Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE:The new United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) donor heart allocation system gives priority to patients supported with nondischargeable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices while awaiting heart transplant. Whether there has been a change in temporary MCS use in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) since the implementation of this policy is unknown. OBJECTIVES:To examine whether the UNOS donor heart allocation system revision in October 2018 was associated with changes in temporary MCS use in CICUs and whether temporary MCS use differed between US transplant centers and US nontransplant centers and Canadian centers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:In this cohort study, 14 centers from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN), a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America, contributed 2-month snapshots of consecutive medical CICU admissions between September 1, 2017, and September 1, 2018 (prerevision period), and October 1, 2018, and September 1, 2019 (postrevision period). CICUs were classified as US transplant centers (n = 7) or other CICUs (US nontransplant centers or Canadian centers; n = 7). EXPOSURE:Revision to the UNOS donor heart allocation system. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Treatment with temporary MCS (intra-aortic balloon pump, microaxial intracardiac ventricular assist device, percutaneous centrifugal ventricular assist device, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or surgically implanted, nondischargeable MCS device) during hospital admission. RESULTS:A total of 384 admissions for acute, decompensated, heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (ADHF-CS) were included, among which 248 (64.6%) were to US transplant centers; 126 admissions (51%) were in the prerevision period and 122 (49%) were in the postrevision period. The mean (SD) patient age was 61.2 (14.6) years; 246 patients (64.1%) were male. The proportion of admissions with ADHF-CS managed with temporary MCS at US transplant centers significantly increased from 25.4% (32 of 126 admissions) before to 42.6% (52 of 122 admissions) after the UNOS allocation system changes (P = .004). In other CICUs, the proportion did not significantly change (24.5% [13 of 53 admissions] to 24.1% [20 of 83 admissions]; P = .95). After multivariable adjustment, patients admitted to US transplant centers in the postrevision period were more likely to receive temporary MCS compared with those admitted in the prerevision period (adjusted odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.13-4.24; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In the year after implementation of the new UNOS donor heart allocation system, temporary MCS use in patients admitted with ADHF-CS increased in US transplant centers but not in other CICUs. Whether this shift in practice will affect outcomes of patients with ADHF-CS or organ distribution should be evaluated.

The novel coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered our economy, society, and healthcare system. While this crisis has presented the U.S. healthcare delivery system with unprecedented challenges, the pandemic has catalyzed rapid adoption of telehealth, or the entire spectrum of activities used to deliver care at a distance. Using examples reported by U.S. healthcare organizations, including ours, we describe the role that telehealth has played in transforming healthcare delivery during the 3 phases of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic: (1) stay-at-home outpatient care, (2) initial COVID-19 hospital surge, and (3) postpandemic recovery. Within each of these 3 phases, we examine how people, process, and technology work together to support a successful telehealth transformation. Whether healthcare enterprises are ready or not, the new reality is that virtual care has arrived.

The infection caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, or COVID-19, can result in myocardial injury, heart failure, and arrhythmias. In addition to the viral infection itself, investigational therapies for the infection can interact with the cardiovascular system. As cardiologists and cardiovascular service lines will be heavily involved in the care of patients with COVID-19, our division organized an approach to manage these complications, attempting to balance resource utilization and risk to personnel with optimal cardiovascular care. The model presented can provide a framework for other institutions to organize their own approaches and can be adapted to local constraints, resource availability, and emerging knowledge.

OBJECTIVES:The goal of this study was to assess the utility of transvenous lead extraction for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). BACKGROUND:The use of transvenous lead extraction for the management CIED infection in patients with a durable LVAD has not been well described. METHODS:Clinical and outcomes data were collected retrospectively among patients who underwent lead extraction for CIED infection after LVAD implantation at Duke University Hospital. RESULTS:Overall, 27 patients (n = 6 HVAD; n = 15 HeartMate II; n = 6 Heartmate III) underwent lead extraction for infection. Median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to infection was 6.1 (2.5 to 14.9) months. Indications included endocarditis (n = 16), bacteremia (n = 9), and pocket infection (n = 2). Common pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 10), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 7), and Enterococcus faecalis (n = 3). Sixty-eight leads were removed, with a median lead implant time of 5.7 (3.6 to 9.2) years. Laser sheaths were used in all procedures, with a median laser time of 35.0 s (17.5 to 85.5s). Mechanical cutting tools were required in 11 (40.7%) and femoral snaring in 4 (14.8%). Complete procedural success was achieved in 25 (93.6%) patients and clinical success in 27 (100%). No procedural failures or major adverse events occurred. Twenty-one patients (77.8%) were alive without persistent endovascular infection 1 year after lead extraction. Most were treated with oral suppressive antibiotics after extraction (n = 23 [82.5%]). Persistent infection after extraction occurred in 4 patients and was associated with 50% 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS:Transvenous lead extraction for LVAD-associated CIED infection can be performed safely with low rates of persistent infection and 1-year mortality.

OBJECTIVES:This study sought to determine the indications, characteristics, and outcomes of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery in patients with LVAD. BACKGROUND:Many patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) will require implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator change or device revision or are candidates for de novo implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation following LVAD implantation. METHODS:We performed an observational retrospective study of all LVAD recipients who subsequently underwent CIED surgery at Duke University Hospital from 2009 to 2019. RESULTS:A total of 159 patients underwent CIED surgery following LVAD implantation, including generator change (n = 93), device revision (n = 38), and de novo implant (n = 28). The median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to CIED surgery was 18.1 months (5.5 to 35.1 months). Pre-operative risk for infection was elevated in the overall cohort with a median (interquartile range) Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) score of 7.0 (5.0 to 9.0). Pocket hematoma occurred in 21 patients (13.2%) following CIED surgery. Antimicrobial envelops were used in 43 patients (27%). Device infection due to CIED surgery occurred in 5 (3.1%) patients and occurred only in patients who developed post-operative pocket hematoma (p < 0.001). Mortality at 1 year following CIED surgery was 20% (n = 32). CONCLUSIONS:CIED surgery following LVAD implantation is associated with an increased risk for pocket hematoma and CIED infection. Further studies are needed to determine the risk-benefit ratio of CIED surgery in patients with LVADs.

The objective of this study was to determine how initial intensive care unit triage decisions impact processes of care and outcomes for emergency department patients hospitalized with cardiogenic shock. Individuals with cardiogenic shock were stratified based upon whether they were initially admitted to a cardiac versus noncardiovascular intensive care setting. Those initially triaged to a noncardiovascular intensive care unit were less likely to receive potentially life-saving interventions, including percutaneous coronary intervention and temporary mechanical circulatory support, and were more likely to see significant delays in these interventions if ultimately used. Additionally, admitting cardiogenic shock patients to noncardiovascular intensive care units may result in worse survival. These findings underscore the importance of appropriate identification and triage of emergency department patients with cardiogenic shock-a potentially critical contribution of contemporary cardiogenic shock teams.

INTRODUCTION:The number of older adults who receive life support in an intensive care unit (ICU), now 2 million per year, is increasing while survival remains unchanged. Because the quality of ICU-based palliative care is highly variable, we developed a mobile app intervention that integrates into the electronic health records (EHR) system called PCplanner (Palliative Care planner) with the goal of improving collaborative primary and specialist palliative care delivery in ICU settings. OBJECTIVE:To describe the methods of a randomized clinical trial (RCT) being conducted to compare PCplanner vs. usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The goal of this two-arm, parallel group mixed methods RCT is to determine the clinical impact of the PCplanner intervention on outcomes of interest to patients, family members, clinicians, and policymakers over a 3-month follow up period. The primary outcome is change in unmet palliative care needs measured by the NEST instrument between baseline and 1 week post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include goal concordance of care, patient-centeredness of care, and quality of communication at 1 week post-randomization; length of stay; as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder at 3 months post-randomization. We will use general linear models for repeated measures to compare outcomes across the main effects and interactions of the factors. We hypothesize that compared to usual care, PCplanner will have a greater impact on the quality of ICU-based palliative care delivery across domains of core palliative care needs, psychological distress, patient-centeredness, and healthcare resource utilization.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:To highlight the indications, procedural considerations, and data supporting the use of stellate ganglion blockade (SGB) for management of refractory ventricular arrhythmias. RECENT FINDINGS:In patients with refractory ventricular arrhythmias, unilateral or bilateral SGB can reduce arrhythmia burden and defibrillation events for 24-72 h, allowing time for use of other therapies like catheter ablation, surgical sympathectomy, or heart transplantation. The efficacy of SGB appears to be consistent despite the type (monomorphic vs polymorphic) or etiology (ischemic vs non-ischemic cardiomyopathy) of the ventricular arrhythmia. Ultrasound-guided SGB is safe with low risk for complications, even when performed on anticoagulation. SGB is effective and safe and could be considered for patients with refractory ventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND:The prevalence of renal disease in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is increasing, but little is known about the utilization, concurrent therapies, and outcomes of patients requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT) in this specialized environment. METHODS:In the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, 16 centers submitted data on CICU admissions including acute RRT (defined as continuous renal replacement therapy and/or acute intermittent dialysis). RESULTS:Among 2,985 admissions, 178 (6.0%; interhospital range 1.0%-16.0%) received acute RRT. Patients receiving RRT, versus not, were more commonly admitted for cardiogenic shock (15.7% vs 4.2%, P < .01), cardiac arrest (9.6% vs 3.7%, P < .01), and acute general medical diagnoses (10.7% vs 5.8%, P < .01), whereas acute coronary syndromes (16.9% vs 32.1%, P < .01) were less frequent. Variables independently associated with acute RRT included diabetes, heart failure, liver disease, severe valvular disease, shock, cardiac arrest, hypertension, and younger age. In patients receiving acute RRT, versus not, advanced therapies including mechanical ventilation (55.6% vs 18.0%), vasoactive support (73.0% vs 35.2%), invasive hemodynamic monitoring (59.6% vs 29.2%), and mechanical circulatory support (27.5% vs 8.4%) were more common. Acute RRT was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (42.1% vs 9.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.74, 95% CI, 2.52-5.53) and longer median length of stay (10.0 vs 5.3 days, P < .01). In conclusion, acute RRT in contemporary CICUs was associated with the provision of other advanced therapies and lower survival. CONCLUSIONS:These data underscore the risks associated with the provision of renal support in patients with primary cardiovascular problems and the need to develop standardized indications and potential futility measures in this specialized population.