The Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Discover IHCA) Study: An Investigation of Hospital Practices After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

IMPORTANCE: In-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a significant public health burden. Rates of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) have been improving, but the best way to care for patients after the initial resuscitation remains poorly understood, and improvements in survival to discharge are stagnant. Existing North American cardiac arrest databases lack comprehensive data on the post-resuscitation period, and we do not know current post-IHCA practice patterns. To address this gap, we developed the Discover In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (Discover IHCA) study, which will thoroughly evaluate current post-IHCA care practices across a diverse cohort. OBJECTIVES: Our study collects granular data on post-IHCA treatment practices, focusing on temperature control and prognostication, with the objective of describing variation in current post-IHCA practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a multicenter, prospectively collected, observational cohort study of patients who have suffered IHCA and have been successfully resuscitated (achieved ROSC). There are 24 enrolling hospital systems (23 in the United States) with 69 individual enrolling hospitals (39 in the United States). We developed a standardized data dictionary, and data collection began in October 2023, with a projected 1000 total enrollments. Discover IHCA is endorsed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS, OUTCOMES, AND ANALYSIS: The study collects data on patient characteristics including pre-arrest frailty, arrest characteristics, and detailed information on post-arrest practices and outcomes. Data collection on post-IHCA practice was structured around current American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council guidelines. Among other data elements, the study captures post-arrest temperature control interventions and post-arrest prognostication methods. Analysis will evaluate variations in practice and their association with mortality and neurologic function. CONCLUSIONS: We expect this study, Discover IHCA, to identify variability in practice and outcomes following IHCA, and be a vital resource for future investigations into best-practice for managing patients after IHCA.

Mortality in Patients With Sepsis Treated With Esmolol or Landiolol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The latest meta-analysis indicated potential survival benefits from ultra-short-acting ß-blockers in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia. However, subsequent multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting findings, prompting the need for an updated meta-analysis to incorporate these newly published RCTs. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the use of ultra-short-acting ß-blockers (esmolol or landiolol) in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia improve mortality? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an updated systematic search through April 2, 2024, exploring the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases for RCTs reporting mortality in adult patients with sepsis treated with esmolol or landiolol as compared with those treated with neither of these or receiving placebo and published in English. Meta-analyses were conducted with the random effects model. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up, with subgroup analysis separating single-center RCTS from large multicenter RCTs. RESULTS: Eight RCTs (885 patients) were included in the primary analysis. Ultra-short-acting ß-blockers did not improve mortality significantly at the longest follow-up (risk ratio [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.02; P = .08; I2 = 51%; very low certainty of the evidence) and 28-day mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00; P = .05; I2 = 62%). Subgroup analyses of mortality outcomes pointed toward different results between single-center and multicenter RCTs. Trial sequence analyses showed that both mortality outcomes were not robust. The sensitivity analyses suggested a significant reduction in mortality by adding RCTs published in non-English languages. INTERPRETATION: In this updated meta-analysis, the use of esmolol or landiolol did not reduce mortality in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia. However, results were not robust and outcomes differed between single-center and multicenter RCTs. Moreover, sensitivity analyses showed the fragility of the primary outcome. Further studies regarding ultra-short-acting ß-blockers with advanced cardiac monitoring or serial echocardiography are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRY: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; No.: CRD42024503570; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Definition and management of right ventricular injury in adult patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory support using the Delphi method: a PRORVnet study. Expert position statements.

