A pragmatic lab-based tool for risk assessment in cardiac critical care: data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

AIMS: Contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) outcomes remain highly heterogeneous. As such, a risk-stratification tool using readily available lab data at time of CICU admission may help inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary derivation cohort included 4352 consecutive CICU admissions across 25 tertiary care CICUs included in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. Candidate lab indicators were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An integer risk score incorporating the top independent lab indicators associated with in-hospital mortality was developed. External validation was performed in a separate CICU cohort of 9716 patients from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). On multivariable analysis, lower pH [odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72-2.24], higher lactate (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22-1.62), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.45), and lower platelets (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32) were the top four independent lab indicators associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Incorporated into the CCCTN Lab-Based Risk Score, these four lab indicators identified a 20-fold gradient in mortality risk with very good discrimination (C-index 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84) in the derivation cohort. Validation of the risk score in a separate cohort of 3888 patients from the Registry demonstrated good performance (C-index of 0.82; 95% CI 0.80-0.84). Performance remained consistent in the external validation cohort (C-index 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.80). Calibration was very good in both validation cohorts (r = 0.99). CONCLUSION: A simple integer risk score utilizing readily available lab indicators at time of CICU admission may accurately stratify in-hospital mortality risk.

COVID-19 and Disruptive Modifications to Cardiac Critical Care Delivery: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a major unanticipated stress on the workforce, organizational structure, systems of care, and critical resource supplies. To ensure provider safety, to maximize efficiency, and to optimize patient outcomes, health systems need to be agile. Critical care cardiologists may be uniquely positioned to treat the numerous respiratory and cardiovascular complications of the SARS-CoV-2 and support clinicians without critical care training who may be suddenly asked to care for critically ill patients. This review draws upon the experiences of colleagues from heavily impacted regions of the United States and Europe, as well as lessons learned from military mass casualty medicine. This review offers pragmatic suggestions on how to implement scalable models for critical care delivery, cultivate educational tools for team training, and embrace technologies (e.g., telemedicine) to enable effective collaboration despite social distancing imperatives.

Clevidipine as a therapeutic and cost-effective alternative to sodium nitroprusside in patients with acute aortic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Sodium nitroprusside is the preferred agent for the treatment of high blood pressure during acute aortic syndrome if blood pressure remains elevated after heart rate control with beta-blockers. The increasing cost of sodium nitroprusside in the USA led us to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous clevidipine, a calcium channel blocker with quick onset of action, short half-life and significantly lower costs than sodium nitroprusside, in patients presenting with acute aortic syndrome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic Cardiac Intensive Care Unit from 2013-2016 with a diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome. Patients who received intravenous sodium nitroprusside were compared with those receiving intravenous clevidipine. The primary outcome was a significant difference in blood pressure at one, three and six hours. Secondary outcomes included time to achieving blood pressure target and in hospital mortality with rates of hypotension and bradycardia as safety endpoints. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with suspected acute aortic pathology received clevidipine and 50 received sodium nitroprusside. Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar in both groups, except for a higher incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the clevidipine group and for a trend towards higher use of labetalol in the clevidipine group. There were no significant differences in blood pressure or heart rate at one, three and six hours after starting either infusion. The rates of hypotension, bradycardia and in-hospital mortality did not differ. Time to achieve blood pressure control were also similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Intravenous clevidipine appears to be a safe and effective alternative to sodium nitroprusside for the management of high blood pressure during acute aortic dissection. In the USA, clevidipine could represent a cost effective therapy providing similar outcomes than sodium nitroprusside.