Virtual Patient and Family Engagement Strategies in Critical Care: A Scoping Review.

Background: Family engagement in care is increasingly recognized as an essential component of optimal critical care delivery. However, family engagement strategies have traditionally involved in-person family participation. Virtual approaches to family engagement may overcome barriers to family participation in care. The objective of this study was to perform a scoping review of virtual family engagement strategies in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Studies were included if they involved a virtual engagement strategy with family members of an ICU patient and reported either (1) outcomes, (2) user perspectives, and/or (3) barriers or facilitators to virtual engagement in the ICU. Study types included primary research studies and review articles. Study selection followed the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology for Scoping Reviews guidelines without any cultural, ethnic, gender, or specific language restrictions. The source of evidence included Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 17, 2023. Google scholar was searched on December 1, 2023. Data were extracted on virtual engagement strategy used, outcomes (patient-centered, family-centered, and clinical), perspectives (patient, family, and health care professional [HCP]), and reported barriers or facilitators to virtual engagement in the ICU. Results were categorized into adult or pediatric/neonatal ICU setting. Results: Virtual engagement strategies identified were virtual visitation, virtual rounding, and virtual meetings. Family and HCPs were generally supportive of virtual visitation and rounding strategies. Overall, virtual strategies were associated with improved patient, family, and HCP outcomes. There were a few randomized interventional studies evaluating the effectiveness of virtual engagement strategies. Family, HCP, technological, and institutional barriers to the implementation and conduct of virtual engagement strategies were reported. Conclusions: Virtual family engagement strategies are associated with improved outcomes for patients, family, and HCPs. Identified barriers to virtual family engagement should be addressed. Future studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual family engagement strategies in a more rigorous manner.

Family-centered interventions and patient outcomes in the adult intensive care unit: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: There is a need to understand how family engagement in the intensive care unit (ICU) impacts patient outcomes. We reviewed the literature for randomized family-centered interventions with patient-related outcomes in the adult ICU. DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception until July 3, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Articles involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the adult critical care setting evaluating family-centered interventions and reporting patient-related outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Author, publication year, setting, number of participants, intervention category, intervention, and patient-related outcomes (patient-reported, physiological, clinical) were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 28 RCTs (12,174 participants) included. The most common intervention types were receiving care and meeting needs (N = 10) and family presence (N = 7). 16 RCTs (57%) reported ≥1 positive outcome from the intervention; no studies reported worse outcomes. Studies reported improvements in patient-reported outcomes such as anxiety, satisfaction, post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and health-related quality of life. RCTs reported improvements in physiological indices, adverse events, mechanical ventilation duration, analgesia use, ICU length of stay, delirium, and time to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly two-thirds of RCTs evaluating family-centered interventions in the adult ICU reported positive patient-related outcomes. KEYPOINTS: Question: Do family-centered interventions improve patient outcomes in the adult intensive care unit (ICU)? FINDINGS: The systematic review found that nearly two-thirds of randomized clinical trials of family-centered interventions in the adult ICU improved patient outcomes. Studies found improvements in patient mental health, care satisfaction, physiological indices, and clinical outcomes. There were no studies reporting worse patient outcomes. Meaning: Many family-centered interventions can improve patient outcomes.

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.

Development and initial validation of a family activation measure for acute care.

BACKGROUND: Activation of a family member refers to their desire, knowledge, confidence, and skills that can inform engagement in healthcare. Family activation combined with opportunity can lead to engagement in care. No tool currently exists to measure family activation in acute care. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate a tool to measure family activation in acute care. METHODS: An interdisciplinary team of content experts developed the FAMily Activation Measure (FAM-Activate) through an iterative process. The FAM-Activate tool is a 4-item questionnaire with 5 Likert-type response options (ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree). Scale scores are converted to a 0-100 point scoring range so that higher FAM-Activate scores indicate increased family activation. An overall FAM-Activate score (range 0-100) is calculated by adding the scores for each item and dividing by 4. We conducted reliability and predictive validity assessments to validate the instrument by administering the FAM-Activate tool to family members of patients in an acute cardiac unit at a tertiary care hospital. We obtained preliminary estimates of family engagement and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: We surveyed 124 family participants (age 54.1±14.4; 73% women; 34% non-white). Participants were predominantly the adult child (38%) or spouse/partner (36%) of patients. The mean FAM-Activate score during hospitalization was 84.1±16.1. FAM-Activate had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.74) and showed test-retest responsiveness. FAM-Activate was moderately correlated with engagement behavior (Pearson's correlation r = 0.47, P <0.0001). The FAM-Activate score was an independent predictor of family satisfaction, after adjusting for age, gender, relationship, and living status. CONCLUSION: The FAM-Activate tool was reliable and had predictive validity in the acute cardiac population. Further research is needed to explore whether improving family activation can lead to improved family engagement in care.

Center-of-Mass Based foot Placement in Stumble Recovery.

Exploring how foot placement relates to center-of-mass kinematics after unexpected disturbances for healthy adults could improve our understanding of human balance as well as inform the design/control of assistive device interventions to reduce fall risk. Therefore, in this work a kinematic dataset of stumble recovery responses from seven healthy adults was analyzed to investigate the effects of stumble perturbations on COM state, and the COM state's relationship to various foot placement metrics. COM velocity excursion after trips was significantly higher than excursion for unperturbed swing phases, increasing linearly as the trip occurred later in swing phase. Step length/width and foot position at heel-strike after the trip both increased with COM velocity at heel-strike, though weaker fits for foot positions suggest priority to other strategies. Swing durations were substantially longer for tripped swing phases versus normal swing phases and increased with COM velocity. This is the first investigation of these relationships for stumble recovery, and their alignment (or lack thereof) with previous models provides insights into the control of balance for this common daily-life disturbance.

