Faculty Bibliography

Cardiogenic shock continues to portend poor outcomes, conferring short-term mortality rates of 30% to 50% despite recent scientific advances. Age is a nonmodifiable risk factor for mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock and is often considered in the decision-making process for eligibility for various therapies. Older adults have been largely excluded from analyses of therapeutic options in patients with cardiogenic shock. As a result, despite the association of advanced age with worse outcomes, focused strategies in the assessment and management of cardiogenic shock in this high-risk and growing population are lacking. Individual programs oftentimes develop upper age limits for various interventional strategies for their patients, including heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices. However, age as a lone parameter should not be used to guide individual patient management decisions in cardiogenic shock. In the assessment of risk in older adults with cardiogenic shock, a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is central to developing best practices. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we aim to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, risk assessment, and in-hospital approach to management of cardiogenic shock, with a unique focus on older adults.

Diagnostic work-up and risk stratification in patients with bladder cancer before and after treatment must be refined to optimize management and improve outcomes. MRI has been suggested as a non-invasive technique for bladder cancer staging and assessment of response to systemic therapy. The Vesical Imaging-Reporting And Data System (VI-RADS) was developed to standardize bladder MRI image acquisition, interpretation and reporting and enables accurate prediction of muscle-wall invasion of bladder cancer. MRI is available in many centres but is not yet recommended as a first-line test for bladder cancer owing to a lack of high-quality evidence. Consensus-based evidence on the use of MRI-VI-RADS for bladder cancer care is needed to serve as a benchmark for formulating guidelines and research agendas until further evidence from randomized trials becomes available.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effects of droxidopa or atomoxetine on intravenous (IV) vasoactive agent discontinuation in cardiothoracic intensive care unit (ICU) patients with hypotension refractory to midodrine. DESIGN/METHODS:Single-center, retrospective cohort study. SETTING/METHODS:Tertiary- and quaternary-care university teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Included patients who received at least 4 consecutive doses of droxidopa or atomoxetine and remained on concurrent midodrine. Patients were excluded if they received study medication before admission, had clinical deterioration after study medication initiation requiring additional vasoactives/escalation of IV vasoactive dosage for at least 12 hours, had a diagnosis of hepatorenal syndrome, were prisoners, or were pregnant. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Droxidopa, atomoxetine, or both. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:The primary endpoint was time to discontinuation of IV vasoactive agents after initiation of study medication, analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier estimate with the Wilcoxon method, censoring death within 24 hours of the last dose of study medication. No adjustment for repetitive analyses was made, as the analysis was hypothesis-generating. Of the 72 charts reviewed, 45 patients met inclusion criteria (18 atomoxetine, 17 droxidopa, and 10 both). There were no differences in median time to discontinuation of IV vasoactive agents (21.9 days v 8.0 days v 13.9 days, respectively; p = 0.259) or ICU or hospital length of stay between groups. A higher percentage of patients who survived to hospital discharge received both study medications or droxidopa alone (90% v 76.5%) than atomoxetine alone (44.4%, p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS:Droxidopa and atomoxetine are oral vasoactive agents with potential mechanisms to facilitate IV vasopressor weaning for patients in the ICU with hypotension refractory to midodrine, but further prospective research is needed.

