Patient-Centered Adult Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Patient-centered care is gaining widespread acceptance by the medical and lay communities and is increasingly recognized as a goal of high-quality health care delivery. Patient-centered care is based on ethical principles and aims at establishing a partnership between the health care team and patient, family member, or both in the care planning and decision-making process. Patient-centered care involves providing respectful care by tailoring management decisions to patients' beliefs, preferences, and values. A collaborative care approach can enhance patient engagement, foster shared decision-making that aligns with patient values and goals, promote more personalized and effective cardiovascular care, and potentially improve patient outcomes. The objective of this scientific statement is to inform health care professionals and stakeholders about the role and impact of patient-centered care in adult cardiovascular medicine. This scientific statement describes the background and rationale for patient-centered care in cardiovascular medicine, provides insight into patient-oriented medication management and patient-reported outcome measures, highlights opportunities and strategies to overcome challenges in patient-centered care, and outlines knowledge gaps and future directions.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Clinical Practice Update on Optimal Post Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Cardiac Arrest Patient Care.

Survival to hospital discharge among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is low and important regional differences in treatment practices and survival have been described. Since the 2017 publication of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society's position statement on OHCA care, multiple randomized controlled trials have helped to better define optimal post cardiac arrest care. This working group provides updated guidance on the timing of cardiac catheterization in patients with ST-elevation and without ST-segment elevation, on a revised temperature control strategy targeting normothermia instead of hypothermia, blood pressure, oxygenation, and ventilation parameters, and on the treatment of rhythmic and periodic electroencephalography patterns in patients with a resuscitated OHCA. In addition, prehospital trials have helped craft new expert opinions on antiarrhythmic strategies (amiodarone or lidocaine) and outline the potential role for double sequential defibrillation in patients with refractory cardiac arrest when equipment and training is available. Finally, we advocate for regionalized OHCA care systems with admissions to a hospital capable of integrating their post OHCA care with comprehensive on-site cardiovascular services and provide guidance on the potential role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with refractory cardiac arrest. We believe that knowledge translation through national harmonization and adoption of contemporary best practices has the potential to improve survival and functional outcomes in the OHCA population.

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.

Prognostic significance of haemodynamic parameters in patients with cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Invasive haemodynamic assessment with a pulmonary artery catheter is often used to guide the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and may provide important prognostic information. We aimed to assess prognostic associations and relationships to end-organ dysfunction of presenting haemodynamic parameters in CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Patients with CS (2018-2022) who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment within 24 h of CICU admission were included. Associations of haemodynamic parameters with in-hospital mortality were assessed using logistic regression, and associations with presenting serum lactate were assessed using least squares means regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients on temporary mechanical circulatory support and adjusted for vasoactive-inotropic score. Among the 3603 admissions with CS, 1473 had haemodynamic data collected within 24 h of CICU admission. The median cardiac index was 1.9 (25th-75th percentile, 1.6-2.4) L/min/m2 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 74 (66-86) mmHg. Parameters associated with mortality included low MAP, low systolic blood pressure, low systemic vascular resistance, elevated right atrial pressure (RAP), elevated RAP/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, and low pulmonary artery pulsatility index. These associations were generally consistent when controlling for the intensity of background pharmacologic and mechanical haemodynamic support. These parameters were also associated with higher presenting serum lactate. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary CS population, presenting haemodynamic parameters reflecting decreased systemic arterial tone and right ventricular dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes and systemic hypoperfusion.

Clinician and Algorithmic Application of the 2019 and 2022 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Stages in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Algorithmic application of the 2019 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages effectively stratifies mortality risk for patients with cardiogenic shock. However, clinician assessment of SCAI staging may differ. Moreover, the implications of the 2022 SCAI criteria update remain incompletely defined. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). Between 2019 and 2021, participating centers (n=32) contributed at least a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. In-hospital mortality was assessed across 3 separate staging methods: clinician assessment, Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network algorithmic application of the 2019 SCAI criteria, and a revision of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network application using the 2022 SCAI criteria. RESULTS: Of 9612 admissions, 1340 (13.9%) presented with cardiogenic shock with in-hospital mortality of 35.2%. Both clinician and algorithm-based staging using the 2019 SCAI criteria identified a stepwise gradient of mortality risk (stage C-E: 19.0% to 83.7% and 14.6% to 52.2%, respectively; Ptrend<0.001 for each). Clinician assignment of SCAI stages identified higher risk patients compared with algorithm-based assignment (stage D: 49.9% versus 29.3%; stage E: 83.7% versus 52.2%). Algorithmic application of the 2022 SCAI criteria, with incorporation of the vasoactive-inotropic score, more closely approximated clinician staging (mortality for stage C-E: 21.9% to 70.5%; Ptrend<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both clinician and algorithm-based application of the 2019 SCAI stages identify a stepwise gradient of mortality risk, although clinician-staging may better allocate higher risk patients into advanced SCAI stages. Updated algorithmic staging using the 2022 SCAI criteria and vasoactive-inotropic score further refines risk stratification.

Family Presence on Rounds in Adult Critical Care: A Scoping Review.

