Faculty Bibliography

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Since the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) was first introduced into to the medical landscape, patient complexity, comorbidity, and illness severity have increased substantially over time. This evolution has required and informed the cultivation of new tools and an expanding skill set for those who deliver care in these units, and has paved the way for the emergence and growth of a distinct discipline-Critical Care Cardiology. With the genesis of this field and the need to care for comorbid and critically ill patients, numerous questions have been posed, including those related to optimal staffing models, appropriate training pathways, and the development of best practice principles to guide patient management. To address these and other challenges, to foster necessary collaborations, and to galvanize a maturing field, the Society of Critical Care Cardiology (SoCCC) was born. OBSERVATIONS/METHODS:SoCCC was created to provide an independent, yet complementary home for stakeholders within this rapidly growing discipline. Its mission is to address the unique needs and concerns of Critical Care Cardiology through an inclusive approach that prioritizes the development of early career faculty, actively engaging them to help to shape the field and to strengthen its unique practice environment - the CICU. While collaborations with larger professional societies remain essential, an independent subspecialty society like SoCCC intends to capitalize on the historical precedent and experiences shared by other successful organizations, while leveraging its nimble structure to advocate for and advance the needs of its constituency. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:While this document primarily details the history and rationale that led to the establishment of SoCCC, it also endeavors to be a practical blueprint to support future leaders who might be considering a new society for their own subspecialty.

BACKGROUND:Contemporary data characterizing older adults admitted to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) across diverse indications are limited. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of the study was to describe the clinical characteristics, critical care therapies, and in-hospital outcomes of older patients admitted to the CICU compared with younger adults. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter, international registry of CICUs. Between 2017 and 2024, participating centers contributed annual ≥2-month snapshots of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Admissions were categorized into 4 age groups: <65, 65-<75, 75-<85, and ≥85 years. Outcomes included CICU and in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Multivariable models adjusted for sex, illness severity (SOFA score), lactate, and kidney function. RESULTS:Among 35,265 admissions from 50 sites, 44%, 27%, 21%, and 9% were aged <65, 65-<75, 75-<85, and ≥85 years, respectively. Acute coronary syndrome was the most common admission diagnosis among all age groups. Patients aged ≥85 years had the lowest use of mechanical circulatory support (5.5%), which consisted exclusively of intra-aortic balloon pumps. Relative to patients <65 years, adjusted ORs of in-hospital mortality were 1.53 (1.40-1.67) for 65-<75 years, 1.83 (1.67-2.01) for 75-<85 years, and 1.95 (1.72-2.22) for ≥85 years. Among cardiac arrest patients the increase in mortality with age was steeper, reaching 3.09 (2.24-4.26) for patients ≥85 years. CONCLUSIONS:Patients ≥85 years in contemporary CICUs experience survival comparable to those aged 75-<85 years, except in the setting of cardiac arrest. These findings support consideration of factors beyond chronological age in CICU triage and treatment decisions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Systemic inflammation in cardiogenic shock is associated with increased disease severity and mortality. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a widely accessible inflammatory biomarker that may aid phenotyping and risk stratification. We evaluated the association between admission CRP and in-hospital mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock. METHODS:Using a multicentre, nationally representative database, we identified adults with a discharge diagnosis of cardiogenic shock from 2015-2023 who had CRP measured within two days of hospital admission; patients with sepsis were excluded. CRP was analysed in tertiles. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to assess associations with in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay and total cost. RESULTS:We identified 26,525 patients; median (IQR) CRP was 18.4 mg/L (5.0-67.0 mg/L). In-hospital mortality was 28.7%, 32.7%, and 42.3% across tertiles 1-3. In-hospital mortality increased by 19% for each 50-unit increase in CRP (OR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.16-1.21, p<0.001). After IPW, tertiles 2 and 3 had higher absolute mortality risks compared with tertile 1 by 3.9% (95% CI: 2.4%-5.3%) and 12.4% (95% CI: 10.9%-13.9%), respectively (both, p<0.001). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses restricted to day-1 CRP measurement, primary diagnoses of heart failure or myocardial infarction, and among patients requiring early mechanical circulatory support (all, p<0.05). Median ICU and hospital stay increased significantly across tertiles (all, p<0.001), total cost was not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with cardiogenic shock, a readily available biomarker, elevated CRP was associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

