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.

Standardized Data Elements for Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Consensus Report From the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative.

Recent advances in therapy and the promulgation of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism teams show great promise to improve management and outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the absence of randomized evidence and lack of consensus leads to tremendous variations in treatment and compromises the wide implementation of new innovations. Moreover, the changing landscape of health care, where quality, cost, and accountability are increasingly relevant, dictates that a broad spectrum of outcomes of care must be routinely monitored to fully capture the impact of modern PE treatment. We set out to standardize data collection in patients with PE undergoing evaluation and treatment, and thus establish the foundation for an expanding evidence base that will address gaps in evidence and inform future care for acute PE. To do so, >100 international PE thought leaders convened in Washington, DC, in April 2022 to form the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative. Participants included physician experts, key members of the US Food and Drug Administration, patient representatives, and industry leaders. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of PE care, the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative was created with representative experts from stakeholder medical subspecialties, including cardiology, pulmonology, vascular medicine, critical care, hematology, cardiac surgery, emergency medicine, hospital medicine, and pharmacology. A list of critical evidence gaps was composed with a matching comprehensive set of standardized data elements; these data points will provide a foundation for productive research, knowledge enhancement, and advancement of clinical care within the field of acute PE, and contribute to answering urgent unmet needs in PE management. Evidence produced through the Pulmonary Embolism Research Collaborative, as it is applied to data collection, promises to provide crucial knowledge that will ultimately produce a robust evidence base that will lead to standardization and harmonization of PE management and improved outcomes.

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.

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Epidemiology of Acute Heart Failure in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Acute heart failure (HF) is an important complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been hypothesized to relate to inflammatory activation. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive intensive care unit (ICU) admissions for COVID-19 across 6 centers in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, identifying patients with vs without acute HF. Acute HF was subclassified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic, based on the absence or presence of prior HF. Clinical features, biomarker profiles and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Of 901 admissions to an ICU due to COVID-19, 80 (8.9%) had acute HF, including 18 (2.0%) with classic cardiogenic shock (CS) and 37 (4.1%) with vasodilatory CS. The majority (n = 45) were de novo HF presentations. Compared to patients without acute HF, those with acute HF had higher cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide levels and similar inflammatory biomarkers; patients with de novo HF had the highest cardiac troponin levels. Notably, among patients critically ill with COVID-19, illness severity (median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, 8 [IQR, 5-10] vs 6 [4-9]; P = 0.025) and mortality rates (43.8% vs 32.4%; P = 0.040) were modestly higher in patients with vs those without acute HF. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients critically ill with COVID-19, acute HF is distinguished more by biomarkers of myocardial injury and hemodynamic stress than by biomarkers of inflammation.

The shock team: a multidisciplinary approach to early patient phenotyping and appropriate care escalation in cardiogenic shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a highly morbid condition with mortality remaining greater than 30% despite improved pathophysiologic understanding and access to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In response, shock teams modeled on successful multidisciplinary care structures for other diseases are being implemented nationwide. RECENT FINDINGS: Primary data supporting a benefit of shock team implementation on patient outcomes are relatively limited and entirely observational. Four single-center before-and-after studies and one multicenter registry study have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with CS, potentially driven by increased pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) utilization and earlier (and more appropriate) initiation of MCS. Shock teams are also supported by a growing body of literature recognizing the independent benefit of the interventions they seek to implement, including patient phenotyping with PAC use and an algorithmic approach to CS care. Though debated, MCS is also highly likely to improve CS outcomes when applied appropriately, which further supports a multidisciplinary shock team approach to patient and device selection. SUMMARY: Shock teams likely improve patient outcomes by facilitating early patient phenotyping and appropriate intervention. Institutions should strongly consider adopting a multidisciplinary shock team approach to CS care, though additional data supporting these interventions are needed.

De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation.

Approach to Ventricular Arrhythmias in the Intensive Care Unit.