IMPORTANCE:Unmet and racially disparate palliative care needs are common in intensive care unit (ICU) settings. OBJECTIVE:To test the effect of a primary palliative care intervention vs usual care control both overall and by family member race. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 6 adult medical and surgical ICUs in 2 academic and community hospitals in North Carolina between April 2019 and May 2022 with physician-level randomization and sequential clusters of 2 Black patient-family member dyads and 2 White patient-family member dyads enrolled under each physician. Eligible participants included consecutive patients receiving mechanical ventilation, their family members, and their attending ICU physicians. Data analysis was conducted from June 2022 to May 2023. INTERVENTION:A mobile application (ICUconnect) that displayed family-reported needs over time and provided ICU attending physicians with automated timeline-driven communication advice on how to address individual needs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was change in the family-reported Needs at the End-of-Life Screening Tool (NEST; range 0-130, with higher scores reflecting greater need) score between study days 1 and 3. Secondary outcomes included family-reported quality of communication and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder at 3 months. RESULTS:A total of 111 (51% of those approached) family members (mean [SD] age, 51 [15] years; 96 women [86%]; 15 men [14%]; 47 Black family members [42%]; 64 White family members [58%]) and 111 patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [16] years; 66 male patients [59%]; 45 Black patients [41%]; 65 White patients [59%]; 1 American Indian or Alaska Native patient [1%]) were enrolled under 37 physicians randomized to intervention (19 physicians and 55 patient-family member dyads) or control (18 physicians and 56 patient-family member dyads). Compared with control, there was greater improvement in NEST scores among intervention recipients between baseline and both day 3 (estimated mean difference, -6.6 points; 95% CI, -11.9 to -1.3 points; P = .01) and day 7 (estimated mean difference, -5.4 points; 95% CI, -10.7 to 0.0 points; P = .05). There were no treatment group differences at 3 months in psychological distress symptoms. White family members experienced a greater reduction in NEST scores compared with Black family members at day 3 (estimated mean difference, -12.5 points; 95% CI, -18.9 to -6.1 points; P < .001 vs estimated mean difference, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -9.3 to 8.8 points; P = .96) and day 7 (estimated mean difference, -9.5 points; 95% CI, -16.1 to -3.0 points; P = .005 vs estimated mean difference, -1.4 points; 95% CI, -10.7 to 7.8; P = .76). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this study of ICU patients and family members, a primary palliative care intervention using a mobile application reduced unmet palliative care needs compared with usual care without an effect on psychological distress symptoms at 3 months; there was a greater intervention effect among White family members compared with Black family members. These findings suggest that a mobile application-based intervention is a promising primary palliative care intervention for ICU clinicians that directly addresses the limited supply of palliative care specialists. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03506438.

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have suggested that there is wide variability in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) length of stay (LOS); however, these studies are limited by the absence of detailed risk assessment at the time of admission. Thus, we evaluated inter-hospital differences in CICU LOS, and the association between LOS and in-hospital mortality. METHODS:Using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) registry, we included 22,862 admissions between 2017 and 2022 from 35 primarily tertiary and quaternary CICUs that captured consecutive admissions in annual 2-month snapshots. The primary analysis compared inter-hospital differences in CICU LOS, as well as the association between CICU LOS and all-cause in-hospital mortality using a Fine and Gray competing risk model. RESULTS:= 0.31) with a higher risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality. The relationship remained significant in admissions with heart failure, ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS:In a large registry of academic CICUs, we observed significant variation in CICU LOS and report that LOS is independently associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality. These findings could potentially be used to improve CICU resource utilization planning and refine risk prognostication in critically ill cardiovascular patients.

BACKGROUND:Wide interhospital variations exist in cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admission practices and the use of critical care restricted therapies (CCRx), but little is known about the differences in patient acuity, CCRx utilization, and the associated outcomes within tertiary centers. METHODS:The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of tertiary and academic CICUs in the United States and Canada that captured consecutive admissions in 2-month periods between 2017 and 2022. This analysis included 17 843 admissions across 34 sites and compared interhospital tertiles of CCRx (eg, mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support, continuous renal replacement therapy) utilization and its adjusted association with in-hospital survival using logistic regression. The Pratt index was used to quantify patient-related and institutional factors associated with CCRx variability. RESULTS:The median age of the study population was 66 (56-77) years and 37% were female. CCRx was provided to 62.2% (interhospital range of 21.3%-87.1%) of CICU patients. Admissions to CICUs with the highest tertile of CCRx utilization had a greater burden of comorbidities, had more diagnoses of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock, and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality (median, 12.7%) was 9.6%, 11.1%, and 18.7% in low, intermediate, and high CCRx tertiles, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences in adjusted mortality were observed across tertiles when admissions were stratified by the provision of CCRx. Baseline patient-level variables and institutional differences accounted for 80% and 5.3% of the observed CCRx variability, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:In a large registry of tertiary and academic CICUs, there was a >4-fold interhospital variation in the provision of CCRx that was primarily driven by differences in patient acuity compared with institutional differences. No differences were observed in adjusted mortality between low, intermediate, and high CCRx utilization sites.