PURPOSE: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an integral part of the management algorithm of patients with severe respiratory failure refractory to evidence-based conventional treatments. Right ventricular injury (RVI) pertaining to abnormalities in the dimensions and/or function of the right ventricle (RV) in the context of VV-ECMO significantly influences mortality. However, in the absence of a universally accepted RVI definition and evidence-based guidance for the management of RVI in this very high-risk patient cohort, variations in clinical practice continue to exist. METHODS: Following a systematic search of the literature, an international Steering Committee consisting of eight healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients receiving ECMO identified domains and knowledge gaps pertaining to RVI definition and management where the evidence is limited or ambiguous. Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 52 Experts developed Expert position statements in those areas. The process also conferred RV-centric overarching open questions for future research. Consensus was defined as achieved when 70% or more of the Experts agreed or disagreed on a Likert-scale statement or when 80% or more of the Experts agreed on a particular option in multiple-choice questions. RESULTS: The Delphi process was conducted through four rounds and consensus was achieved on 31 (89%) of 35 statements from which 24 Expert position statements were derived. Expert position statements provided recommendations for RVI nomenclature in the setting of VV-ECMO, a multi-modal diagnostic approach to RVI, the timing and parameters of diagnostic echocardiography, and VV-ECMO settings during RVI assessment and management. Consensus was not reached on RV-protective driving pressure thresholds or the effect of prone positioning on patient-centric outcomes. CONCLUSION: The proposed definition of RVI in the context of VV-ECMO needs to be validated through a systematic aggregation of data across studies. Until further evidence emerges, the Expert position statements can guide informed decision-making in the management of these patients.

Validity of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes for atrial fibrillation/flutter in critically ill patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) are frequently seen in critically ill sepsis patients and are associated with poor outcomes. There is a need for further research, however, studies are limited due to challenges in identifying patient cohorts. Administrative data using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) are routinely used for identifying disease cohorts in large datasets. However, the validity of ICD-10 for AF/AFL remains unexplored in these populations. METHODS: This validation study included 6554 adults with sepsis and septic shock admitted to the intensive care unit. We sought to determine whether ICD-10 coding could accurately identify patients with and without AF/AFL compared to manual chart review. We also evaluated whether the date of ICD-10 code entry could distinguish prevalent from incident AF/AFL, presuming codes dated during the index admission to be incident AF/AFL. A manual chart review was performed on 400 randomly selected patients for confirmation of AF/AFL, and validity was measured using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Among the 400 randomly selected patients, 293 lacked ICD-10 codes for AF/AFL. The manual chart review confirmed the absence of AF/AFL in 286 patients (NPV 97.3%, specificity 99.7%). Among the 107 patients with ICD-10 codes for AF/AFL, 106 were confirmed to have AF/AFL by manual chart review (PPV 99.1%, sensitivity 93.0%). Out of the 114 patients with confirmed AF/AFL, 44 had ICD-10 codes dated during the index admission. All 44 were confirmed to have AF/AFL, however, 18 patients had prior documentation of AF/AFL (incident AF/AFL: PPV 59.1%). Specificity for incident (95.1%) and prevalent (99.7%) AF/AFL were high; however, sensitivity was 76.5% and 77.5%, respectively. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: ICD-10 codes perform well in identifying clinical AF/AFL in critically ill sepsis. However, their temporal specificity in distinguishing incidents from prevalent AF/AFL is limited.

Comparison of Central and Peripheral Arterial Blood Pressure Gradients in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Measurement of blood pressure taken from different anatomical sites, are often perceived as interchangeable, despite them representing different parts of the systemic circulation. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on blood pressure differences between central and peripheral arterial cannulation in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase from inception to December 26, 2023, using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Observation study of adult patients in ICUs and operating rooms who underwent simultaneous central (femoral, axillary, or subclavian artery) and peripheral (radial, brachial, or dorsalis pedis artery) arterial catheter placement in ICUs and operating rooms. DATA EXTRACTION: We screened and extracted studies independently and in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using the revised Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-four studies that enrolled 1598 patients in total were included. Central pressures (mean arterial pressure [MAP] and systolic blood pressure [SBP]) were found to be significantly higher than their peripheral counterparts, with mean gradients of 3.5 and 8.0 mm Hg, respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in central or peripheral diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Subgroup analysis further highlighted a higher MAP gradient during the on-cardiopulmonary bypass stage of cardiac surgery, reperfusion stage of liver transplant, and in nonsurgical critically ill patients. SBP or DBP gradient did not demonstrate any subgroup specific changes. CONCLUSIONS: SBP and MAP obtained by central arterial cannulation were higher than peripheral arterial cannulation; however, clinical implication of a difference of 8.0 mm Hg in SBP and 3.5 mm Hg in MAP remains unclear. Our current clinical practices preferring peripheral arterial lines need not change.

