Faculty Bibliography

Patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (HF) may experience diuretic resistance and require an add-on agent despite increasing loop diuretic dosage. While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared add-on therapy to loop diuretics only, sparse literature exists on direct comparisons between various add-on therapies. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs to assess the efficacy and safety of different diuretic add-on therapies in patients hospitalized with acute HF. Any RCT evaluating the effect of add-on diuretic therapy in patients hospitalized with acute HF was eligible for inclusion. A complete search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted until March 29, 2024. The primary outcome was the hospital length of stay. Data was pooled using a random-effects model for direct comparisons. A network meta-analysis using frequentist methods was performed under random-effects multiple treatment comparisons. We assessed ranking probability by surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Of the 1,103 references, 29 RCTs enrolling 8,362 patients met the eligibility and were included. For the direct comparisons, there was no significant difference in hospital length of stay (MD -0.42, 95% CI= -0.87,0.02). Ranking probability based on SUCRA indicated that acetazolamide had the highest likelihood of being the best treatment for shorter hospital length of stay (SUCRA, 0.89), followed by SGLT2i (SUCRA, 0.70). The certainty of estimates for all outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. In conclusion, the efficacy of add-on therapy was associated with reduced hospital length of stay. Albeit uncertain, the results from NMA provide initial evidence suggesting there may be optimal treatment strategies to decongest patients with heart failure to achieve and maintain euvolemia. However, well-designed direct comparison RCTs are needed to increase the certainty of the estimates. Protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023476669).

BACKGROUND:Cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) typically manage critically ill patients with acute cardiovascular (CV) conditions but may serve patients with non-CV critical illness when medical ICU (MICU) beds are unavailable. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profiles and outcomes of "MICU overflow" admissions to the CICU. METHODS:We used the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry to compare CICU admissions without acute or major cardiac issues (MICU overflow) vs those with acute CV illness. RESULTS:Among 19,912 CICU admissions (2018-2023), 923 (4.6%) were MICU overflow, ranging from 0% to 26% across centers. MICU overflow admissions had higher median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores than CV admissions (5 vs 3; P < 0.001) and more commonly presented with respiratory failure (50.5% vs 24.6%; P < 0.001) and noncardiogenic shock (30.9% vs 8.0%; P < 0.001). MICU overflow status was associated with similar ICU mortality (adjusted OR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.90-1.43; P = 0.28) but higher hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 1.80; 95% CI: 1.48-2.19; P < 0.001) vs CV illness. In units where the CICU team managed all admissions, ICU mortality was higher among MICU overflow admissions than CV admissions (adjusted OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.02-1.80; P = 0.04), whereas in CICUs where off-unit MICU teams managed MICU overflow admissions, this mortality imbalance was not present (adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.47-1.11; P = 0.14; P interaction = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:MICU overflow admissions constitute a meaningful proportion of the CICU population and present with more multisystem disease and experience higher hospital mortality compared with acute CV admissions, underscoring the need for multidisciplinary CICU teams with broad critical care expertise.

BACKGROUND:Mixed cardiogenic and septic shock has been shown to have a higher mortality than cardiogenic shock alone and presents a unique hemodynamic phenotype. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate whether higher circulatory support with veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) was associated with increased survival to discharge in patients with mixed shock. METHODS:flow) circulatory support on VA-ECLS at 24 hours post-ECLS initiation. RESULTS:A total of 452 patients supported with VA-ECLS with mixed shock were identified. Overall mortality was 63% (n = 285). Older age (adjusted OR [aOR]: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001), pre-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cardiac arrest (aOR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.11-2.65; P = 0.016), and baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (aOR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.28; P = 0.043) were associated with increased mortality. Patients receiving higher VA-ECLS support at 24 hours were numerically more likely to survive to discharge (42.6% vs 33.8%, P = 0.063). When evaluated as a continuous variable, higher VA-ECLS flow at 24 hours was associated with an aOR of 1.31 (95% CI: 0.87-1.97; P = 0.19) for survival to discharge. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with mixed shock requiring VA-ECLS have a high mortality. Patients with mixed shock receiving higher support at 24 hours had a trend toward increased survival to discharge compared to those with lower support. These results are hypothesis-generating, and further studies are needed.

BACKGROUND:Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a common complication of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Revascularization has been shown to reduce mortality in ACS-CS. Patients with cancer are at high risk of ACS and CS. However, patients with cancer are often undertreated with invasive procedures and outcomes of patients with cancer and ACS-CS have not been thoroughly characterized. METHODS:Patients with ACS-CS from 2014 to 2020 with and without cancer were identified using the National Readmission Database (NRD). Primary outcome was death at 90-days. Secondary outcomes were 90-day cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding readmissions, and index hospitalization major bleeding and thrombotic complications. Patients with cancer were compared to patients without cancer using multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression. Temporal trends in revascularization among patients with and without cancer were examined. Effect of revascularization among patients with cancer and ACS-CS was assessed using propensity score weighting (PSW). RESULTS:A total of 140,205 patients were identified, of whom 6118 (4.4 %) with cancer were identified. Patients with cancer were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (45.5 % vs 53.5 %) or be managed with mechanical circulatory support (36.6 % vs 46.0 %). After multivariable logistic regression, there was no difference in primary outcome (adjusted OR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.92-1.06) but patients with cancer had higher risk of 90-day CV (HR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.01-1.22) and bleeding readmissions (HR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.10-1.76). Among patients with cancer and ACS-CS, revascularization was associated with lower primary outcome (OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.50-0.58) and 90-day CV readmission (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.59-0.77) after PSW. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with ACS-CS, patients with cancer have similar 90-day death but higher risk of 90-day CV and bleeding readmissions. Additionally, revascularization was associated with improved outcomes among patients with cancer and ACS-CS. Further studies are needed to optimize patient selection for invasive management among patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND:ARIES-HM3 (Antiplatelet Removal and Hemocompatibility Events With the HeartMate 3 Pump) demonstrated that aspirin avoidance with a fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) reduces bleeding complications and does not increase thromboembolism. Whether a concomitant surgical procedure modifies the observed safety and benefits remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This prespecified analysis of ARIES-HM3 studied clinical outcomes when concomitant surgical procedures are performed during LVAD implantation with excluding aspirin but maintaining a vitamin K antagonist. METHODS:Among 628 patients randomized to receive either placebo or aspirin with a vitamin K antagonist, 589 (296 placebo and 293 aspirin) contributed to the primary endpoint analysis. Sub-categorization with receiving a concomitant surgical procedure (valvular procedure/coronary artery bypass grafting or nonvalvular procedure) was done and the composite primary endpoint of survival free from major nonsurgical (>14 days postimplant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events at 12 months was assessed. RESULTS: = 0.231, 0.298, and 0.735 for any procedure, valvular/coronary artery bypass grafting, and nonvalvular procedures, respectively). There was a similar reduction in nonsurgical major hemorrhagic events with placebo compared with aspirin, observed in patients with or without any concomitant procedure: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.44-0.94) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.46-0.93). CONCLUSIONS:Our findings support the safety and efficacy of aspirin avoidance from the antithrombotic regimen in HM3 LVAD patients undergoing concomitant surgical procedures. (Antiplatelet Removal and Hemocompatibility Events With the HeartMate 3 Pump [ARIES-HM3]; NCT04069156).