In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the understanding, risk-stratification, and treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS). Despite improved pharmacologic and device-based therapies for CS, short-term mortality remains as high as 50%. Most recent efforts in research have focused on CS related to acute myocardial infarction, even though heart failure related CS (HF-CS) accounts for >50% of CS cases. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to support standardized clinical practices in approach to HF-CS. In addition, there is an unmet need to identify disease-specific diagnostic and risk-stratification strategies upon admission, which might ultimately guide the choice of therapies, and thereby improve outcomes and optimize resource allocation. The heterogeneity in defining CS, patient phenotypes, treatment goals and therapies has resulted in difficulty comparing published reports and standardized treatment algorithms. An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) consensus conference was organized to better define, diagnose, and manage HF-CS. There were 54 participants (advanced heart failure and interventional cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, critical care cardiologists, intensivists, pharmacists, and allied health professionals), with vast clinical and published experience in CS, representing 42 centers worldwide. State-of-the-art HF-CS presentations occurred with subsequent breakout sessions planned in an attempt to reach consensus on various issues, including but not limited to models of CS care delivery, patient presentations in HF-CS, and strategies in HF-CS management. This consensus report summarizes the contemporary literature review on HF-CS presented in the first half of the conference (part 1), while the accompanying document (part 2) covers the breakout sessions where the previously agreed upon clinical issues were discussed with an aim to get to a consensus.

Successful innovation clusters are notoriously difficult to establish, and many attempts fail. How can we go about designing such systems reliably? We describe how ecosystems can be strengthened through grassroots bottom-up efforts that empower user and community innovation, as opposed to economic policies that dictate innovation. Specifically focusing on the healthcare industry, we advocate that community hospitals which constitute 90% of all hospitals in Canada are the ideal setting for such community innovation efforts. We investigated the distribution of innovation output from hospitals over the past 13 years and found a decrease in predominance of major teaching hospitals, supporting the potential role for community hospitals in this space. We categorize different types of innovations and recommend institutional policies that can sustain bottom-up, micro-level efforts. Such policies could improve and enhance the development of micro-innovations and the creation of health innovation clusters.

BACKGROUND:It is common for clinicians to use the pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (PADP) as a surrogate for the pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP). Here, we determine the validity of this relationship in patients with various phenotypes of cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:In this analysis of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry, we identified 1225 people admitted with CS who received pulmonary artery catheters. Linear regression, Bland-Altman and receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed to determine the strength of the association between PADP and PCWP in patients with left-, right-, biventricular, and other non-myocardia phenotypes of CS (eg, arrhythmia, valvular stenosis, tamponade). There was a moderately strong correlation between PADP and PCWP in the total population (r = 0.64, n = 1225) and in each CS phenotype, except for right ventricular CS, for which the correlation was weak (r = 0.43, n = 71). Additionally, we found that a PADP ≥ 24 mmHg can be used to infer a PCWP ≥ 18 mmHg with ≥ 90% confidence in all but the right ventricular CS phenotype. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis validates the practice of using PADP as a surrogate for PCWP in most patients with CS; however, it should generally be avoided in cases of right ventricular-predominant CS.

INTRODUCTION:We aimed to compare outcomes of patients with first primary clinical T1a-bN0M0 NSCLC treated with surgery or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). METHODS:We identified patients with first primary clinical T1a-bN0M0 NSCLCs on last pretreatment computed tomography treated by surgery or SBRT in the following two prospective cohorts: International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) and Initiative for Early Lung Cancer Research on Treatment (IELCART). Lung cancer-specific survival and all-cause survival after diagnosis were compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline demographics and comorbidities and analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS:Of 1115 patients with NSCLC, 1003 had surgery and 112 had SBRT; 525 in I-ELCAP in 1992 to 2021 and 590 in IELCART in 2016 to 2021. Median follow-up was 57.6 months. Ten-year lung cancer-specific survival was not significantly different: 90% (95% confidence interval: 87%-92%) for surgery versus 88% (95% confidence interval: 77%-99%) for SBRT, p = 0.55. Cox regression revealed no significant difference in lung cancer-specific survival for the combined cohorts (p = 0.48) or separately for I-ELCAP (p = 1.00) and IELCART (p = 1.00). Although 10-year all-cause survival was significantly different (75% versus 45%, p < 0.0001), after propensity score matching, all-cause survival using Cox regression was no longer different for the combined cohorts (p = 0.74) or separately for I-ELCAP (p = 1.00) and IELCART (p = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS:This first prospectively collected cohort analysis of long-term survival of small, early NSCLCs revealed that lung cancer-specific survival was high for both treatments and not significantly different (p = 0.48) and that all-cause survival after propensity matching was not significantly different (p = 0.74). This supports SBRT as an alternative treatment option for small, early NSCLCs which is especially important with their increasing frequency owing to low-dose computed tomography screening. Furthermore, treatment decisions are influenced by many different factors and should be personalized on the basis of the unique circumstances of each patient.