Cardiac Tamponade and Pericardiocentesis: Recognition, Standard Techniques, and Modern Advancements.

Pericardiocentesis is an important diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. In the setting of cardiac tamponade, pericardiocentesis can rapidly improve hemodynamics, and in cases of diagnostic uncertainty, pericardiocentesis allows for fluid analysis to aid in diagnosis. In contemporary practice, the widespread availability of ultrasonography has made echocardiographic guidance the standard of care. Additional tools such as micropuncture technique, live ultrasonographic guidance, and adjunctive tools including fluoroscopy continue to advance and enhance procedural efficiency and safety. When performed by experienced operators, pericardiocentesis is a safe, effective, and potentially life-saving procedure.

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.

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.

New-onset atrial fibrillation among COVID-19 patients: A narrative review.

Over the last three years, research has focused on examining cardiac issues arising from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, including the emergence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF). Still, no clinical study was conducted on the persistence of this arrhythmia after COVID-19 recovery. Our objective was to compose a narrative review that investigates COVID-19-associated NOAF, emphasizing the evolving pathophysiological mechanisms akin to those suggested for sustaining AF. Given the distinct strategies involved in the persistence of atrial AF and the crucial burden of persistent AF, we aim to underscore the importance of extended follow-up for COVID-19-associated NOAF. A comprehensive search was conducted for articles published between December 2019 and February 11, 2023, focusing on similarities in the pathophysiology of NOAF after COVID-19 and those persisting AF. Also, the latest data on incidence, morbidity-mortality, and management of NOAF in COVID-19 were investigated. Considerable overlaps between the mechanisms of emerging NOAF after COVID-19 infection and persistent AF were observed, mostly involving reactive oxygen pathways. With potential atrial remodeling associated with NOAF in COVID-19 patients, this group of patients might benefit from long-term follow-up and different management. Future cohort studies could help determine long-term outcomes of NOAF after COVID-19.

Cardiac Critical Care: The Evolution of a Novel Subspecialty.

Driven by evolving patient demographics and disease burdens over the past several decades, the demands placed on the cardiac intensive care unit have steadily increased. Originally born out of the need for post-infarction arrhythmia monitoring, the modern cardiac intensive care space is now encountering progressively more complex patients with multisystem organ failure and, increasingly, complex mechanical circulatory support. This complexity has fueled a demand for specifically trained cardiac intensivists, and many different training pathways have emerged nationwide. In this article, we provide an overview of the evolution, landscape, training, and future of the subspecialty of cardiac critical care.

The Road Not Yet Traveled: Distinction in Critical Care Cardiology through the Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Training Pathway.

As the acuity, complexity, and illness severity of patients admitted to cardiac intensive care units have increased, the need to recognize critical care cardiology (CCC) as a dedicated subspecialty in cardiovascular disease has received increasing support. Differing viewpoints exist regarding the optimal pathway for CCC training. Currently, all proposed CCC training pathways involve permutations of individual training years culminating in subspecialty certification across multiple disciplines; however, there are significant disadvantages to these training paradigms. We propose an innovative, pragmatic approach to CCC training through tailored subspecialty training in advanced heart failure and transplant cardiology (AHFTC), using elective time to enrich AHFTC training with skills and experiences necessary to become a highly skilled critical care cardiologist. The completion of this pathway would lead to completion of AHFTC training with a novel designation: distinction in critical care cardiology.

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.

Predicted Coronary Occlusion and Impella Salvage During Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

We describe an interesting case of a 71 years old fragile female, with progressive shortness of breath on exertion and ankle swelling, cardiac failure NYHA class III. She also had chest irradiation due to Hodgkin's disease many years before, previous surgical aortic valve replacement using bioprosthetic stent-less Freestyle #25 mm valve (Medtronic, Inc) in 2000 for severe aortic stenosis, history of cardiac arrest in 2012 and angioplasty to ostial RCA, PCI to ostial RCA in 2014, CABG (RA graft to RCA) in 2014 (RCA intra-stent restenosis with refractory ischemia), anemia requiring regular transfusions, bronchiectasis and chronic kidney disease. Because of the great comorbidities, STS 4.9% and worsening of the symptoms due to severe aortic valve regurgitation, heart team decided to perform "valve-in-valve" Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (VIV-TAVR), but we already predicted coronary occlusion while performing this procedure because of the low left main coronary ostium and short aortic valve sinus. So regarding the probable left main coronary occlusion during the valve implantation, we decided to perform the placement of a not deployed stent inside the left main prior to the valve procedure, and to deploy it in case the predicted left main occlusion occurred. So just after the VIV-TAVR procedure, we observed left main coronary occlusion and the patient got ischemic cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, so we performed immediate PCI and deployed the bailout stent. After some minutes of chest compressions, an Impella mechanical circulatory support system (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) had to be installed. Patient recovered spontaneous circulation, and after hemodynamic stabilization, she was sent to the Intensive Coronary Unit, without further complications. She was discharged successfully without neurological or cardiac sequelae after 1 week.

Lupus and Left Ventricular Assist Devices: High-Risk for Bleeding?

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have become an increasingly utilized treatment strategy for patients with end-stage heart failure. Despite the improved outcomes evident with current generation pumps, proper patient selection remains crucial to minimize the risk of potential adverse events. The evolving use of these devices as destination therapy (DT) has led to growing numbers of patients with higher risk comorbid conditions being evaluated as potential LVAD candidates. Understanding which patient and disease-specific characteristics increase postoperative morbidity and mortality is paramount as this technology continues to expand and the experience with select populations remains limited. Presented here is a case of a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus receiving a HeartWare LVAD as DT complicated by recurrent, diffuse spontaneous bleeding. The case presented here highlights a potential unique bleeding complication in a high-risk patient cohort and underscores the need to enhance our understanding of factors influencing outcomes in high-risk populations after LVAD therapy.