Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) programs have been associated with improved outcomes, yet practical guidance for developing a CS program is lacking. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A survey on CS program development and operational best practices was administered to 12 institutions in diverse sociogeographic regions and practice settings. Common steps in program development were identified. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Key steps for program development were identified: measuring baseline outcomes; identifying subspecialty champions; gaining leadership and team buy-in; developing institution-specific CS protocols; educating staff and referring providers; consulting with external experts; and developing quality assessment and process improvement. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:An assessment of 12 US CS programs highlights a blueprint for establishing and maintaining a successful, multidisciplinary shock program.

None.

BACKGROUND:The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). CS was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP<90mmHg for ≥30 minutes (or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support [MCS] to maintain SBP ≥90mmHg) with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary etiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. HF-CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. RESULTS:Of 8,974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-2023), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n=5,869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (p<0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; p<0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.

This consensus statement emerges from collaborative efforts among leading figures in critical care cardiology throughout the United States, who met to share their collective expertise on issues faced by those active in or pursuing contemporary critical care cardiology education. The panel applied fundamentals of adult education and curriculum design, reviewed requisite training necessary to provide high-quality care to critically ill patients with cardiac pathology, and devoted attention to a purposeful approach emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in developing this nascent field. The resulting paper offers a comprehensive guide for current trainees, with insights about the present landscape of critical care cardiology while highlighting issues that need to be addressed for continued advancement. By delineating future directions with careful consideration and intentionality, this Expert Panel aims to facilitate the continued growth and maturation of critical care cardiology education and practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) commonly present with a significantly reduced cardiac index (CI). However, the identification of this more severe profile requires invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Whether inferior vena cava (IVC) contrast reflux, as a marker of worse right ventricular function, can predict invasive hemodynamics has not been explored. METHODS:This was a single-center retrospective study over a 3-year period of consecutive patients with PE undergoing mechanical thrombectomy and simultaneous pulmonary artery catheterization. CT pulmonary angiograms were reviewed, and contrast reflux was graded as no/minimal reflux (limited to the IVC) or substantial (opacification including hepatic veins) based on an established scale. RESULTS:were 62.6 %, 93.1 %, 94.6 %, and 56.2 %, respectively. These findings remained significant in a multivariable model and were similar when isolating for intermediate-risk patients (n = 72, 85 %). CONCLUSIONS:The degree of contrast reflux is highly specific for a reduced cardiac index in PE even when isolating for intermediate-risk patients. Real-time prediction of a hemodynamic profile may have added value in the risk-stratification of PE.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Despite the growing use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), little data exists to inform management and weaning of these devices. METHODS:We performed an online survey among cardiac intensive care unit directors in North America to examine current practices in the management of patients treated with intraaortic balloon pump and Impella. RESULTS:We received responses from 84% of surveyed centers (n=37). Our survey focused on three key aspects of daily management: 1. Hemodynamic monitoring; 2. Hemocompatibility; and 3. Weaning and removal. We found substantial variability surrounding all three areas of care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our findings highlight the need for consensus around practices associated with improved outcomes in patients treated with tMCS.

BACKGROUND:Arterial hyperoxia (hyperoxemia), defined as a high arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), has been associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill populations, but has not been examined in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We evaluated the association between exposure to hyperoxia on admission with in-hospital mortality in a mixed CICU cohort. METHODS:We included unique Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 with admission PaO2 data (defined as the PaO2 value closest to CICU admission) and no hypoxia (PaO2 < 60mmHg). The admission PaO2 was evaluated as a continuous variable and categorized (60-100 mmHg, 101-150 mmHg, 151-200 mmHg, 201-300 mmHg, >300 mmHg). Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of in-hospital mortality before and after multivariable adjustment. RESULTS:We included 3,368 patients with a median age of 70.3 years; 70.3% received positive-pressure ventilation. The median PaO2 was 99 mmHg, with a distribution as follows: 60-100 mmHg, 51.9%; 101-150 mmHg, 28.6%; 151-200 mmHg, 10.6%; 201-300 mmHg, 6.4%; >300 mmHg, 2.5%. A J-shaped association between admission PaO2 and in-hospital mortality was observed, with a nadir around 100 mmHg. A higher PaO2 was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 1.17 per 100 mmHg higher, 95% CI 1.01-1.34, p = 0.03). Patients with PaO2 >300 mmHg had higher in-hospital mortality versus PaO2 60-100 mmHg (adjusted OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.41-3.94, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Hyperoxia at the time of CICU admission is associated with higher in-hospital mortality, primarily in those with severely elevated PaO2 >300 mmHg.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:This review provides key information about cardiogenic shock (CS) teams, including published evidence and practical recommendations to create a CS team and program. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:CS is a complex disease process with a high in-hospital mortality rate ranging from 30% to 70% according to recent registries and randomized studies. The explanation for the elevated rates is likely multifactorial, including the various etiologies of cardiogenic shock as well as delays in recognition and deployment of appropriate therapies. Accordingly, the use of cardiogenic shock team has been implemented with the aim of improving outcomes in these patients. The CS team typically consists of members with critical care or cardiac critical care expertise, heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, and interventional cardiology. A number of retrospective studies have now supported the benefits of a CS team, particularly in selecting the appropriate candidates for tailored mechanical circulatory support therapies and providing interventions in a timely manner, which have translated into improved outcomes. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:CS teams provides a platform for expedited recognition of CS and timely, standardized, and multidisciplinary discussions regarding appropriate management and care.

BACKGROUND:Cancer patients are at risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). Catheter-based therapies (CBT) are novel reperfusion options for PE though data in patients with cancer is lacking. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE were identified using the National Readmission Database (NRD) from 2017 to 2020. Primary outcome were in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital bleeding, 90-day readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related or right heart failure-related reasons and bleeding. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression and inverse-probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between CBT and no CBT as well as CBT versus systemic thrombolysis. RESULTS:A total of 7785 patients were included (2511 with high-risk PE) of whom 1045 (13.4%) were managed with CBT. After IPTW, CBT was associated with lower rates of index hospitalization death (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83-0.96) and 90-day readmission (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.69-0.81) but higher rates of in-hospital bleeding (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.20) which was predominantly post-procedural bleeding. CBT was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (20.8% vs 24.8%; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94) compared with systemic thrombolysis. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with cancer with intermediate or high-risk PE, CBT was associated with lower in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. CBT was also associated with decreased risk of index hospitalization major bleeding compared with systemic thrombolysis. Prospective, randomized trials with inclusion of patients with cancer are needed to confirm these findings.