Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Algorithmic application of the 2019 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages effectively stratifies mortality risk for patients with cardiogenic shock. However, clinician assessment of SCAI staging may differ. Moreover, the implications of the 2022 SCAI criteria update remain incompletely defined. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). Between 2019 and 2021, participating centers (n=32) contributed at least a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. In-hospital mortality was assessed across 3 separate staging methods: clinician assessment, Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network algorithmic application of the 2019 SCAI criteria, and a revision of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network application using the 2022 SCAI criteria. RESULTS: CONCLUSIONS:Both clinician and algorithm-based application of the 2019 SCAI stages identify a stepwise gradient of mortality risk, although clinician-staging may better allocate higher risk patients into advanced SCAI stages. Updated algorithmic staging using the 2022 SCAI criteria and vasoactive-inotropic score further refines risk stratification.

BACKGROUND:Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common reason for admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), though the relative burden of morbidity, mortality, and resource use between admissions with in-hospital (IH) and out-of-hospital (OH) CA is unknown. We compared characteristics, care patterns, and outcomes of admissions to contemporary CICUs after IHCA or OHCA. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in the US and Canada. Participating centers contributed data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2021. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions by IHCA vs OHCA. RESULTS:We analyzed 2,075 admissions across 29 centers (50.3% IHCA, 49.7% OHCA). Admissions with IHCA were older (median 66 vs 62 years), more commonly had coronary disease (38.3% vs 29.7%), atrial fibrillation (26.7% vs 15.6%), and heart failure (36.3% vs 22.1%), and were less commonly comatose on CICU arrival (34.2% vs 71.7%), p<0.001 for all. IHCA admissions had lower lactate (median 4.3 vs 5.9) but greater utilization of invasive hemodynamics (34.3% vs 23.6%), mechanical circulatory support (28.4% vs 16.8%), and renal replacement therapy (15.5% vs 9.4%); p<0.001 for all. Comatose IHCA patients underwent targeted temperature management less frequently than OHCA patients (63.3% vs 84.9%, p<0.001). IHCA admissions had lower unadjusted CICU (30.8% vs 39.0%, p<0.001) and in-hospital mortality (36.1% vs 44.1%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION:Despite a greater burden of comorbidities, CICU admissions after IHCA have lower lactate, greater invasive therapy utilization, and lower crude mortality than admissions after OHCA.

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) and cardiac arrest (CA) are the most life-threatening complications of acute myocardial infarction. Although there is a significant overlap in the pathophysiology with approximately half the patients with CS experiencing a CA and approximately two-thirds of patients with CA developing CS, comprehensive guideline recommendations for management of CA + CS are lacking. This paper summarizes the current evidence on the incidence, pathophysiology, and short- and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by concomitant CA + CS. We discuss the hemodynamic factors and unique challenges that need to be accounted for while developing treatment strategies for these patients. A summary of expert-based step-by-step recommendations to the approach and treatment of these patients, both in the field before admission and in-hospital management, are presented.

BACKGROUND:Targeted temperature management (TTM) has been recommended after cardiac arrest (CA), however the specific temperature targets and cooling methods (intravascular cooling (IVC) versus surface cooling (SC)) remain uncertain. METHODS:PUBMED and EMBASE were searched until October 8, 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of TTM after CA. The randomized treatment arms were categorized into the following 6 groups: 31..C to 33..C IVC, 31..C to 33..C SC, 34..C to 36..C IVC, 34..C to 36..C SC, strict normothermia or fever prevention (Strict NT or FP), and standard of care without TTM (No-TTM). The primary outcome was neurological recovery. P-score was used to rank the treatments, where a larger value indicates better performance. RESULTS:We identified 15 RCTs, involving 5,218 patients with CA. Compared to No-TTM as the reference, the other therapeutic options significantly improved neurological outcomes (vs No-TTM; 31..C to 33.. C IVC/UNASSIGNED:RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 31..C to 33..C SC RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87; 34..C to 36.. C IVC/UNASSIGNED:RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 34..C to 36..C SC: RR = 0.73, 0.59 to 0.90; Strict NT or FP: RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90). Overall, 31-33..C IVC had the highest probability to be the best therapeutic option to improve outcomes (the ranking P-score of 0.836). As a subgroup analysis, the ranking P-score showed that IVC might be a better cooling method compared to SC (IVC vs SC P-score: 0.960 vs 0.670). CONCLUSIONS:Hypothermia (31..C to 36..C IVC and SC) and active normothermia (Strict-NT and Strict-FP) were associated with better neurological outcomes compared to No-TTM, with IVC having a greater probability of being the better cooling method than SC.