Best Practices for Point of Care Ultrasound: An Interdisciplinary Expert Consensus.

Despite the growing use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in contemporary medical practice and the existence of clinical guidelines addressing its specific applications, there remains a lack of standardization and agreement on optimal practices for several areas of POCUS use. The Society of Point of Care Ultrasound (SPOCUS) formed a working group in 2022 to establish a set of recommended best practices for POCUS, applicable to clinicians regardless of their training, specialty, resource setting, or scope of practice. Using a three-round modified Delphi process, a multi-disciplinary panel of 22 POCUS experts based in the United States reached consensus on 57 statements in domains including: (1) The definition and clinical role of POCUS; (2) Training pathways; (3) Credentialing; (4) Cleaning and maintenance of POCUS devices; (5) Consent and education; (6) Security, storage, and sharing of POCUS studies; (7) Uploading, archiving, and reviewing POCUS studies; and (8) Documenting POCUS studies. The consensus statements are provided here. While not intended to establish a standard of care or supersede more targeted guidelines, this document may serve as a useful baseline to guide clinicians, leaders, and systems considering initiation or enhancement of POCUS programs.

Forecasting disease trajectories in critical illness: comparison of probabilistic dynamic systems to static models to predict patient status in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional prediction models fail to integrate the constantly evolving nature of critical illness. Alternative modelling approaches to study dynamic changes in critical illness progression are needed. We compare static risk prediction models to dynamic probabilistic models in early critical illness. DESIGN: We developed models to simulate disease trajectories of critically ill COVID-19 patients across different disease states. Eighty per cent of cases were randomly assigned to a training and 20% of the cases were used as a validation cohort. Conventional risk prediction models were developed to analyse different disease states for critically ill patients for the first 7 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Daily disease state transitions were modelled using a series of multivariable, multinomial logistic regression models. A probabilistic dynamic systems modelling approach was used to predict disease trajectory over the first 7 days of an ICU admission. Forecast accuracy was assessed and simulated patient clinical trajectories were developed through our algorithm. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively studied patients admitted to a Cleveland Clinic Healthcare System in Ohio, for the treatment of COVID-19 from March 2020 to December 2022. RESULTS: 5241 patients were included in the analysis. For ICU days 2-7, the static (conventional) modelling approach, the accuracy of the models steadily decreased as a function of time, with area under the curve (AUC) for each health state below 0.8. But the dynamic forecasting approach improved its ability to predict as a function of time. AUC for the dynamic forecasting approach were all above 0.90 for ICU days 4-7 for all states. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that modelling critical care outcomes as a dynamic system improved the forecasting accuracy of the disease state. Our model accurately identified different disease conditions and trajectories, with a <10% misclassification rate over the first week of critical illness.

Hemodynamic profile of cirrhotic patients with sepsis and septic shock: A propensity score matched case-control study.

PURPOSE: Our understanding of hemodynamics in cirrhotic patients with sepsis remains limited. Our study aims to investigate differences in hemodynamic profiles using echocardiography between septic patients with and without cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-center, retrospective study of septic patients with echocardiogram within 3 days of ICU admission. We compared baseline characteristics, echocardiographic markers of LV systolic function arterial load between patients with and without cirrhosis. A propensity score-matched case-control model was developed to describe the differences in those echocardiography derived parameters between the groups. RESULTS: 3151 patients with sepsis were included of which 422 (13%) had cirrhosis. In the propensity score matched group with 828 patients, cirrhotic patients had significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction (64 vs.56%, p < 0.001) and stroke volume (72 vs.48 ml, p < 0.001) along with lower arterial elastance (Ea) (1.35 1vs.20.3, p < 0.001) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) (851 vs.1209 dynes/s/m-5, p = 0.001). The left ventricular elastance (Ees) (2.83 vs 2.45, p = 0.002) was higher and ventricular-arterial coupling (Ea/Ees) (0.48 vs. 0.86, p < 0.001) lower in cirrhotic compared to non-cirrhotic. CONCLUSIONS: Septic patients with cirrhosis had higher LVEF with lower Ea and SVR with higher Ees and significantly lower Ea/Ees suggesting vasodilation as the principal driver of the hyperdynamic profile in cirrhosis.

