Cardiogenic Shock in Older Adults: A Focus on Age-Associated Risks and Approach to Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

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.

Management of the peri-intubation period in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension and respiratory failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The endotracheal intubation of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in respiratory distress is a highly morbid procedure that can precipitate hemodynamic collapse. Here we review our strategy for confronting this difficult clinical situation. RECENT FINDINGS: There are no clinical trials that explore best practices in the management of patients with PAH and respiratory failure. Here we provide a practical approach to respiratory support, inopressor and pulmonary vasodilator selection, hemodynamic considerations, point-of-care ultrasound monitoring, and endotracheal intubation in patients with PAH in respiratory failure.

Training Paradigms in Critical Care Cardiology: A Scoping Review of Current Literature.

Background: Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training. Objective: To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Methods: We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected. Results: Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards. Conclusions: In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Continuum of Preshock to Classic Cardiogenic Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic implications of phenotypes along the preshock to cardiogenic shock (CS) continuum remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to better characterize pre- or early shock and normotensive CS phenotypes and examine outcomes compared to those with conventional CS. METHODS: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a registry of contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Consecutive admissions (N = 28,703 across 47 sites) meeting specific criteria based on hemodynamic variables, perfusion parameters, and investigator-reported CS were classified into 1 of 4 groups or none: isolated low cardiac output (CO), heart failure with isolated hypotension, normotensive CS, or SCAI (Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention) stage C CS. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and incidence of subsequent hypoperfusion among pre- and early shock states. RESULTS: A total of 2,498 admissions were assigned to the 4 groups with the following distribution: 4.8% isolated low CO, 4.4% isolated hypotension, 12.1% normotensive CS, and 78.7% SCAI stage C CS. Overall in-hospital mortality was 21.3% (95% CI: 19.7%-23.0%), with a gradient across phenotypes (isolated low CO 3.6% [95% CI: 1.0%-9.0%]; isolated hypotension 11.0% [95% CI: 6.9%-16.6%]; normotensive CS 17.0% [95% CI 13.0%-21.8%]; SCAI stage C CS 24.0% [95% CI: 22.1%-26.0%]; global P < 0.001). Among those with an isolated low CO and isolated hypotension on admission, 47 (42.3%) and 56 (30.9%) subsequently developed hypoperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: In a large contemporary registry of cardiac critical illness, there exists a gradient of mortality for phenotypes along the preshock to CS continuum with risk for subsequent worsening of preshock states. These data may inform refinement of CS definitions and severity staging.

Interhospital Variation in Admissions Managed With Critical Care Therapies or Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Tertiary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

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.