Faculty Bibliography

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.

Readmission to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the index hospitalization is associated with poor outcomes in medical or surgical ICU survivors. Little is known about critically ill patients with acute cardiovascular conditions cared for in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of all ICU readmissions in patients who survived to CICU discharge. We retrospectively reviewed Mayo Clinic patients from 2007 to 2015 who survived the index CICU admission and identified patients with a second ICU stay during their index hospitalization; these patients were categorized as ICU transfers (patients who went directly from the CICU to another ICU) or ICU readmissions (patients initially transferred from the CICU to the ward, and then back to an ICU). Among 9,434 CICU survivors (mean age 67 years), 138 patients (1.5%) had a second ICU stay during the index hospitalization: 60 ICU transfers (0.6%) and 78 ICU readmissions (0.8%). The most common indications for ICU readmission were respiratory failure and procedure/surgery. On multivariable modeling, respiratory failure, severe acute kidney injury, and Charlson Comorbidity Index at the time of discharge from the index ICU stay were associated with ICU readmission. Death during the first ICU readmission (n = 78) occurred in 7.7% of patients. In-hospital mortality was higher for patients with a second ICU stay. In conclusion, few CICU survivors have a second ICU stay during their index hospitalization; these patients are at a higher risk of in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Respiratory failure, severe acute kidney injury, and higher co-morbidity burden identify CICU survivors at elevated risk of ICU readmission.

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.

OBJECTIVES:The prediction of right heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a challenge. Recently, risk scores were derived from analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) data, the EUROMACS-RHF, and the modified postoperative EUROMACS-RHF. The authors assessed the performance characteristics of these 2 risk score formulations in a continuous-flow LVAD cohort at their institution. DESIGN:A retrospective, observational study. SETTING:At a tertiary-care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS:Adult patients who underwent durable LVAD implantation between 2015 and 2018. INTERVENTIONS:None MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Early post-LVAD RHF was defined as follows: (1) need for right ventricular assist device, or (2) inotropic or inhaled pulmonary vasodilator support for ≥14 postoperative days. The authors used logistic regression and examined receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to evaluate the ability of the 2 risk scores to distinguish between outcome groups. A total of 207 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of the patients, 16% developed RHF (33/207). The EUROMACS-RHF score was not predictive of RHF in the authors' cohort (odds ratio [OR] 1.25; 95% CI [0.99-1.60]; p = 0.06), but the postoperative EUROMACS-RHF CPB score was significantly associated (OR 1.38; 95% CI [1.03-1.89]; p = 0.03). The scores had similar ROC curves, with weak discriminatory performance: 0.601 (95% CI [0.509-0.692]) and 0.599 (95% CI [0.505-0.693]) for EUROMACS-RHF and postoperative EUROMACS-RHF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In the authors' single-center retrospective analysis, the EUROMACS-RHF risk score did not predict early RHF. An optimized risk score for the prediction of RHF after LVAD implantation remains an urgent unmet need.

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.