Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks are a common complication after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation; however, data on their frequency and causes are limited. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to define the incidence, programming, patient characteristics, and factors associated with appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks in persons with LVADs. METHODS:We performed a retrospective review at Duke University Hospital of all LVAD recipients implanted between January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2019, with a preexisting ICD. ICD shocks were adjudicated by the treating physician and a second reviewer for the purpose of this study. RESULTS:Among 421 patients with an ICD in situ undergoing LVAD implant, 147 (33.9%) had at least 1 shock after LVAD implantation. Among 134 patients with complete device history, a total of 330 shock episodes occurred: 255 (77.3%) appropriate and 75 (22.7%) inappropriate. Etiologies for inappropriate shocks included supraventricular tachycardia (n = 66 [20.0%]), physiological oversensing (n = 1 [0.3%]), and nonphysiological oversensing (n = 8 [2.4%]) including LVAD electromagnetic interference (n = 1 [0.3%]). ICD programming with shorter detection delay (P <.001) and absence of antitachycardia pacing programming (P = .001) in high-rate zones was seen more commonly in inappropriate shock than appropriate shock. CONCLUSIONS:The rate of inappropriate shocks in LVAD recipients is very high and most often is due to supraventricular arrhythmias. LVAD electromagnetic interference is a rare cause of ICD shock. Implementation of current consensus American Heart Association recommendations for LVAD programming with long detection delays and high rate cutoffs may help prevent inappropriate ICD shocks.

BACKGROUND:It is common for clinicians to use the pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) as a surrogate for the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Here, we determine the validity of this relationship in patients with various phenotypes of cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:In this analysis of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry, we identified 1225 people admitted with CS who received pulmonary artery catheters. Linear regression, Bland-Altman and receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed to determine the strength of the association between PADP and PCWP in patients with left-, right-, biventricular, and other non-myocardia phenotypes of CS (eg, arrhythmia, valvular stenosis, tamponade). There was a moderately strong correlation between PADP and PCWP in the total population (r = 0.64, n = 1225) and in each CS phenotype, except for right ventricular CS, for which the correlation was weak (r = 0.43, n = 71). Additionally, we found that a PADP ≥ 24 mmHg can be used to infer a PCWP ≥ 18 mmHg with ≥ 90% confidence in all but the right ventricular CS phenotype. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis validates the practice of using PADP as a surrogate for PCWP in most patients with CS; however, it should generally be avoided in cases of right ventricular-predominant CS.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effects of droxidopa or atomoxetine on intravenous (IV) vasoactive agent discontinuation in cardiothoracic intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypotension refractory to midodrine. DESIGN/METHODS:Single-center, retrospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary- and quaternary-care university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Included patients who received at least 4 consecutive doses of droxidopa or atomoxetine and remained on concurrent midodrine. Patients were excluded if they received study medication before admission, had clinical deterioration after study medication initiation requiring additional vasoactives/escalation of IV vasoactive dosage for at least 12 hours, had a diagnosis of hepatorenal syndrome, were prisoners, or were pregnant. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Droxidopa, atomoxetine, or both. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:The primary endpoint was time to discontinuation of IV vasoactive agents after initiation of study medication, analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with the Wilcoxon method, censoring death within 24 hours of the last dose of study medication. No adjustment for repetitive analyses was made, as the analysis was hypothesis-generating. Of the 72 charts reviewed, 45 patients met inclusion criteria (18 atomoxetine, 17 droxidopa, and 10 both). There were no differences in median time to discontinuation of IV vasoactive agents (21.9 days v 8.0 days v 13.9 days, respectively; p = 0.259) or ICU or hospital length of stay between groups. A higher percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge received both study medications or droxidopa alone (90% v 76.5%) than atomoxetine alone (44.4%, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS:Droxidopa and atomoxetine are oral vasoactive agents with potential mechanisms to facilitate IV vasopressor weaning for patients in the ICU with hypotension refractory to midodrine, but further prospective research is needed.

Clinical practice in the contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved significantly over the last several decades. With more frequent multisystem organ failure, increasing use of advanced respiratory support, and the advent of new mechanical circulatory support platforms, clinicians in the CICU are increasingly managing patients with complex comorbid disease in addition to their high-acuity cardiovascular illnesses. Here, the authors discuss challenges associated with traditional trial design in the CICU setting and review novel clinical trial designs that may facilitate better evidence generation in the CICU.

