Vasopressors and Inotropes as Predictors of Mortality in Acute Severe Cardiogenic Shock Treated With the Impella Device.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors and inotropes are the primary pharmacologic agents in the management of cardiogenic shock. Increased use of these agents in the setting of cardiogenic shock treated with the Impella is associated with increased mortality. This study evaluates the use of vasopressors and inotropes as predictors of mortality in patients treated with the Impella for acute cardiogenic shock. METHODS: This retrospective study included 276 patients treated with the Impella 2.5, Impella CP, or Impella 5.0 from March 2011 to January 2020 at a single, tertiary referral center for acute cardiogenic shock. RESULTS: All-cause in-hospital mortality was 44.6%. Mortality significantly increased with escalating use of vasopressors and inotropes, with the most significant increase in mortality from use of 2 agents to the use of 3 agents (8.1% vs 39.7%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality whether dobutamine or milrinone was used (44.4% vs 35.7%, p = 0.41); there was increased mortality with use of multiple inotropes. Patients treated with only vasopressors had increased mortality compared to those treated with a combination of agents that included 1 inotrope. CONCLUSIONS: The escalating need for vasopressors and inotropes and particular combinations of these agents are significant predictors of mortality that may help determine whether the Impella or higher level of support is more appropriate to treat acute cardiogenic shock.

Diagnosing the current state of out-of-field teaching in high school science and mathematics.

The U.S. government has acknowledged the critical role that teachers play in the production of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) professionals who will drive our nation's economy. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was passed to improve the quality of education nationwide, in part, by decreasing the number of out-of-field (OOF) teachers. However, the impact of NCLB and related efforts on the current state of OOF teaching in high school science and mathematics has yet to be examined. Our analysis of data from the National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS) indicates that from 2003-2016, the proportion of OOF teachers in chemistry and physics has increased, and there has been an increase in the number of students assigned to OOF teachers across subjects. We discuss the societal impact of our results and the critical role that policymakers, school administrators, and academic institutions, particularly university faculty, can play in its solution.

Predictors of Mortality and Outcomes of Acute Severe Cardiogenic Shock Treated with the Impella Device.

The Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts) device is increasingly used for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to treat acute severe cardiogenic shock (CS). Initial and continued determination of the appropriate degree of MCS is challenging. This study evaluates predictors of mortality in patients treated with the Impella for acute severe CS and outcomes associated with prolonged Impella use. This retrospective single-center study included 204 patients treated with the Impella 2.5, Impella CP, or Impella 5.0 from 2011 to 2018 for acute severe CS. The primary end point was all-cause in-hospital mortality. All-cause in-hospital mortality was 45.1%. Nonsurvivors had a lower initial pH (7.24 vs 7.32, hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, p <0.0001), lower serum CO2 (19.1 vs 21.3 mmol/L, HR 1.08, p = 0.002), higher lactate (6.8 vs 3.3 mmol/L, HR 1.17, p <0.0001), and used a greater number of vasopressors and inotropes (4.3 vs 2.6, HR 1.44, p <0.0001). Patients with the Impella >4 days (n = 45) had a longer intensive care unit stay (12.6 vs 6.9 days, p <0.001), longer total hospital stay (16.4 vs 11.6 days, p = 0.03), longer mechanical ventilation use (7.8 vs 4.4 days, p = 0.002), and trend toward increased mortality (57.8 vs 41.5%, p = 0.051). In conclusion, in patients treated with the Impella for acute severe CS, initial biochemical parameters and need for vasopressors and inotropes are significant predictors of mortality that can serve as valuable indicators of whether the Impella or higher level of MCS is more appropriate. Patients treated with the Impella beyond 4 days have poorer outcomes and may benefit from escalation of care.

Understanding Your Online Ratings: A Methodological Analysis Using Urogynecologists in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The influence of online physician ratings is growing, yet their interpretation remains difficult. Our aim was to analyze the online content of urogynecologists on 1 website to transform these ratings into practical tools for care improvement. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis studied the ratings and reviews of every board-certified urogynecologist listed on Healthgrades.com. The ratio of 5:1 ratings was compared between various physician characteristics and practice qualities. Four investigators classified narrative reviews into one or more of the following themes: about the (1) physician, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) and/or staff. The content of the narrative reviews was analyzed, and word clouds were created to understand the primary motivators behind ratings. RESULTS: In February 2018, the Healthgrades pages for 689 urogynecologists were evaluated, and 523 physicians were included in the study. Higher 5:1 ratios were found among men versus women (4.0 vs 3.0; P < 0.01), and OB-GYN-trained versus urology-trained (4.0 vs 2.2; P < 0.01) physicians. A benchmarking rubric was developed to illustrate the 5:1 ratio distribution for all physicians stratified by number of ratings. A total of 3300 narrative reviews were assigned themes with strong inter- and intrarater reliability (Table 3). Physician qualities most influenced extreme scores (1 or 5 stars), whereas average reviews were more influenced by staff. Commonly discussed physician qualities included professionalism, time with patient, and counseling. CONCLUSIONS: Using the 5:1 rating ratio and simplified review themes as tools, physicians can understand what their ratings signify both as an indicator of their online reputation compared with their peers and as a means for improving the patient experience.