Prevalence and prognosis of hyperdynamic left ventricular systolic function in septic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The prevalence of hyperdynamic left ventricular (LV) systolic function in septic patients and its impact on mortality remain controversial. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the prevalence and association of hyperdynamic LV systolic function with mortality in patients with sepsis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Primary outcomes were the prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function in adult septic patients and the associated short-term mortality as compared to normal LV systolic function. Hyperdynamic LV systolic function was defined using LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of 70% as cutoff. Secondary outcomes were heart rate, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and E/e' ratio. RESULTS: Four studies were included, and the pooled prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function was 18.2% ([95% confidence interval (CI) 12.5, 25.8]; I2 = 7.0%, P < 0.0001). Hyperdynamic LV systolic function was associated with higher mortality: odds ratio of 2.37 [95%CI 1.47, 3.80]; I2 = 79%, P < 0.01. No difference was found in E/e' (P = 0.43) between normal and hyperdynamic LV systolic function, while higher values of heart rate (mean difference: 6.14 beats/min [95%CI 3.59, 8.69]; I2 = 51%, P < 0.0001) and LVEDD (mean difference: - 0.21 cm [95%CI - 0.33, - 0.09]; I2 = 73%, P < 0.001) were detected in patients with hyperdynamic LV systolic function. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of hyperdynamic LV systolic function is not negligible in septic patients. Such a finding is associated with significantly higher short-term mortality as compared to normal LV systolic function.

Hospital-Onset Sepsis Warrants Expanded Investigation and Consideration as a Unique Clinical Entity.

Sepsis causes more than a quarter million deaths among hospitalized adults in the United States each year. Although most cases of sepsis are present on admission, up to one-quarter of patients with sepsis develop this highly morbid and mortal condition while hospitalized. Compared with patients with community-onset sepsis (COS), patients with hospital-onset sepsis (HOS) are twice as likely to require mechanical ventilation and ICU admission, have more than two times longer ICU and hospital length of stay, accrue five times higher hospital costs, and are twice as likely to die. Patients with HOS differ from those with COS with respect to underlying comorbidities, admitting diagnosis, clinical manifestations of infection, and severity of illness. Despite the differences between these patient populations, patients with HOS sepsis are understudied and warrant expanded investigation. Here, we outline important knowledge gaps in the recognition and management of HOS in adults and propose associated research priorities for investigators. Of particular importance are questions regarding standardization of research and clinical case identification, understanding of clinical heterogeneity among patients with HOS, development of tailored management recommendations, identification of impactful prevention strategies, optimization of care delivery and quality metrics, identification and correction of disparities in care and outcomes, and how to ensure goal-concordant care for patients with HOS.

Position Paper on the Reporting of Norepinephrine Formulations in Critical Care from the Society of Critical Care Medicine and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Joint Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance on the reporting of norepinephrine formulation labeling, reporting in publications, and use in clinical practice. DESIGN: Review and task force position statements with necessary guidance. SETTING: A series of group conference calls were conducted from August 2023 to October 2023, along with a review of the available evidence and scope of the problem. SUBJECTS: A task force of multinational and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS: The implications of a variation in norepinephrine labeled as conjugated salt (i.e., bitartrate or tartrate) or base drug in terms of effective concentration of norepinephrine were examined, and guidance was provided. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were significant implications for clinical care, dose calculations for enrollment in clinical trials, and results of datasets reporting maximal norepinephrine equivalents. These differences were especially important in the setting of collaborative efforts across countries with reported differences. CONCLUSIONS: A joint task force position statement was created outlining the scope of norepinephrine-dose formulation variations, and implications for research, patient safety, and clinical care. The task force advocated for a uniform norepinephrine-base formulation for global use, and offered advice aimed at appropriate stakeholders.

