Faculty Bibliography

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.

None.

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.

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:The prognostic implications of phenotypes along the preshock to cardiogenic shock (CS) continuum remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to better characterize pre- or early shock and normotensive CS phenotypes and examine outcomes compared to those with conventional CS. METHODS:The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a registry of contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Consecutive admissions (N = 28,703 across 47 sites) meeting specific criteria based on hemodynamic variables, perfusion parameters, and investigator-reported CS were classified into 1 of 4 groups or none: isolated low cardiac output (CO), heart failure with isolated hypotension, normotensive CS, or SCAI (Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention) stage C CS. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and incidence of subsequent hypoperfusion among pre- and early shock states. RESULTS:A total of 2,498 admissions were assigned to the 4 groups with the following distribution: 4.8% isolated low CO, 4.4% isolated hypotension, 12.1% normotensive CS, and 78.7% SCAI stage C CS. Overall in-hospital mortality was 21.3% (95% CI: 19.7%-23.0%), with a gradient across phenotypes (isolated low CO 3.6% [95% CI: 1.0%-9.0%]; isolated hypotension 11.0% [95% CI: 6.9%-16.6%]; normotensive CS 17.0% [95% CI 13.0%-21.8%]; SCAI stage C CS 24.0% [95% CI: 22.1%-26.0%]; global P < 0.001). Among those with an isolated low CO and isolated hypotension on admission, 47 (42.3%) and 56 (30.9%) subsequently developed hypoperfusion. CONCLUSIONS:In a large contemporary registry of cardiac critical illness, there exists a gradient of mortality for phenotypes along the preshock to CS continuum with risk for subsequent worsening of preshock states. These data may inform refinement of CS definitions and severity staging.

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/UNASSIGNED:Little is known regarding the characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes in patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) admitted to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The authors sought to better define the contemporary epidemiology, treatment patterns, and outcomes of ACHD admissions in the CICU. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of CICUs in North America. Participating centers contributed prospective data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2022. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions with ACHD compared with those without ACHD. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess mortality in ACHD vs non-ACHD admissions. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 0.239). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This study illustrates the unique aspects of the ACHD CICU admission. Further investigation into the best approach to manage specific ACHD-related CICU admissions, such as cardiogenic shock and acute respiratory failure, is warranted.

The psychological safety of health care workers is an important but often overlooked aspect of the rising rates of burnout and workforce shortages. In addition, mental health conditions are prevalent among health care workers, but the associated stigma is a significant barrier to accessing adequate care. More efforts are therefore needed to foster health care work environments that are safe and supportive of self-care. The purpose of this brief document is to promote a culture of psychological safety in health care organizations. We review ways in which organizations can create a psychologically safe workplace, the benefits of a psychologically safe workplace, and strategies to promote mental health and reduce suicide risk.