Arrhythmias are commonly encountered in the intensive care unit as a primary admitting diagnosis or secondary to an acute illness. Appropriate identification and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias in this setting are particularly important to reduce morbidity and mortality. This review highlights the epidemiology, mechanisms, electrocardiographic features, and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Incidence, underlying conditions, and outcomes of patients receiving acute renal replacement therapies in tertiary cardiac intensive care units: An analysis from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of renal disease in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is increasing, but little is known about the utilization, concurrent therapies, and outcomes of patients requiring acute renal replacement therapy (RRT) in this specialized environment. METHODS: In the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, 16 centers submitted data on CICU admissions including acute RRT (defined as continuous renal replacement therapy and/or acute intermittent dialysis). RESULTS: Among 2,985 admissions, 178 (6.0%; interhospital range 1.0%-16.0%) received acute RRT. Patients receiving RRT, versus not, were more commonly admitted for cardiogenic shock (15.7% vs 4.2%, P < .01), cardiac arrest (9.6% vs 3.7%, P < .01), and acute general medical diagnoses (10.7% vs 5.8%, P < .01), whereas acute coronary syndromes (16.9% vs 32.1%, P < .01) were less frequent. Variables independently associated with acute RRT included diabetes, heart failure, liver disease, severe valvular disease, shock, cardiac arrest, hypertension, and younger age. In patients receiving acute RRT, versus not, advanced therapies including mechanical ventilation (55.6% vs 18.0%), vasoactive support (73.0% vs 35.2%), invasive hemodynamic monitoring (59.6% vs 29.2%), and mechanical circulatory support (27.5% vs 8.4%) were more common. Acute RRT was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (42.1% vs 9.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.74, 95% CI, 2.52-5.53) and longer median length of stay (10.0 vs 5.3 days, P < .01). In conclusion, acute RRT in contemporary CICUs was associated with the provision of other advanced therapies and lower survival. CONCLUSIONS: These data underscore the risks associated with the provision of renal support in patients with primary cardiovascular problems and the need to develop standardized indications and potential futility measures in this specialized population.

Neurogenic Stunned Myocardium in Severe Neurological Injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neurogenic stunned myocardium (NSM) is a poorly recognized cardiac manifestation of neurological illness. This review addresses the contemporary understanding of NSM pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis, and clinical management. RECENT FINDINGS: While the precise pathophysiology and diagnosis remain unclear, NSM is phenotypically atypical stress cardiomyopathy that can be partially attributed to excess catecholaminergic toxicity. NSM is a diagnosis of exclusion where electrocardiography, echocardiography, and cardiac biomarkers are frequently abnormal. Clinical expertise is crucial to evaluate and differentiate NSM from acute coronary syndrome and in the evaluation of potential cardiac transplantation donors after unsalvageable severe neurological injury. Neurogenic stunned myocardium is a relatively common and clinically impactful condition. More research is needed, particularly to refine clinical prognostication of NSM and rule out intrinsic cardiac injury in order to optimize donor candidacy in the event of brain death.

Procalcitonin predicts mortality in HIV-infected Ugandan adults with lower respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In low and middle-income countries where HIV infection is prevalent, identifying patients at high risk of dying from lower respiratory tract infections is challenging and validated prognostic models are lacking. Serum procalcitonin may be a useful prognostic tool in these settings. We sought to determine if elevated serum procalcitonin is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and to combine serum procalcitonin with available clinical characteristics to create a clinically useful prognostic model. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, nested case-control study of 241 HIV-infected adults admitted to Mulago Hospital in Kampala, Uganda with cough ≥2 weeks in duration. We collected demographic and clinical information, baseline serum for procalcitonin analysis, and followed patients to determine in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Serum procalcitonin was a strong and independent predictor of inpatient mortality (aOR = 7.69, p = 0.01, sensitivity = 93%, negative predictive value = 97%). Best subset multivariate analysis identified 3 variables that were combined into a prognostic model to risk stratify patients; these variables included respiratory rate ≥30 breaths/minute (aOR = 2.07, p = 0.11), oxygen saturation <90% (aOR = 3.07, p = 0.02), and serum procalcitonin >0.5 ng/ml (aOR = 7.69, p = 0.01). The predicted probability of inpatient mortality ranged from 1% when no variables were present, to 42% when all variables were present. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated serum procalcitonin >0.5 ng/ml is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. Elevated serum procalcitonin, tachypnea, and hypoxemia may be combined into a prognostic model to identify patients at high risk of dying in the hospital. This model may be used to estimate the probability of death and to guide triage and treatment decisions.

