Faculty Bibliography

As the acuity, complexity, and illness severity of patients admitted to cardiac intensive care units have increased, the need to recognize critical care cardiology (CCC) as a dedicated subspecialty in cardiovascular disease has received increasing support. Differing viewpoints exist regarding the optimal pathway for CCC training. Currently, all proposed CCC training pathways involve permutations of individual training years culminating in subspecialty certification across multiple disciplines; however, there are significant disadvantages to these training paradigms. We propose an innovative, pragmatic approach to CCC training through tailored subspecialty training in advanced heart failure and transplant cardiology (AHFTC), using elective time to enrich AHFTC training with skills and experiences necessary to become a highly skilled critical care cardiologist. The completion of this pathway would lead to completion of AHFTC training with a novel designation: distinction in critical care cardiology.

IMPORTANCE:Palliative care consultations in intensive care units (ICUs) are increasingly prompted by clinical characteristics associated with mortality or resource utilization. However, it is not known whether these triggers reflect actual palliative care needs. OBJECTIVE:To compare unmet needs by clinical palliative care trigger status (present vs absent). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This prospective cohort study was conducted in 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between January 2019 and September 2020. Participants were consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation and their family members. EXPOSURE:Presence of any of 9 common clinical palliative care triggers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was the Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST) score (range, 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need), which was completed after 3 days of ICU care. Trigger status performance in identifying serious need (NEST score ≥30) was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and C statistics. RESULTS:Surveys were completed by 257 of 360 family members of patients (71.4% of the potentially eligible patient-family member dyads approached) with a median age of 54.0 years (IQR, 44-62 years); 197 family members (76.7%) were female, and 83 (32.3%) were Black. The median age of patients was 58.0 years (IQR, 46-68 years); 126 patients (49.0%) were female, and 88 (33.5%) were Black. There was no difference in median NEST score between participants with a trigger present (45%) and those with a trigger absent (55%) (21.0; IQR, 12.0-37.0 vs 22.5; IQR, 12.0-39.0; P = .52). Trigger presence was associated with poor sensitivity (45%; 95% CI, 34%-55%), specificity (55%; 95% CI, 48%-63%), positive likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3), negative likelihood ratio (1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.2), and C statistic (0.50; 95% CI, 0.44-0.57). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this cohort study, clinical palliative care trigger status was not associated with palliative care needs and no better than chance at identifying the most serious needs, which raises questions about an increasingly common clinical practice. Focusing care delivery on directly measured needs may represent a more person-centered alternative.

BACKGROUND:Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation.

OBJECTIVE:To determine whether the Mayo Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) Admission Risk Score (M-CARS) is associated with CICU resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:test for categorical variables. RESULTS:<.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with M-CARS less than 2 infrequently require critical-care resources and have extremely low mortality, suggesting that the M-CARS could be used to facilitate the triage of critically ill cardiac patients.

BACKGROUND:Single-center studies suggest that implementation of multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) teams is associated with improved CS survival. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The aim was to characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of CS across multiple centers with versus without shock teams. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. All consecutive medical admissions to each CICU (n = 24) were captured during annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019; n = 6,872). Shock management and CICU mortality among centers with versus without shock teams were compared using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS:Ten of the 24 centers had shock teams. Among 1,242 CS admissions, 44% were at shock team centers. The groups were well-balanced with respect to demographics, shock etiology, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, biochemical markers of end organ dysfunction, and invasive hemodynamics. Centers with shock teams used more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs 49%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.47-2.35; P < 0.001), less overall mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (35% vs 43%; adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; P = 0.016), and more advanced types of MCS (53% vs 43% of all MCS; adjusted OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.19-2.51; P = 0.005) rather than intra-aortic balloon pumps. The presence of a shock team was independently associated with lower CICU mortality (23% vs 29%; adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94; P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS:In this multicenter observational study, centers with shock teams were more likely to obtain invasive hemodynamics, use advanced types of MCS, and have lower risk-adjusted mortality. A standardized multidisciplinary shock team approach may improve outcomes in CS.