Family presence on rounds involves allowing family members to participate in daily healthcare team rounds and is recommended by critical care professional societies. Yet, family presence on rounds is not performed in many institutions. There is a need to synthesize the current evidence base for this practice to inform healthcare providers of the potential benefits and challenges of this approach. The main objective of this study was to explore the impact of family presence on adult ICU rounds on family and healthcare providers. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases were last searched on January 28, 2022. Studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. STUDY SELECTION: Studies involving family presence during rounds that included family or healthcare provider perspectives or outcomes were selected. There were no limitations on study design. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative family and provider perspectives, barriers and challenges to family presence, and study outcomes were extracted from studies. The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis published guidelines were followed. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 16 studies included. Family reported family presence on rounds as a means of information transfer and an opportunity to ask care-related questions. Family presence on rounds was associated with increased family satisfaction with care, physician comfort, and improved physician-family relationship. Healthcare providers reported a positive perception of family presence on rounds but were concerned about patient confidentiality and perceived efficacy of rounds. Family presence was found to increase rounding time and was felt to negatively impact teaching and opportunities for academic discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Family presence on rounds has potential advantages for family and healthcare providers, but important challenges exist. Further studies are needed to understand how to best implement family presence on adult ICU rounds.

Engaging Families in Adult Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Family engagement empowers family members to become active partners in care delivery. Family members increasingly expect and wish to participate in care and be involved in the decision-making process. The goal of engaging families in care is to improve the care experience to achieve better outcomes for both patients and family members. There is emerging evidence that engaging family members in care improves person- and family-important outcomes. Engaging families in adult cardiovascular care involves a paradigm shift in the current organization and delivery of both acute and chronic cardiac care. Many cardiovascular health care professionals have limited awareness of the role and potential benefits of family engagement in care. Additionally, many fail to identify opportunities to engage family members. There is currently little guidance on family engagement in any aspect of cardiovascular care. The objective of this statement is to inform health care professionals and stakeholders about the importance of family engagement in cardiovascular care. This scientific statement will describe the rationale for engaging families in adult cardiovascular care, outline opportunities and challenges, highlight knowledge gaps, and provide suggestions to cardiovascular clinicians on how to integrate family members into the health care team.

Association of Surrogate Decision-making Interventions for Critically Ill Adults With Patient, Family, and Resource Use Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Physicians often rely on surrogate decision-makers (SDMs) to make important decisions on behalf of critically ill patients during times of incapacity. It is uncertain whether targeted interventions to improve surrogate decision-making in the intensive care unit (ICU) reduce nonbeneficial treatment and improve SDM comprehension, satisfaction, and psychological morbidity. Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the association of such interventions with patient- and family-centered outcomes and resource use. Data Sources: A search was conducted of MEDLINE, Embase, and other relevant databases for potentially relevant studies from inception through May 30, 2018. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials studying interventions that were targeted at SDMs or family members of critically ill adults in the ICU were included. Key search terms included surrogate or substitute decision-maker, critically ill, randomized controlled trials, and their respective related terms. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two independent, blinded reviewers independently screened citations and extracted data. Random effects models with inverse variance weighting were used to pool outcomes data when possible and otherwise present findings qualitatively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were divided into 3 categories: (1) patient-related clinical outcomes (mortality, length of stay [LOS], duration of life-sustaining therapies), (2) SDM and family-related outcomes (comprehension, major change in goals of care, incident psychological comorbidities [posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression], and satisfaction with care), and (3) use of resources (cost of care and health care resource use). Results: Of 3735 studies screened, 13 RCTs were included, comprising a total of 10 453 patients. Interventions were categorized as health care professional led (n = 6), ethics consultation (n = 3), palliative care consultation (n = 2), and media (n = 1 pamphlet and 1 video). No association with mortality was observed (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.98-1.08; P = .22). Intensive care unit LOS was significantly shorter among patients who died (mean difference, -2.11 days; 95% CI, -4.16 to -0.07; P = .04), but not in the overall population (mean difference, -0.79 days; 95% CI, -2.33 to 0.76 days; P = .32). There was no consistent difference in SDM-related outcomes, including satisfaction with care or perceived quality of care (n = 6 studies) and incident psychological comorbidities (depression: ratio of means, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.08; P = .26; anxiety: ratio of means, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.08; P = .31; or posttraumatic stress disorder: ratio of means: -0.04; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.13; P = .65). Among 6 trials reporting effects on health care resource use, only 1 nurse-led intervention observed a significant reduction in costs ($75 850 control vs $51 060 intervention; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Systematic interventions aimed at improving surrogate decision-making for critically ill adults may reduce ICU LOS among patients who die in the ICU, without influencing overall mortality. Better understanding of the complex processes related to surrogate decision-making is needed.

Outcomes of Patient- and Family-Centered Care Interventions in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient- and family-centered care interventions in the ICU improve outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until December 1, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: We included articles involving patient- and family-centered care interventions and quantitative, patient- and family-important outcomes in adult ICUs. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted the author, year of publication, study design, population, setting, primary domain investigated, intervention, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 46 studies (35 observational pre/post, 11 randomized) included in the analysis. Seventy-eight percent of studies (n = 36) reported one or more positive outcome measures, whereas 22% of studies (n = 10) reported no significant changes in outcome measures. Random-effects meta-analysis of the highest quality randomized studies showed no significant difference in mortality (n = 5 studies; odds ratio = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.95-1.21; p = 0.27; I = 0%), but there was a mean decrease in ICU length of stay by 1.21 days (n = 3 studies; 95% CI, -2.25 to -0.16; p = 0.02; I = 26%). Improvements in ICU costs, family satisfaction, patient experience, medical goal achievement, and patient and family mental health outcomes were also observed with intervention; however, reported outcomes were heterogeneous precluding formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patient- and family-centered care-focused interventions resulted in decreased ICU length of stay but not mortality. A wide range of interventions were also associated with improvements in many patient- and family-important outcomes. Additional high-quality interventional studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of patient- and family-centered care in the intensive care setting.