Hemodynamic predictors of mortality in adults with sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) is associated with early mortality, but no prior studies have evaluated quantitative relationships of mortality to physiological measures of pre- and postcapillary PH. OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors associated with mortality and to estimate the expected survival in a cohort of patients with SCD with PH documented by right heart catheterization. METHODS: Nine-year follow-up data (median, 4.7 yr) from the National Institutes of Health SCD PH screening study are reported. A total of 529 adults with SCD were screened by echocardiography between 2001 and 2010 with no exclusion criteria. Hemodynamic data were collected from 84 patients. PH was defined as mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) ≥ 25 mm Hg. Survival rates were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and mortality risk factors were analyzed by the Cox proportional hazards regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Specific hemodynamic variables were independently related to mortality: mean PAP (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-2.45 per 10 mm Hg increase; P = 0.027), diastolic PAP (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.09-3.08 per 10 mm Hg increase; P = 0.022), diastolic PAP - pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.23-3.89 per 10 mm Hg increase; P = 0.008), transpulmonary gradient (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.14-2.79 per 10 mm Hg increase; P = 0.011), and pulmonary vascular resistance (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.89 per Wood unit increase; P = 0.009) as risk factors for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality in adults with SCD and PH is proportional to the physiological severity of precapillary PH, demonstrating its prognostic and clinical relevance despite anemia-induced high cardiac output and less severely elevated pulmonary vascular resistance.

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.

Outcomes for Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Admitted to Medical vs Cardiac Intensive Care Units.

Background: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains a common reason for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). However, there is limited data comparing outcomes for patients with AMI admitted to specific ICUs. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess clinical outcomes between patients with AMI requiring invasive mechanical ventilation admitted to the medical ICU (MICU) compared to cardiac (CICU). Methods: We utilized the Vizient Clinical Data Base to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of AMI between October 2015 and December 2019 and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared clinical outcomes for patients admitted to the MICU vs CICU. Results: We identified 12,639 patients, 25.2% (n = 3,185) of which were admitted to a MICU and 74.8% (n = 9,454) to a CICU. Patients admitted to a CICU were more likely to present with STEMI (57.0% vs 42.8%), cardiogenic shock (46.0% vs 37.4%), and require mechanical circulatory support and vasoactive medications (all, P < 0.001). Median ventilator days were 4 days in both ICUs and not statistically different after multivariable adjustment (P = 0.81). In-hospital mortality was 42.7% compared to 41.3% for MICU vs CICU admissions, respectively (P = 0.15). After multivariable adjustment, CICU admission was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93, P = 0.001), which persisted when stratified by cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, STEMI, largest hospital size (>750 beds), and teaching hospitals (all, P < 0.05). Conclusions: Admission to the CICU, as compared to MICU, was associated with lower in-hospital mortality for patients with AMI. These findings may support optimal triage of critically ill patients with AMI.

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.

Contemporary Training in American Critical Care Cardiology: Minnesota Critical Care Cardiology Education Summit: JACC Scientific Expert Panel.

This consensus statement emerges from collaborative efforts among leading figures in critical care cardiology throughout the United States, who met to share their collective expertise on issues faced by those active in or pursuing contemporary critical care cardiology education. The panel applied fundamentals of adult education and curriculum design, reviewed requisite training necessary to provide high-quality care to critically ill patients with cardiac pathology, and devoted attention to a purposeful approach emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in developing this nascent field. The resulting paper offers a comprehensive guide for current trainees, with insights about the present landscape of critical care cardiology while highlighting issues that need to be addressed for continued advancement. By delineating future directions with careful consideration and intentionality, this Expert Panel aims to facilitate the continued growth and maturation of critical care cardiology education and practice.

Epidemiology of cardiogenic shock using the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) consensus definitions.

AIMS: The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017-23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.