BACKGROUND:The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS:COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS:=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS:In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION:URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS:gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is the final common pathway of impaired cardiovascular performance that results in ineffective forward cardiac output producing clinical and biochemical signs of organ hypoperfusion. CS represents the most common cause of shock in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) and accounts for a substantial proportion of CICU patient deaths. Despite significant advances in revascularization techniques, pharmacologic therapeutics and mechanical support devices, CS remains associated with a high mortality rate. Indeed, the prevalence of CS within the CICU appears to be increasing. CS can be differentiated as phenotypes reflecting different metabolic, inflammatory, and hemodynamic profiles, depending also on anatomic substrate and congestion profile. Future prospective studies and clinical trials may further characterize these phenotypes and apply targeted intervention for each phenotype and SCAI SHOCK stage rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Overall, there are 8 key concepts of CS; 1) the mortality associated with CS; 2) Shock attributed to AMI may be declining in both incidence and associated mortality; 3) providers should think about hemodynamic, metabolic, inflammation and cardiac function in totality to assess CS; 4) CS is a dynamic process; 5) no randomized trials evaluating use of the PAC in patients with CS; 6) most data supporting neosynephrine as first line agent in CS; 7) most registries suggest that almost half of CS patients do not have any mechanical support, and the vast majority of the remainder utilize the IABP; and 8) patients with AMI CS should receive emergent PCI of the culprit vessel.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicenter research network to conduct randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:The CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centers and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centers in the United States and Canada. Each center enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least two months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterized utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicenter collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicenter registry-based randomized trials in patients with cardiac critical illness. CONCLUSIONS:The CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomized controlled trials in this important patient population.

OBJECTIVES:The prediction of right heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a challenge. Recently, risk scores were derived from analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) data, the EUROMACS-RHF, and the modified postoperative EUROMACS-RHF. The authors assessed the performance characteristics of these 2 risk score formulations in a continuous-flow LVAD cohort at their institution. DESIGN:A retrospective, observational study. SETTING:At a tertiary-care academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS:Adult patients who underwent durable LVAD implantation between 2015 and 2018. INTERVENTIONS:None MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Early post-LVAD RHF was defined as follows: (1) need for right ventricular assist device, or (2) inotropic or inhaled pulmonary vasodilator support for ≥14 postoperative days. The authors used logistic regression and examined receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to evaluate the ability of the 2 risk scores to distinguish between outcome groups. A total of 207 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of the patients, 16% developed RHF (33/207). The EUROMACS-RHF score was not predictive of RHF in the authors' cohort (odds ratio [OR] 1.25; 95% CI [0.99-1.60]; p = 0.06), but the postoperative EUROMACS-RHF CPB score was significantly associated (OR 1.38; 95% CI [1.03-1.89]; p = 0.03). The scores had similar ROC curves, with weak discriminatory performance: 0.601 (95% CI [0.509-0.692]) and 0.599 (95% CI [0.505-0.693]) for EUROMACS-RHF and postoperative EUROMACS-RHF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In the authors' single-center retrospective analysis, the EUROMACS-RHF risk score did not predict early RHF. An optimized risk score for the prediction of RHF after LVAD implantation remains an urgent unmet need.

OBJECTIVE:Because the heterogeneity of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and family members represents a challenge to palliative care delivery, we aimed to determine if distinct phenotypes of palliative care needs exist. METHODS:Prospective cohort study conducted among family members of adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in six medical and surgical ICUs. The primary outcome was palliative care need measured by the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST, range from 0 (no need) to 130 (highest need)) completed 3 days after ICU admission. We also assessed quality of communication, clinician-family relationship and patient centredness of care. Latent class analysis of the NEST's 13 items was used to identify groups with similar patterns of serious palliative care needs. RESULTS:Among 257 family members, latent class analysis yielded a four-class model including complex communication needs (n=26, 10%; median NEST score 68.0), family spiritual and cultural needs (n=21, 8%; 40.0) and patient and family stress needs (n=43, 31%; 31.0), as well as a fourth group with fewer serious needs (n=167, 65%; 14.0). Interclass differences existed in quality of communication (median range 4.0-10.0, p<0.001), favourable clinician-family relationship (range 34.6%-98.2%, p<0.001) and both the patient centredness of care Eliciting Concerns (median range 4.0-5.0, p<0.001) and Decision-Making (median range 2.3-4.5, p<0.001) scales. CONCLUSIONS:Four novel phenotypes of palliative care need were identified among ICU family members with distinct differences in the severity of needs and perceived quality of the clinician-family interaction. Knowledge of need class may help to inform the development of more person-centred models of ICU-based palliative care.