Peripheral Administration of Norepinephrine: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Historically, norepinephrine has been administered through a central venous catheter (CVC) because of concerns about the risk of ischemic tissue injury if extravasation from a peripheral IV catheter (PIVC) occurs. Recently, several reports have suggested that peripheral administration of norepinephrine may be safe. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration safely reduce the number of days a CVC is in use and frequency of CVC placement? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in the medical ICU at a quaternary care academic medical center. A protocol for peripheral norepinephrine administration was developed and implemented in the medical ICU at the study site. The protocol was recommended for use in patients who met prespecified criteria, but was used at the treating clinician's discretion. All adult patients admitted to the medical ICU receiving norepinephrine through a PIVC from February 2019 through June 2021 were included. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the number of days of CVC use that were avoided per patient, and the secondary safety outcomes included the incidence of extravasation events. Six hundred thirty-five patients received peripherally administered norepinephrine. The median number of CVC days avoided per patient was 1 (interquartile range, 0-2 days per patient). Of the 603 patients who received norepinephrine peripherally as the first norepinephrine exposure, 311 patients (51.6%) never required CVC insertion. Extravasation of norepinephrine occurred in 35 patients (75.8 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion [95% CI, 52.8-105.4 events/1,000 d of PIVC infusion]). Most extravasations caused no or minimal tissue injury. No patient required surgical intervention. INTERPRETATION: This study suggests that implementing a protocol for peripheral administration of norepinephrine safely can avoid 1 CVC day in the average patient, with 51.6% of patients not requiring CVC insertion. No patient experienced significant ischemic tissue injury with the protocol used. These data support performance of a randomized, prospective, multicenter study to characterize the net benefits of peripheral norepinephrine administration compared with norepinephrine administration through a CVC.

Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support in Sepsis-Associated Cardiogenic Shock With and Without Acute Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current use and outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shocks with and without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock with and without AMI. INTERVENTIONS: Temporary MCSs, including intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusting for patient characteristics, organ failures, and socioeconomic status. Although the uses of IABP and pLVAD were associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock (IABP: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73, p < .001; pLVAD: aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45-0.98, p = .037), ECMO was not (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93-2.45, p = 0.096). In the subgroup with AMI, temporary MCSs were not associated with significantly lower or higher odds of in-hospital mortality. In the subgroup without AMI, IABP was associated with significantly lower odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.65, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although temporary MCS is deemed to be a feasible option in sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock, the selection of the right patients whose shock is driven mainly by cardiogenic shock rather than septic shock, as represented by low cardiac output and high systemic vascular resistance, plays a critical role in the feasibility of this approach in the absence of clinical trials.

Mortality in patients with septic cardiomyopathy identified by longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Septic cardiomyopathy is associated with poor outcomes but its definition remains unclear. In a previous meta-analysis, left ventricular (LV) longitudinal strain (LS) showed significant prognostic value in septic patients, but findings were not robust due to a limited number of studies, differences in effect size and no adjustment for confounders. METHODS: We conducted an updated systematic review (PubMed and Scopus up to 14.02.2023) and meta-analysis to investigate the association between LS and survival in septic patients. We included studies reporting global (from three apical views) or regional LS (one or two apical windows). A secondary analysis evaluated the association between LV ejection fraction (EF) and survival using data from the selected studies. RESULTS: We included fourteen studies (1678 patients, survival 69.6%) and demonstrated an association between better performance (more negative LS) and survival with a mean difference (MD) of -1.45%[-2.10, -0.80] (p < 0.0001;I2 = 42%). No subgroup differences were found stratifying studies according to number of views used to calculate LS (p = 0.31;I2 = 16%), severity of sepsis (p = 0.42;I2 = 0%), and sepsis criteria (p = 0.59;I2 = 0%). Trial sequential analysis and sensitivity analyses confirmed the primary findings. Grade of evidence was low. In the included studies, thirteen reported LVEF and we found an association between higher LVEF and survival (MD = 2.44% [0.44,4.45]; p = 0.02;I2 = 42%). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that more negative LS values are associated with higher survival in septic patients. The clinical relevance of this difference and whether the use of LS may improve understanding of septic cardiomyopathy and prognostication deserve further investigation. The association found between LVEF and survival is of unlikely clinical meaning. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42023432354.

