Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) and normotensive shock may have worse outcomes. However, diagnosis of normotensive shock requires invasive hemodynamics. Our objective was to assess the predictive value of McConnell's sign in identifying normotensive shock in patients with intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:and clinical evidence of hypoperfusion (i.e. elevated lactate, oliguria). The primary outcome was the association between McConnell's sign and normotensive shock. RESULTS:, p = 0.003), and higher rates of normotensive shock (76 % vs 27 %, p = 0.005). McConnell's sign had a sensitivity of 88 % and specificity of 53 % for identifying intermediate-risk PE patients with normotensive shock. Patients with McConnell's sign had an increased odds (odds ratio 8.38, confidence interval: 1.73-40.53, p = 0.008; area under the curve 0.70, 95 % confidence interval: 0.56-0.85) of normotensive shock. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to suggest that McConnell's sign may identify those in the intermediate-risk group who are at risk for normotensive shock. Larger cohorts are needed to validate our findings.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic impact and clinical outcomes of saddle vs non-saddle pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and outcomes among patients with saddle and non-saddle PE within a cohort referred for catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) with invasive hemodynamic assessments. Patients who underwent CBT between August 2020 and January 2024 were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a low cardiac index (CI < 2.2 L/min/m²). Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. RESULTS:A total of 107 patients (84 intermediate risk, 23 high-risk; mean age 58 years, 47.6% female) were included in the study, with 44 patients having saddle PE and 63 having non-saddle PE. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics between saddle and non-saddle PE, including rates of high-risk PE (25% vs 16%, P = .24), rates of RV dysfunction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (55 vs 53 mm Hg, P = .74), mean pulmonary artery pressure (34 mm Hg vs 33 mm Hg), low cardiac index (56% vs 51%, P = .64), rates of normotensive shock (27% vs 20%, P = .44), or Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock scores (4.5 vs 4.7, P = .25). Additionally, 30-day mortality (6% vs 5%, P = .69), ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing CBT, there were no significant differences in invasive hemodynamic parameters or clinical outcomes between those with saddle and non-saddle PE.

Emergent reperfusion, most commonly with the administration of thrombolytic agents, is the recommended management approach for patients presenting with high-risk, or hemodynamically unstable pulmonary embolism. However, a subset of patients with a more catastrophic presentation, including refractory shock and impending or active cardiopulmonary arrest, may require immediate circulatory support. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) can be deployed rapidly by the well-trained team and provide systemic perfusion allowing for hemodynamic stabilization. Subsequent embolectomy or a standalone strategy allowing for thrombus autolysis may be followed with decannulation after several days. Retrospective studies and registry data suggest favorable clinical outcomes with the use of VA-ECMO as an upfront stabilization strategy even among patients presenting with cardiopulmonary arrest. In this review, we discuss the physiologic rationale, evidence base, and an approach to ECMO deployment and subsequent management strategies among select patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism.

Intravenous (IV) digoxin loading dose recommendations for rate control of atrial arrhythmias in critically ill patients are not well studied. When using digoxin in the setting of atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), a loading dose (LD) in either a fixed-dose regimen, weight-based dose, or pharmacokinetic-based calculation to target a serum digoxin concentration (SDC) of 0.8-1.5 ng/mL is recommended. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of digoxin LD used in critically ill patients for rate control of AF/AFL and to assess the SDC achieved. This single center retrospective cohort study included patients who received IV digoxin and had a SDC drawn. The primary endpoint was the median SDC achieved after a digoxin LD. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of SDCs ≥1.5 ng/mL and heart rate (HR) control. A total of 92 patients were included. The median total LD of digoxin for the entire cohort was 11mcg/kg (750 mcg). For 61% of the cohort, the LD was distributed over six-hour intervals. The median SDC after completion of the IV digoxin LD was 1.3 ng/mL (0.9, 1.7). The incidence of supratherapeutic SDC was 36% for the total cohort. A target HR < 110 beats per minute within 24 hours from digoxin LD was achieved in 60% of the cohort. In conclusion, a median total digoxin LD of 750 mcg in critically ill patients with AF/AFL, targeting a SDC < 1.5ng/mL may be considered for acute rate control, taking into account drug-drug interactions in the cardiac intensive care unit. Future studies are necessary to confirm our findings.

Intravenous (IV) digoxin loading dose recommendations for rate control of atrial arrhythmias in critically ill patients are not well studied. When using digoxin in the setting of atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL), a loading dose (LD) in either a fixed-dose regimen, weight-based dose, or pharmacokinetic-based calculation to target a serum digoxin concentration (SDC) of 0.8-1.5 ng/mL is recommended. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of digoxin LD used in critically ill patients for rate control of AF/AFL and to assess the SDC achieved. This single center retrospective cohort study included patients who received IV digoxin and had a SDC drawn. The primary endpoint was the median SDC achieved after a digoxin LD. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of SDCs ≥1.5 ng/mL and heart rate (HR) control. A total of 92 patients were included. The median total LD of digoxin for the entire cohort was 11mcg/kg (750 mcg). For 61% of the cohort, the LD was distributed over six-hour intervals. The median SDC after completion of the IV digoxin LD was 1.3 ng/mL (0.9, 1.7). The incidence of supratherapeutic SDC was 36% for the total cohort. A target HR < 110 beats per minute within 24 hours from digoxin LD was achieved in 60% of the cohort. In conclusion, a median total digoxin LD of 750 mcg in critically ill patients with AF/AFL, targeting a SDC < 1.5ng/mL may be considered for acute rate control, taking into account drug-drug interactions in the cardiac intensive care unit. Future studies are necessary to confirm our findings.

