Faculty Bibliography

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.

Contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have an increasing prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction. However, little guidance exists to support the development of best-practice principles specific to the CICU. This scientific statement evaluates strategies to avoid the potentially preventable complications encountered within contemporary CICUs, focusing on those that are most applicable to the CICU environment. This scientific statement reviews evidence-based practices derived in non-CICU populations, assesses their relevance to CICU practice, and highlights key knowledge gaps warranting further investigation to attenuate patient risk.

The medical complexity and critical care needs of patients admitted to cardiac ICUs are increasing, and prospective studies examining the underlying cardiac and noncardiac diagnoses, the management strategies, and the prognosis of cardiac ICU patients with respiratory failure are needed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a major unanticipated stress on our workforce, organizational structure, systems of care, and critical resource supply. In order to ensure provider safety, maximize efficiency, and optimize patient outcomes, health systems need to be agile. Critical care cardiologists may be uniquely positioned to treat the numerous respiratory and cardiovascular complications of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and support clinicians without critical care training who may be suddenly asked to care for critically ill patients. This manuscript draws upon the experiences of colleagues from heavily impacted regions of the United States and Europe as well as lessons learned from military mass casualty medicine. We offer pragmatic suggestions on how to implement scalable models for critical care delivery, cultivate educational tools for team training, and embrace technologies such as telemedicine to enable effective collaboration despite social distancing imperatives.