Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:With an increasing demand for critical care expertise and limitations in intensivist availability, innovative staffing models, such as the utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs), have emerged. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The purpose of the study was to compare patient outcomes between APP and housestaff teams in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective study, spanning March 2022 to July 2023, compares patient characteristics and outcomes between two CICU teams embedded in the same CICU at a large urban academic hospital: one staffed by housestaff and the other by APPs (80% physician assistants, 20% nurse practitioners) who each had approximately 1 to 2 years of experience in the CICU. The primary outcome was CICU mortality. Multivariable Cox regression analyses and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the primary outcome. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Our moderately sized study demonstrated no difference in CICU or in-hospital mortality between patients managed by a housestaff team versus those managed by an APP team.

None.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.