Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

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.

IMPORTANCE:Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) enhance quality and duration of life in advanced heart failure. The burden of nonsurgical bleeding events is a leading morbidity. Aspirin as an antiplatelet agent is mandated along with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) with continuous-flow LVADs without conclusive evidence of efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE:To determine whether excluding aspirin as part of the antithrombotic regimen with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD is safe and decreases bleeding. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of aspirin (100 mg/d) vs placebo with VKA therapy in patients with advanced heart failure with an LVAD was conducted across 51 centers with expertise in treating patients with advanced heart failure across 9 countries. The randomized population included 628 patients with advanced heart failure implanted with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD (314 in the placebo group and 314 in the aspirin group), of whom 296 patients in the placebo group and 293 in the aspirin group were in the primary analysis population, which informed the primary end point analysis. The study enrolled patients from July 2020 to September 2022; median follow-up was 14 months. INTERVENTION:Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive aspirin (100 mg/d) or placebo in addition to an antithrombotic regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The composite primary end point, assessed for noninferiority (-10% margin) of placebo, was survival free of a major nonsurgical (>14 days after implant) hemocompatibility-related adverse events (including stroke, pump thrombosis, major bleeding, or arterial peripheral thromboembolism) at 12 months. The principal secondary end point was nonsurgical bleeding events. RESULTS:Of the 589 analyzed patients, 77% were men; one-third were Black and 61% were White. More patients were alive and free of hemocompatibility events at 12 months in the placebo group (74%) vs those taking aspirin (68%). Noninferiority of placebo was demonstrated (absolute between-group difference, 6.0% improvement in event-free survival with placebo [lower 1-sided 97.5% CI, -1.6%]; P < .001). Aspirin avoidance was associated with reduced nonsurgical bleeding events (relative risk, 0.66 [95% confidence limit, 0.51-0.85]; P = .002) with no increase in stroke or other thromboembolic events, a finding consistent among diverse subgroups of patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In patients with advanced heart failure treated with a fully magnetically levitated LVAD, avoidance of aspirin as part of an antithrombotic regimen, which includes VKA, is not inferior to a regimen containing aspirin, does not increase thromboembolism risk, and is associated with a reduction in bleeding events. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04069156.

Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation can improve survival in patients with end-stage heart failure, it is not without risk. Numerous complications are possible, and durable support requires substantial lifestyle changes. The use of various knowledge-assessment tools may allow for more informed patient decisions. To synthesize the totality of the evidence, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the efficacy of decision aid (DA) use in patients with advanced heart failure who are eligible for LVAD. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of DAs in patients considering LVAD was eligible for inclusion. A complete search of EMBASE and PubMed was conducted from the start until June 8, 2023. The primary outcome was patients' LVAD knowledge. Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Of the 575 references, 2 RCTs randomizing 490 patients were included in this study. DAs were associated with no significant change in LVAD knowledge (standardized mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.24 to 0.39, p = 0.64) or decisional conflict (mean difference -1.48, 95% confidence interval -5.28 to 2.32, p = 0.45). The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The use of DAs in LVAD-eligible patients with advanced heart failure resulted in no difference in patients' knowledge of LVAD after LVAD education. The findings from this study will aid in the power analysis of a well-designed RCT to evaluate and encourage further investigation into the efficacy and relevance of DAs in preparing patients for a life with LVAD.

Despite improving outcomes with modern pump technology, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) utilization for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) has declined significantly in the preceding half-decade. Here, we examine this trend, noting an inherent contradiction in the declining utilization of an improving therapeutic option. We propose a series of provocative questions as a "call to action" for the field of advanced HF to consider both scientifically and clinically, focusing on our evaluation parameters for LVAD candidacy, our approach to dichotomous LVAD vs transplant decisions, and our current management paradigms. We conclude that modernization in these areas to match the advantages of modern pump technology is required to best serve patients with advanced HF.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Invasive haemodynamic assessment with a pulmonary artery catheter is often used to guide the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and may provide important prognostic information. We aimed to assess prognostic associations and relationships to end-organ dysfunction of presenting haemodynamic parameters in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Patients with CS (2018-2022) who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment within 24 h of CICU admission were included. Associations of haemodynamic parameters with in-hospital mortality were assessed using logistic regression, and associations with presenting serum lactate were assessed using least squares means regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients on temporary mechanical circulatory support and adjusted for vasoactive-inotropic score. Among the 3603 admissions with CS, 1473 had haemodynamic data collected within 24 h of CICU admission. The median cardiac index was 1.9 (25th-75th percentile, 1.6-2.4) L/min/m2 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 74 (66-86) mmHg. Parameters associated with mortality included low MAP, low systolic blood pressure, low systemic vascular resistance, elevated right atrial pressure (RAP), elevated RAP/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, and low pulmonary artery pulsatility index. These associations were generally consistent when controlling for the intensity of background pharmacologic and mechanical haemodynamic support. These parameters were also associated with higher presenting serum lactate. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In a contemporary CS population, presenting haemodynamic parameters reflecting decreased systemic arterial tone and right ventricular dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes and systemic hypoperfusion.

BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular and critical care professional societies recommend incorporating family engagement practices into routine clinical care. However, little is known about current family engagement practices in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). METHODS:We implemented a validated 12-item family engagement practice survey among site investigators participating in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, a collaborative network of CICUs in North America. The survey includes 9 items assessing specific engagement practices, 1 item about other family-centered care practices, and 2 open-ended questions on strategies and barriers concerning family engagement practice. We developed an engagement practice score by assigning 1 point for each family engagement practice partially or fully adopted at each site (max score 9). We assessed for relationships between the engagement practice score and CICU demographics. RESULTS:All sites (N=39; 100%) completed the survey. The most common family engagement practices were open visitation (95%), information and support to families (85%), structured care conferences (n=82%), and family participation in rounds (77%). The median engagement practice score was 5 (interquartile range, 4). There were no differences in engagement practice scores by geographic region or CICU type. The most commonly used strategies to promote family engagement were family presence during rounds (41%), communication (28%), and family meetings (28%). The most common barriers to family engagement were COVID-related visitation policies (38%) and resource limitations (13%). CONCLUSIONS:Family engagement practices are routinely performed in many CICUs; however, considerable variability exists. There is a need for strategies to address the variability of family engagement practices in CICUs.