IMPORTANCE:Unmet and racially disparate palliative care needs are common in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. OBJECTIVE:To test the effect of a primary palliative care intervention vs usual care control both overall and by family member race. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in 2 academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between April 2019 and May 2022 with physician-level randomization and sequential clusters of 2 Black patient-family member dyads and 2 White patient-family member dyads enrolled under each physician. Eligible participants included consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation, their family members, and their attending ICU physicians. Data analysis was conducted from June 2022 to May 2023. INTERVENTION:A mobile application (ICUconnect) that displayed family-reported needs over time and provided ICU attending physicians with automated timeline-driven communication advice on how to address individual needs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was change in the family-reported Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST; range 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need) score between study days 1 and 3. Secondary outcomes included family-reported quality of communication and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder at 3 months. RESULTS:A total of 111 (51% of those approached) family members (mean [SD] age, 51 [15] years; 96 women [86%]; 15 men [14%]; 47 Black family members [42%]; 64 White family members [58%]) and 111 patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [16] years; 66 male patients [59%]; 45 Black patients [41%]; 65 White patients [59%]; 1 American Indian or Alaska Native patient [1%]) were enrolled under 37 physicians randomized to intervention (19 physicians and 55 patient-family member dyads) or control (18 physicians and 56 patient-family member dyads). Compared with control, there was greater improvement in NEST scores among intervention recipients between baseline and both day 3 (estimated mean difference, -6.6 points; 95% CI, -11.9 to -1.3 points; P = .01) and day 7 (estimated mean difference, -5.4 points; 95% CI, -10.7 to 0.0 points; P = .05). There were no treatment group differences at 3 months in psychological distress symptoms. White family members experienced a greater reduction in NEST scores compared with Black family members at day 3 (estimated mean difference, -12.5 points; 95% CI, -18.9 to -6.1 points; P < .001 vs estimated mean difference, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -9.3 to 8.8 points; P = .96) and day 7 (estimated mean difference, -9.5 points; 95% CI, -16.1 to -3.0 points; P = .005 vs estimated mean difference, -1.4 points; 95% CI, -10.7 to 7.8; P = .76). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this study of ICU patients and family members, a primary palliative care intervention using a mobile application reduced unmet palliative care needs compared with usual care without an effect on psychological distress symptoms at 3 months; there was a greater intervention effect among White family members compared with Black family members. These findings suggest that a mobile application-based intervention is a promising primary palliative care intervention for ICU clinicians that directly addresses the limited supply of palliative care specialists. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03506438.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have suggested that there is wide variability in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) length of stay (LOS); however, these studies are limited by the absence of detailed risk assessment at the time of admission. Thus, we evaluated inter-hospital differences in CICU LOS, and the association between LOS and in-hospital mortality. METHODS:Using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) registry, we included 22,862 admissions between 2017 and 2022 from 35 primarily tertiary and quaternary CICUs that captured consecutive admissions in annual 2-month snapshots. The primary analysis compared inter-hospital differences in CICU LOS, as well as the association between CICU LOS and all-cause in-hospital mortality using a Fine and Gray competing risk model. RESULTS:= 0.31) with a higher risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality. The relationship remained significant in admissions with heart failure, ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS:In a large registry of academic CICUs, we observed significant variation in CICU LOS and report that LOS is independently associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality. These findings could potentially be used to improve CICU resource utilization planning and refine risk prognostication in critically ill cardiovascular patients.

BACKGROUND:Wide interhospital variations exist in cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admission practices and the use of critical care restricted therapies (CCRx), but little is known about the differences in patient acuity, CCRx utilization, and the associated outcomes within tertiary centers. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of tertiary and academic CICUs in the United States and Canada that captured consecutive admissions in 2-month periods between 2017 and 2022. This analysis included 17 843 admissions across 34 sites and compared interhospital tertiles of CCRx (eg, mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support, continuous renal replacement therapy) utilization and its adjusted association with in-hospital survival using logistic regression. The Pratt index was used to quantify patient-related and institutional factors associated with CCRx variability. RESULTS:The median age of the study population was 66 (56-77) years and 37% were female. CCRx was provided to 62.2% (interhospital range of 21.3%-87.1%) of CICU patients. Admissions to CICUs with the highest tertile of CCRx utilization had a greater burden of comorbidities, had more diagnoses of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock, and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality (median, 12.7%) was 9.6%, 11.1%, and 18.7% in low, intermediate, and high CCRx tertiles, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences in adjusted mortality were observed across tertiles when admissions were stratified by the provision of CCRx. Baseline patient-level variables and institutional differences accounted for 80% and 5.3% of the observed CCRx variability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In a large registry of tertiary and academic CICUs, there was a >4-fold interhospital variation in the provision of CCRx that was primarily driven by differences in patient acuity compared with institutional differences. No differences were observed in adjusted mortality between low, intermediate, and high CCRx utilization sites.

Patients and clinicians in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often tasked with making high-stakes decisions about aggressive or life- sustaining therapies. Shared decision-making (SDM), a collaborative process where patients and clinicians work together to make medical decisions that are aligned with a patient's goals and values, is therefore highly relevant in the CICU, especially in the context of palliative or end-of-life decisions. Despite its importance, there are barriers to optimal integration and implementation of SDM. This review describes the fundamentals and models of SDM, the role of SDM in the CICU, and evidence-based strategies to promote SDM in the CICU.

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.