INVASIVE HEMODYNAMIC MONITORING WITH PULMONARY ARTERY CATHETER IN SEPSIS-ASSOCIATED CARDIOGENIC SHOCK.

ABSTRACT: Background: Both sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy and worsening of preexisting cardiac disease can contribute to circulatory shock in septic patients. The early use of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) could play a pivotal role in the management of sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of early invasive hemodynamic monitoring with PAC in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock. Method: We performed a retrospective study using the National Inpatient Sample data from January 2017 to December 2019. The early use of PAC was defined as the use of PAC within 2 days from the admission. We performed the multivariable logistic regression analysis to investigate the association between the early use of PAC and in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock and sepsis without cardiogenic shock, respectively. Results: There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between PAC and no PAC groups in sepsis without cardiogenic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82-1.35, P = 691). On the other hand, the early use of PAC was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock (aOR = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.72, P < 0.001). The use of PAC was also associated with increased use of mechanical circulatory support in those with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock (aOR = 12.26, 95% CI = 9.37-16.03, P < 0.001). For patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock, the use of PAC after 2 days of admission was associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality and decreased use of mechanical circulatory support. Conclusion: The use of pulmonary artery catheters in sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality and increased use of mechanical circulatory supports in patients with sepsis-associated cardiogenic shock.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cardiac Point-of-Care Ultrasound in a Tertiary Medical Intensive Care Unit.

Objective: Critical care echocardiography (CCE) is a useful tool for managing critically ill patients in intensive care. However, concerns exist regarding the accuracy of CCE examinations because of operator dependence. We sought to evaluate the accuracy of CCE examinations compared with cardiology-performed transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). Design Setting and Subjects: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients in a medical ICU in a large academic medical center in the United States. We compared CCE examinations performed by a fellow and reviewed by a staff physician between May 5, 2020, and December 31, 2021, to TTE obtained within 24 hours of the CCE examination. Intervention Measurements and Main Results: We developed a standardized process for documentation of all CCE examinations performed in the medical ICU. We assessed agreement (kappa statistic), sensitivity and specificity of CCE examination compared with TTE. Features included left ventricle (LV) systolic function, right ventricle (RV) size, RV systolic function, pericardial effusion, mitral insufficiency, tricuspid insufficiency, and aortic insufficiency. The study analyzed 504 pairs of CCE and TTE examinations. Kappa statistics for detecting LV and RV systolic dysfunction, pericardial effusion, and RV size ranged from 0.60 to 0.74. CCE showed high sensitivity and specificity for detecting LV and RV systolic dysfunction and pericardial effusion, with values ranging from 0.85 to 0.99. The kappa statistic for detecting RV dilation was 0.59, with a sensitivity of 0.71 and a specificity of 0.85. In contrast, CCE examinations were nondiagnostic for mitral, tricuspid, or aortic insufficiency in 60-70% of cases, whereas TTE examinations were nondiagnostic in 20-30% of cases. Kappa statistics for mitral, tricuspid, and aortic insufficiency ranged from 0.32 to 0.42. Conclusions: CCE is a reliable tool for assessing LV and RV systolic function, pericardial effusion, and RV size. However, CCE may be limited in its ability to detect mitral, tricuspid, or aortic insufficiency.