Faculty Bibliography

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

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.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the leading cause of death among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is managed with temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) in advanced cases. Patients with cancer are at high risk of AMI and CS. However, outcomes of patients with cancer and AMI-CS managed with tMCS have not been rigorously studied. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Adult patients with AMI-CS managed with tMCS from 2006 to 2018 with and without cancer were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed for variables associated with cancer. Primary outcome was in-hospital death, and secondary outcomes were major bleeding and thrombotic complications. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .001). After PSM, there was no difference in in-hospital death (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88-1.13) or thrombotic complications (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.34) between patients with and without cancer. Patients with cancer had a higher risk of major bleeding (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Among patients with AMI-CS managed with tMCS, cancer is becoming increasingly frequent and associated with increased risk of major bleeding, although there was no difference in in-hospital death. Further studies are needed to further characterize outcomes, and inclusion of patients with cancer in trials of tMCS is needed.

BACKGROUND:The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provided a focused update to the 2021 Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure, now providing a 1A recommendation for intravenous iron in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and iron deficiency (ID). However, the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCT) are mixed. This systematic review of RCTs aims to provide an update and synthesize the evidence addressing the association of intravenous iron with patient-based outcomes in patients with HFrEF and ID. METHODS:Any RCT evaluating the effect of intravenous iron in patients with HFrEF and ID was eligible for inclusion. A complete search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was conducted from inception until 15 September 2023. The primary outcome was the composite of the quality of life (QoL) questionnaires, while the secondary outcomes included first heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and all-cause mortality. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS:Of the 1035 references, 15 RCTs enrolling 6649 patients were included in this study. Intravenous iron was associated with significant improvement in the composite of QoL (standardized mean difference - 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.24 to - 0.48; p = 0.002), a significant reduction in first HF hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.95; p = 0.02), and with no change in all-cause mortality (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03; p = 0.12). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Intravenous iron is possibly associated with improved QoL and reduced HF hospitalizations, without impacting all-cause mortality. These findings not only support the use of intravenous iron in patients with HFrEF but also emphasize the need for well-designed and executed RCTs with granular outcome reporting and powered sufficiently to address the impact of intravenous iron on mortality in patients with HFrEF and ID. REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:PROSPERO identifier number CRD42023389.

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.

There is waning interest among cardiology trainees in pursuing an Advanced Heart Failure/Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) fellowship as evidenced by fewer applicants in the National Resident Matching Program match to this specialty. This trend has generated considerable attention across the heart failure community. In response, the Heart Failure Society of America convened the AHFTC Fellowship Task Force with a charge to develop strategies to increase the value proposition of an AHFTC fellowship. Subsequently, the HFSA sponsored the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference April 26-27, 2023. Before the conference, interviews of 44 expert stakeholders diverse across geography, site of practice (traditional academic medical center or other centers), specialty/area of expertise, sex, and stage of career were conducted virtually. Based on these interviews, potential solutions to address the declining interest in AHFTC fellowship were categorized into five themes: (1) alternative training pathways, (2) regulatory and compensation, (3) educational improvements, (4) exposure and marketing for pipeline development, and (5) quality of life and mental health. These themes provided structure to the deliberations of the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference. The recommendations from the Consensus Conference were subsequently presented to the HFSA Board of Directors to inform strategic plans and interventions. The HFSA Board of Directors later reviewed and approved submission of this document. The purpose of this communication is to provide the HF community with an update summarizing the processes used and concepts that emerged from the work of the HFSA AHFTC Fellowship Task Force and Consensus Conference.

BACKGROUND:As heart transplant guidelines evolve, the clinical indication for 73% of durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants is now destination therapy. Although completely magnetically levitated LVAD devices have demonstrated improved durability relative to previous models, LVAD replacement procedures are still required for a variety of indications. Thus, the population of patients with a replaced LVAD is growing. There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes and risk factors for those patients receiving first-time LVAD replacements. METHODS:The study cohort consisted of all consecutive patients between 2006 and 2020 that received a first-time LVAD replacement at a single institution. Preoperative clinical and laboratory variables were collected retrospectively. The primary endpoint was death or need for an additional LVAD replacement. Data were subjected to Kaplan-Meier, univariate, and multivariate Cox hazard ratio analyses. RESULTS:In total, 152 patients were included in the study, of which 101 experienced the primary endpoint. On multivariate analysis, patients receiving HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVADs as the replacement device showed superior outcomes (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.065-0.35, p < 0.0001). Independent risk factors for death or need for additional replacement included preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (HR 4.44, 95% CI 1.87-14.45, and p = 0.00042), increased number of sternotomies (HR 5.20, 95% CI 1.87-14.45, and p = 0.0016), and preoperative mechanical ventilation (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01-3.86, and p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS:Replacement with HM3 showed superior outcomes compared to all other pump types when controlling for both initial pump type and other independent predictors of death or LVAD replacement. Preoperative ECMO, mechanical ventilation, and multiple sternotomies also increased the odds for death or the need for subsequent replacement.

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.