BackgroundThe pathophysiology of CS is complex and is associated with increased inflammation and impaired vascular tone. Corticosteroids are recommended in septic shock and have been proposed as a potential treatment for other types of shock.ObjectivesWe sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with early corticosteroid use in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS).MethodsUsing a nationally representative database including over 1000 hospitals, we identified adults ≥18 years of age admitted from 2015-2023 with a diagnosis of CS. Patients with adrenal insufficiency, chronic rheumatologic conditions, COVID-19 infection and acute COPD exacerbation were excluded. Using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW), we assessed for the association of receiving early corticosteroids (within the first 2 days of admission) versus no early corticosteroids and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf the 167,721 identified patients with CS, the mean (SD) age was 65.5 (±15.2) years and 35.0% were women. A total of 13.2% received any corticosteroid within the first 2 days of admission. The most common corticosteroid was hydrocortisone (73.9%). Mortality for those receiving and not receiving early corticosteroids was 48.8% and 29.6% (p < 0.001), respectively. After IPTW, early corticosteroid use remained associated with a 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4% to 3.8%, p < 0.001) higher mortality. Among patients with CS and concomitant sepsis, 27.6% received early corticosteroids, which was similarly associated with a higher mortality (weighted mean 5.8% [95% CI: 4.6% to 7.0%, p < 0.001]).ConclusionsApproximately 1 in 7 patients with CS received corticosteroids early during their admission, which was associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND:Hospital ownership type may influence acute cardiovascular disease disparities that persist across the U.S. We examined associations between hospital ownership type and in-hospital and readmission outcomes for STEMI hospitalizations. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study of hospitalizations for STEMI using the National Readmissions Database (2016-2022). Hospitals were categorized as nonprofit, for-profit, or public. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmission for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, cardiovascular, and all causes. Associations were assessed using multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for patient, hospitalization, and hospital-level characteristics. RESULTS:Of 610,427 STEMI hospitalizations, 460,451 (75.4%) were at nonprofit, 88,965 (14.6%) at for-profit, and 61,011 (10.0%) at public hospitals. Compared with nonprofit hospitals, for-profit hospitals (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13) and public hospitals (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.12-1.22) were each associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality. For-profit hospitals were associated with higher risk of 90-day readmission for acute coronary syndrome (aHR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10-1.21), heart failure (aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.13), cardiovascular (aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05-1.12), and all causes (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-1.16) relative to nonprofit hospitals. Public hospitals were associated with higher risk of 90-day readmission for heart failure (aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.13) relative to nonprofit hospitals. CONCLUSIONS:For-profit and public hospitals were associated with higher in-hospital mortality and 90-day readmission for various causes compared with nonprofit hospitals. These findings suggest that hospital-level factors may contribute to disparities in STEMI outcomes and warrant further investigation.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The paucity of data to guide selection of specific vasoactive agents in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) may lead to variability in practice patterns. The level of variability and specific factors that are associated with the use of vasoactive medications and inodilators have not been previously described. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is an international, multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. This analysis included CICU admissions for CS from 2019 to 2023. Variation in the use of inodilator treatment (dobutamine/milrinone) was assessed with multivariable mixed-effects logistic modeling. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:increase). No individual measurable institution-level factors (eg, transplant center) were associated with variability in inodilator use. In mixed-effects logistic modeling, 45.7% of variation in inodilator use was attributed to patient-level factors and 22.7% to the random effect of individual CICU centers. Similarly, 35.3% of variation in the use of dobutamine versus milrinone was attributed to patient-level factors and 32.6% to the random effect of individual CICU centers. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:There is significant variation in vasoactive treatment and inodilator use in CS. Variation in inodilator use was associated with patient-level factors and with substantial individual CICU practice variation. Such variability underscores the need for additional high-quality evidence to guide vasoactive treatment strategies in CS.

BACKGROUND:Consensus documents classify cardiogenic shock (CS) centers on the basis of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) capabilities, but outcomes data remain limited. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to assess the association between CS center tiers and outcomes. METHODS:Adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalized with CS were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2022). Hospitals were stratified into the following categories: level 3 (non-PCI, non-MCS, non-CTS, intensive care unit only), level 2 (level 3 in addition to PCI, intra-aortic balloon pump, percutaneous left ventricular assist device capable), level 1A (level 2 in addition to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, nonpercutaneous ventricular assist device, CTS capable), and level 1 (level 1A in addition to durable left ventricular assist device/cardiac transplantation capable). Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs (in all patients), as well as 30-day readmissions (only in survivors). Multinomial overlap propensity to adjust for baseline characteristics and hierarchical regression models were used. RESULTS:Among 623,835 CS admissions, the distribution of hospital levels was consistent over the 7-year period (7% level 1, 27%-36% level 1A, 19%-21% level 2, and 38%-40% level 3). Compared with level 1, the odds of receiving MCS were 38% lower at level 1A (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.59-0.65]) and 73% lower at level 2 (aOR: 0.27 [95% CI: 0.25-0.28]). In the propensity-matched analysis, compared with level 1 (29.5%), patients admitted to other levels had higher in-hospital mortality (level 1A: 38.4%, aOR: 1.33 [95% CI: 1.29-1.38]; level 2: 41.1%, aOR: 1.44 [95% CI: 1.38-1.50]; level 3: 45.2%, aOR: 1.63 [95% CI: 1.54-1.71]; all P < 0.001). The survival benefit of level 1 centers persisted across age, cardiac arrest, MCS use, location, and insurance subgroups. Compared with level 1, 30-day readmissions were lower by 4% at level 1A (OR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.94-0.98]) and 1% at level 3 (OR: 0.99 [95% CI: 0.94-0.98]) centers, with no significant difference at level 2 centers (OR: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.99-1.06]). Length of stay and costs were higher at levels 1 and 1A. CONCLUSIONS:Tiered CS care was associated with a stepwise improvement in survival outcome at advanced centers despite greater acuity of illness.