delineate their responsibilities and domains. We propose clinical triggers that might spur serious illness communication and reappraisal of patient preferences. More research is needed to test different models that integrate palliative care in the modern CICU.

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.

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 use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

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.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Increases in life expectancy, comorbidities, and survival with complex cardiovascular conditions have changed the clinical profile of the patients in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). In this environment, palliative care (PC) services are increasingly important. However, scarce information is available about the delivery of PC in CICUs. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry is a network of tertiary care CICUs in North America. Between 2017 and 2020, up to 26 centres contributed an annual 2-month snapshot of all consecutive medical CICU admissions. We captured code status at admission and the decision for comfort measures only (CMO) before all deaths in the CICU. Of 13 422 patients, 10% died in the CICU and 2.6% were discharged to palliative hospice. Of patients who died in the CICU, 68% were CMO at death. In the CMO group, only 13% were do not resuscitate/do not intubate at admission. The median time from CICU admission to CMO decision was 3.4 days (25th-75th percentiles: 1.2-7.7) and ≥7 days in 27%. Time from CMO decision to death was <24 h in 88%, with a median of 3.8 h (25th-75th 1.0-10.3). Before a CMO decision, 78% received mechanical ventilation and 26% mechanical circulatory support. A PC provider team participated in the care of 41% of patients who died. CONCLUSIONS:In a contemporary CICU registry, comfort measures preceded death in two-thirds of cases, frequently without PC involvement. The high utilization of advanced intensive care unit therapies and lengthy times to a CMO decision highlight a potential opportunity for early engagement of PC teams in CICU.

IMPORTANCE:Palliative care consultations in intensive care units (ICUs) are increasingly prompted by clinical characteristics associated with mortality or resource utilization. However, it is not known whether these triggers reflect actual palliative care needs. OBJECTIVE:To compare unmet needs by clinical palliative care trigger status (present vs absent). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This prospective cohort study was conducted in 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between January 2019 and September 2020. Participants were consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation and their family members. EXPOSURE:Presence of any of 9 common clinical palliative care triggers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score (range, 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need), which was completed after 3 days of ICU care. Trigger status performance in identifying serious need (NEST score ≥30) was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and C statistics. RESULTS:Surveys were completed by 257 of 360 family members of patients (71.4% of the potentially eligible patient-family member dyads approached) with a median age of 54.0 years (IQR, 44-62 years); 197 family members (76.7%) were female, and 83 (32.3%) were Black. The median age of patients was 58.0 years (IQR, 46-68 years); 126 patients (49.0%) were female, and 88 (33.5%) were Black. There was no difference in median NEST score between participants with a trigger present (45%) and those with a trigger absent (55%) (21.0; IQR, 12.0-37.0 vs 22.5; IQR, 12.0-39.0; P = .52). Trigger presence was associated with poor sensitivity (45%; 95% CI, 34%-55%), specificity (55%; 95% CI, 48%-63%), positive likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), negative likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2), and C statistic (0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.57). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this cohort study, clinical palliative care trigger status was not associated with palliative care needs and no better than chance at identifying the most serious needs, which raises questions about an increasingly common clinical practice. Focusing care delivery on directly measured needs may represent a more person-centered alternative.

As the acuity, complexity, and illness severity of patients admitted to cardiac intensive care units have increased, the need to recognize critical care cardiology (CCC) as a dedicated subspecialty in cardiovascular disease has received increasing support. Differing viewpoints exist regarding the optimal pathway for CCC training. Currently, all proposed CCC training pathways involve permutations of individual training years culminating in subspecialty certification across multiple disciplines; however, there are significant disadvantages to these training paradigms. We propose an innovative, pragmatic approach to CCC training through tailored subspecialty training in advanced heart failure and transplant cardiology (AHFTC), using elective time to enrich AHFTC training with skills and experiences necessary to become a highly skilled critical care cardiologist. The completion of this pathway would lead to completion of AHFTC training with a novel designation: distinction in critical care cardiology.