Faculty Bibliography

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.

This review aims to enhance the comprehension and management of cardiopulmonary interactions in critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing mechanical ventilation. Highlighting the significance of maintaining a delicate balance, this article emphasizes the crucial role of adjusting ventilation parameters based on both invasive and noninvasive monitoring. It provides recommendations for the induction and liberation from mechanical ventilation. Special attention is given to the identification of auto-PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) and other situations that may impact hemodynamics and patients' outcomes.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Clot-in-transit is associated with high mortality, but optimal management strategies remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different treatment strategies in patients with clot-in-transit. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This is a retrospective study of patients with documented clot-in-transit in the right heart on echocardiography across 2 institutions between January 2020 and October 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.067). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In this study of CBT in patients with clot-in-transit, CBT or systemic thrombolysis was associated with a significantly lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes, including a lower rate of death compared with anticoagulation alone driven by the CBT group. CBT has the potential to improve outcomes. Further large-scale studies are needed to test these associations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Catheter-based therapies (CBTs) have been developed as a treatment option in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). There remains a paucity of data to inform decision-making in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE. The aim of this study was to characterize in-hospital and readmission outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE treated with vs. without CBT in a large retrospective registry. METHODS:Patients hospitalized with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE were identified using the 2017-20 National Readmission Database. In-hospital outcomes included death and bleeding and 30- and 90-day readmission outcomes including all-cause, venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related and bleeding-related readmissions. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between CBT and no CBT. RESULTS:A total of 14 903 [2076 (13.9%) with CBT] and 42 829 [8824 (20.6%) with CBT] patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk PE were included, respectively. Prior to IPTW, patients with CBT were younger and less likely to have cancer and cardiac arrest, receive systemic thrombolysis, or be on mechanical ventilation. In the IPTW logistic regression model, CBT was associated with lower odds of in-hospital death in high-risk [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.87] and intermediate-risk PE (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.83). Patients with high-risk PE treated with CBT were associated with lower risk of 90-day all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.83] and VTE (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34-0.63) readmission. Patients with intermediate-risk PE treated with CBT were associated with lower risk of 90-day all-cause (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) and VTE (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76) readmission. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with high-risk or intermediate-risk PE, CBT was associated with lower in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome characterized by low cardiac output leading to end-organ hypoperfusion. Organ dysoxia ranging from transient organ injury to irreversible organ failure and death occurs across all CS etiologies but differing by incidence and type. Herein, we review the recognition and management of respiratory, renal and hepatic failure complicating CS. We also discuss unmet needs in the CS care pathway and future research priorities for generating evidence-based best practices for the management of extra-cardiac sequelae. The complexity of CS admitted to the contemporary cardiac intensive care unit demands a workforce skilled to care for these extra-cardiac critical illness complications with an appreciation for how cardio-systemic interactions influence critical illness outcomes in afflicted patients.

In this study, we found that a low LVOT VTI (<15 cm), a simple bedside point-of-care measurement, predicts normotensive shock in patients with acute intermediate-risk PE.

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.

BACKGROUND:Risk stratification has potential to guide triage and decision-making in cardiogenic shock (CS). We assessed the prognostic performance of the IABP-SHOCK II score, derived in Europe for acute myocardial infarct-related CS (AMI-CS), in a contemporary North American cohort, including different CS phenotypes. METHODS:The critical care cardiology trials network (CCCTN) coordinated by the TIMI study group is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICU). Participating centers annually contribute ≥2 months of consecutive medical CICU admissions. The IABP-SHOCK II risk score includes age > 73 years, prior stroke, admission glucose > 191 mg/dl, creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, lactate > 5 mmol/l, and post-PCI TIMI flow grade < 3. We assessed the risk score across various CS etiologies. RESULTS:= 0.17) and the IABP-SHOCK II score revealed a significant risk gradient within each SCAI stage. CONCLUSIONS:In an unselected international multicenter registry of patients admitted with CS, the IABP- SHOCK II score only moderately predicted in-hospital mortality in a broad population of CS regardless of etiology or irrespective of right, left, or bi-ventricular involvement.