Organization of intensive cardiac care units in Europe: Results of a multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: The present survey aims to describe the intensive cardiac care unit organization and admission policies in Europe. METHODS: A total of 228 hospitals (61% academic) from 27 countries participated in this survey. In addition to the organizational aspects of the intensive cardiac care units, including classification of the intensive cardiac care unit levels, data on the admission diagnoses were gathered from consecutive patients who were admitted during a two-day period. Admission policies were evaluated by comparing illness severity with the intensive cardiac care unit level. Gross national income was used to differentiate high-income countries (n=13) from middle-income countries (n=14). RESULTS: A total of 98% of the hospitals had an intensive cardiac care unit: 70% had a level 1 intensive cardiac care unit, 76% had a level 2 intensive cardiac care unit, 51% had a level 3 intensive cardiac care unit, and 60% of the hospitals had more than one intensive cardiac care unit level. High-income countries tended to have more level 3 intensive cardiac care units than middle-income countries (55% versus 41%, p=0.07). A total of 5159 admissions were scored on illness severity: 63% were low severity, 24% were intermediate severity, and 12% were high severity. Patients with low illness severity were predominantly admitted to level 1 intensive cardiac care units, whereas patients with high illness severity were predominantly admitted to level 2 and 3 intensive cardiac care units. A policy mismatch was observed in 12% of the patients; some patients with high illness severity were admitted to level 1 intensive cardiac care units, which occurred more often in middle-income countries, whereas some patients with low illness severity were admitted to level 3 intensive cardiac care units, which occurred more frequently in high-income countries. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of the admitted patients were considered intermediate or high risk. Although patients with higher illness severity were mostly admitted to high-level intensive cardiac care units, an admission policy mismatch was observed in 12% of the patients; this mismatch was partly related to insufficient logistic intensive cardiac care unit capacity.

Prophylactic use of an intra-aortic balloon pump in a high-risk patient with peripartum cardiomyopathy requiring cesarean delivery.

The use of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation for circulatory support in pregnant women with cardiac failure is limited to several case reports. Few publications have addressed the use of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation during delivery. We report a case using prophylactic intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation during the management of a cesarean delivery in a patient with peripartum cardiomyopathy. A 28-year-old primigravid female at 37weeks of gestation was admitted with signs of worsening heart failure, and transthoracic echocardiography revealed a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction of 25%. A plan to proceed with cesarean delivery, using hemodynamic support with intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation, was made during a multidisciplinary meeting. Shortly after initiation of intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation, the patient's hemodynamics improved, with a decrease in heart rate and an increase in mean arterial blood pressure. After uneventful cesarean delivery of a healthy 3.2kg infant, the patient was transferred to intensive care and was extubated three hours later. Due to hemodynamic instability, intra-aortic balloon counter-pulsation support and vasopressor infusion were maintained for four postoperative days. The patient was discharged from the hospital on diuretics and beta-blocker treatment after 20days. Heart failure persisted, requiring heart transplantation 25months later. This report highlights the role of a multidisciplinary team approach in the management of delivery in an obstetric patient with peripartum cardiomyopathy.