Faculty Bibliography

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.

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock has increased dramatically despite a lack of randomized controlled trials or evidence guiding clinical decision-making. Recommendations from professional societies on temporary mechanical circulatory support escalation and de-escalation are limited. This scientific statement provides pragmatic suggestions on temporary mechanical circulatory support device selection, escalation, and weaning strategies in patients with common cardiogenic shock causes such as acute decompensated heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. The goal of this scientific statement is to serve as a resource for clinicians making temporary mechanical circulatory support management decisions and to propose standardized approaches for their use until more robust randomized clinical data are available.

Oxygen supplementation has been a mainstay in the management of patients with acute cardiac disease. While hypoxia is known to be detrimental, the adverse effects of artificially high oxygen levels (hyperoxia) have only recently been recognized. Hyperoxia may induce harmful hemodynamic effects, including peripheral and coronary vasoconstriction, and direct cellular toxicity through the production of reactive oxygen species. In addition, emerging evidence has shown that hyperoxia is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Thus, it is essential for the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) clinician to understand the available evidence and titrate oxygen therapies to specific goals. This review summarizes the pathophysiology of oxygen within the cardiovascular system and the association between supplemental oxygen and hyperoxia in patients with common CICU diagnoses, including acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, shock, cardiac arrest, pulmonary hypertension, and respiratory failure. Finally, we highlight lessons learned from available trials, gaps in knowledge, and future directions.

BACKGROUND:With the improvement in outcomes for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the practice of routine admission to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is evolving. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of patients with ACS admitted to contemporary CICUs. METHODS:Using the CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) Registry for consecutive medical CICU admissions across 26 advanced CICUs in North America between 2017 and 2020, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of ACS at CICU admission and compared patient characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes to patients admitted with a non-ACS diagnosis and across sub-populations of patients with ACS, including by indication for CICU admission. RESULTS:<0.0001), compared with patients with ACS with an admission indication beyond monitoring. CONCLUSIONS:In a registry of tertiary care CICUs, ACS represent ≈1/3 of all admissions with significant variability across hospitals. More than half of the ACS admissions to the CICU were for routine monitoring alone, with a low rate of complications and mortality. This observation highlights an opportunity for prospective studies to refine triage strategies for lower risk patients with ACS.

The modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) specializes in the care of a broad range of critically ill patients with both cardiac and non-cardiac serious illnesses. Despite advances, most conditions that necessitate CICU admission such as cardiogenic shock, continue to have a high burden of morbidity and mortality. The CICU often serves as the final destination for patients with end-stage disease, with one study reporting that one in five patients in the USA die in an intensive care unit (ICU) or shortly after an ICU admission. Palliative care is a broad subspecialty of medicine with an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on optimizing patient and family quality of life (QoL), decision-making, and experience. Palliative care has been shown to improve the QoL and symptom burden in patients at various stages of illness, however, the integration of palliative care in the CICU has not been well-studied. In this review, we outline the fundamental principles of high-quality palliative care in the ICU, focused on timeliness, goal-concordant decision-making, and family-centred care. We differentiate between primary palliative care, which is delivered by the primary CICU team, and secondary palliative care, which is provided by the consulting palliative care team, and delineate their responsibilities and domains. We propose clinical triggers that might spur serious illness communication and reappraisal of patient preferences. More research is needed to test different models that integrate palliative care in the modern CICU.

Readmission to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the index hospitalization is associated with poor outcomes in medical or surgical ICU survivors. Little is known about critically ill patients with acute cardiovascular conditions cared for in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of all ICU readmissions in patients who survived to CICU discharge. We retrospectively reviewed Mayo Clinic patients from 2007 to 2015 who survived the index CICU admission and identified patients with a second ICU stay during their index hospitalization; these patients were categorized as ICU transfers (patients who went directly from the CICU to another ICU) or ICU readmissions (patients initially transferred from the CICU to the ward, and then back to an ICU). Among 9,434 CICU survivors (mean age 67 years), 138 patients (1.5%) had a second ICU stay during the index hospitalization: 60 ICU transfers (0.6%) and 78 ICU readmissions (0.8%). The most common indications for ICU readmission were respiratory failure and procedure/surgery. On multivariable modeling, respiratory failure, severe acute kidney injury, and Charlson Comorbidity Index at the time of discharge from the index ICU stay were associated with ICU readmission. Death during the first ICU readmission (n = 78) occurred in 7.7% of patients. In-hospital mortality was higher for patients with a second ICU stay. In conclusion, few CICU survivors have a second ICU stay during their index hospitalization; these patients are at a higher risk of in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Respiratory failure, severe acute kidney injury, and higher co-morbidity burden identify CICU survivors at elevated risk of ICU readmission.

Despite advances in early revascularization, percutaneous hemodynamic support platforms, and systems of care, cardiogenic shock (CS) remains associated with a mortality rate higher than 50%. Several risk stratification models have been derived since the 1990 s to identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Still, limited information is available on the differences between scoring systems and their relative applicability to both acute myocardial infarction and advanced decompensated heart failure CS. Thus, we reviewed the similarities, differences, and limitations of published CS risk prediction models and herein discuss their suitability to the contemporary management of CS care.