STUDY OBJECTIVE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the clinical effect, safety, and clinical outcomes of focused transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in the evaluation of critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED) and ICUs. METHODS:We established a prospective, multicenter, observational registry involving adult critically ill patients in whom focused TEE was performed for evaluation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), inhospital cardiac arrest, evaluation of undifferentiated shock, hemodynamic monitoring, and/or procedural guidance in the ED, ICU, or operating room setting. The primary objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the clinical influence and safety of focused, point-of-care TEE in critically ill patients. Data elements included patient and procedure characteristics, laboratory values, timing of interventions, clinical outcomes, and TEE video images. RESULTS:A total of 1,045 focused TEE studies were collected among 916 patients from 28 hospitals, including 585 (64%) intraarrest and postarrest OHCA and inhospital cardiac arrest, 267 (29%) initial evaluation of undifferentiated shock, 101 (11%) procedural guidance, and 92 (10%) hemodynamic monitoring. TEE changed management in 85% of patients with undifferentiated shock, 71% of patients with inhospital cardiac arrest, and 62% of patients with OHCA. There were no reported esophageal perforations or oropharyngeal injuries, and other procedural complications were rare. CONCLUSIONS:A prospective, multicenter, and multidisciplinary TEE registry was successfully implemented, and demonstrated that focused TEE is safe and clinically impactful across multiple critical care applications. Further studies from this research network will accelerate the development of outcome-oriented research and knowledge translation on the use of TEE in emergency and critical care settings.

This consensus statement emerges from collaborative efforts among leading figures in critical care cardiology throughout the United States, who met to share their collective expertise on issues faced by those active in or pursuing contemporary critical care cardiology education. The panel applied fundamentals of adult education and curriculum design, reviewed requisite training necessary to provide high-quality care to critically ill patients with cardiac pathology, and devoted attention to a purposeful approach emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in developing this nascent field. The resulting paper offers a comprehensive guide for current trainees, with insights about the present landscape of critical care cardiology while highlighting issues that need to be addressed for continued advancement. By delineating future directions with careful consideration and intentionality, this Expert Panel aims to facilitate the continued growth and maturation of critical care cardiology education and practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) commonly present with a significantly reduced cardiac index (CI). However, the identification of this more severe profile requires invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Whether inferior vena cava (IVC) contrast reflux, as a marker of worse right ventricular function, can predict invasive hemodynamics has not been explored. METHODS:This was a single-center retrospective study over a 3-year period of consecutive patients with PE undergoing mechanical thrombectomy and simultaneous pulmonary artery catheterization. CT pulmonary angiograms were reviewed, and contrast reflux was graded as no/minimal reflux (limited to the IVC) or substantial (opacification including hepatic veins) based on an established scale. RESULTS:were 62.6 %, 93.1 %, 94.6 %, and 56.2 %, respectively. These findings remained significant in a multivariable model and were similar when isolating for intermediate-risk patients (n = 72, 85 %). CONCLUSIONS:The degree of contrast reflux is highly specific for a reduced cardiac index in PE even when isolating for intermediate-risk patients. Real-time prediction of a hemodynamic profile may have added value in the risk-stratification of PE.

Recent advances in therapy and the promulgation of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism teams show great promise to improve management and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the absence of randomized evidence and lack of consensus leads to tremendous variations in treatment and compromises the wide implementation of new innovations. Moreover, the changing landscape of health care, where quality, cost, and accountability are increasingly relevant, dictates that a broad spectrum of outcomes of care must be routinely monitored to fully capture the impact of modern PE treatment. We set out to standardize data collection in patients with PE undergoing evaluation and treatment, and thus establish the foundation for an expanding evidence base that will address gaps in evidence and inform future care for acute PE. To do so, >100 international PE thought leaders convened in Washington, DC, in April 2022 to form the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative. Participants included physician experts, key members of the US Food and Drug Administration, patient representatives, and industry leaders. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative was created with representative experts from stakeholder medical subspecialties, including cardiology, pulmonology, vascular medicine, critical care, hematology, cardiac surgery, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, and pharmacology. A list of critical evidence gaps was composed with a matching comprehensive set of standardized data elements; these data points will provide a foundation for productive research, knowledge enhancement, and advancement of clinical care within the field of acute PE, and contribute to answering urgent unmet needs in PE management. Evidence produced through the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative, as it is applied to data collection, promises to provide crucial knowledge that will ultimately produce a robust evidence base that will lead to standardization and harmonization of PE management and improved outcomes.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:In hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock (CPES) score predicts normotensive shock. However, it is unknown if CPES predicts adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether the CPES score predicts in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with acute intermediate-risk PE admitted from October 2016 to July 2019 were included. CPES was calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome. The association of CPES with primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.005). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In patients with acute intermediate-risk PE, the CPES score effectively risk stratifies and prognosticates patients for the prediction of clinical events and provides incremental value over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories.