Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Sex disparities exist in the management and outcomes of various cardiovascular diseases. However, little is known about sex differences in cardiogenic shock (CS). We sought to assess sex-related differences in the characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes of patients with CS. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of advanced cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. Between 2018 and 2022, each center (N=35) contributed annual 2-month snapshots of consecutive CICU admissions. Patients with CS were stratified as either CS after acute myocardial infarction or heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). Multivariable logistic regression was used for analyses. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:<0.0001) compared with men. Women with HF-CS had higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after adjusting for age, illness severity, and comorbidities (34% versus 23%; odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.42-2.17]). In contrast, there were no significant sex differences in utilization of advanced CICU monitoring and interventions, or mortality, among patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Women with HF-CS had lower use of pulmonary artery catheters and mechanical circulatory support, shorter CICU lengths of stay, and higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after accounting for age, illness severity, and comorbidities. These data highlight the need to identify underlying reasons driving the differences in treatment decisions, so outcomes gaps in HF-CS can be understood and eliminated.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND:There are limited data on how patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) die. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a research network of cardiac intensive care units coordinated by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group (Boston, MA). Using standardized definitions, site investigators classified direct modes of in-hospital death for CS admissions (October 2021 to September 2022). Mutually exclusive categories included 4 modes of cardiovascular death and 4 modes of noncardiovascular death. Subgroups defined by CS type, preceding cardiac arrest (CA), use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), and transition to comfort measures were evaluated. RESULTS:Among 1068 CS cases, 337 (31.6%) died during the index hospitalization. Overall, the mode of death was cardiovascular in 82.2%. Persistent CS was the dominant specific mode of death (66.5%), followed by arrhythmia (12.8%), anoxic brain injury (6.2%), and respiratory failure (4.5%). Patients with preceding CA were more likely to die from anoxic brain injury (17.1% vs 0.9%; P < .001) or arrhythmia (21.6% vs 8.4%; P < .001). Patients managed with tMCS were more likely to die from persistent shock (P < .01), both cardiogenic (73.5% vs 62.0%) and noncardiogenic (6.1% vs 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS:Most deaths in CS are related to direct cardiovascular causes, particularly persistent CS. However, there is important heterogeneity across subgroups defined by preceding CA and the use of tMCS.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Associations of early changes in vasoactive support with cardiogenic shock (CS) mortality remain incompletely defined. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units. Patients admitted with CS (2018-2023) had vasoactive dosing assessed at 4 and 24 hours from cardiac intensive care unit admission and quantified by the vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS). Prognostic associations of VIS at both time points, as well as change in VIS from 4 to 24 hours, were examined. Interaction testing was performed based on mechanical circulatory support status. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Early changes in the magnitude of vasoactive support in CS are associated with a gradient of risk for mortality. These data suggest that early VIS trajectory may improve CS prognostication, with the potential to be leveraged for clinical decision-making and research applications in CS.

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.