Family engagement in care for medical trainees and early career clinicians.

Engaging family members in care improves person- and family-centered outcomes. Many healthcare professionals have limited awareness of the role and potential benefit of family engagement in care. This review describes the rationale for engaging families in care, and opportunities to engage family in various clinical care settings during training and early career practice.

Family Participation in Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit Rounds: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Observational studies have shown an association between family participation in intensive care unit (ICU) rounds and better family-centred outcomes. However, evidence from randomized studies on the impact of family participation in ICU rounds is lacking. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized trial for family participation in ICU rounds and obtain preliminary estimates of effect to inform a future effectiveness trial. Methods: Family members of patients in the cardiovascular ICU at an academic tertiary-care hospital were randomized to the intervention (participation in rounds) or usual-care group. Following ICU discharge, family member participants completed the family satisfaction (Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit Survey [FS-ICU]). Feasibility metrics were recruitment (≥ 10 participants per month), uptake (≥ 80%), and follow-up (≥ 80%). Effectiveness was measured by between-group differences in survey score at follow-up. Results: A total of 27 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 44% of family members (27 of 61) who were approached agreed to participate. Nonparticipation was due most commonly to lack of interest (N = 20; 64%). All family members randomized to the intervention (N = 16) were present for rounds (100% uptake). Follow-up data were available for 23 participants (85%). Family members who participated in rounds had a higher level of satisfaction with care, compared to the usual-care group (87.3 vs 74.7, P = 0.03, respectively). Conclusions: Family participation in cardiovascular ICU rounds is feasible and effective at improving family satisfaction. Our findings will inform the design of a planned, larger, multicentre study to evaluate the effectiveness of family participation in ICU rounds to improve family-centred outcomes. Trial registration number: NCT05528185.

Contexte: Des études d'observation ont montré qu'il y avait un lien entre une participation des familles aux tournées à l'unité des soins intensifs (USI) et de meilleurs résultats centrés sur la famille. Toutefois, il existe peu de données issues d'études à répartition aléatoire sur l'effet d'une participation des familles aux tournées à l'USI. L'objectif de cette étude pilote était d'évaluer la faisabilité d'un essai à répartition aléatoire sur la participation des familles aux tournées à l'USI et d'obtenir des estimations préliminaires de l'effet pour orienter un futur essai sur l'efficacité. Méthodologie: Des membres de la famille de patients admis à l'USI cardiovasculaires d'un hôpital universitaire de soins tertiaires ont été affectés de façon aléatoire à l'intervention (participation aux tournées) ou au groupe de soins habituels. Après la sortie de l'USI, les participants ont rempli le questionnaire sur la satisfaction des familles à l'égard de l'unité des soins intensifs (FS-ICU, pour Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit). Les paramètres de faisabilité étaient le recrutement (≥ 10 participants par mois), l'adhésion (≥ 80 %) et le suivi (≥ 80 %). L'efficacité a été mesurée par les différences des scores au questionnaire entre les groupes lors du suivi. Résultats: Au total, 27 participants ont été recrutés sur une période de 8 semaines. Chez les membres des familles qui ont été invités à participer, 44 % (27/61) ont accepté. Le refus était le plus souvent attribuable à un manque d'intérêt (n = 20; 64 %). Tous les membres des familles affectés à l'intervention (n = 16) ont été présents pour les tournées (adhésion de 100 %). Des données de suivi ont été obtenues pour 23 participants (85 %). Le taux de satisfaction à l'égard des soins a été plus élevé chez les membres des familles ayant participé aux tournées que dans le groupe de soins habituels (87,3 % contre 74,7 %; p = 0,03; respectivement). Conclusions: La participation des familles aux tournées dans les USI cardiovasculaires est faisable et est efficace pour améliorer la satisfaction des familles. Nos résultats guideront la conception d'une plus grande étude multicentrique planifiée visant à évaluer l'efficacité de la participation des familles aux tournées dans l'USI pour améliorer les résultats centrés sur la famille. Trial registration number: NCT05528185.

Family Engagement in the Adult Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Survey of Family Engagement Practices in the Cardiac Critical Care Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular and critical care professional societies recommend incorporating family engagement practices into routine clinical care. However, little is known about current family engagement practices in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). METHODS: We implemented a validated 12-item family engagement practice survey among site investigators participating in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, a collaborative network of CICUs in North America. The survey includes 9 items assessing specific engagement practices, 1 item about other family-centered care practices, and 2 open-ended questions on strategies and barriers concerning family engagement practice. We developed an engagement practice score by assigning 1 point for each family engagement practice partially or fully adopted at each site (max score 9). We assessed for relationships between the engagement practice score and CICU demographics. RESULTS: All sites (N=39; 100%) completed the survey. The most common family engagement practices were open visitation (95%), information and support to families (85%), structured care conferences (n=82%), and family participation in rounds (77%). The median engagement practice score was 5 (interquartile range, 4). There were no differences in engagement practice scores by geographic region or CICU type. The most commonly used strategies to promote family engagement were family presence during rounds (41%), communication (28%), and family meetings (28%). The most common barriers to family engagement were COVID-related visitation policies (38%) and resource limitations (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Family engagement practices are routinely performed in many CICUs; however, considerable variability exists. There is a need for strategies to address the variability of family engagement practices in CICUs.

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.

Pulmonary Artery Catheter Use and Mortality in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use of pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) in critically ill cardiac patients remains debated. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to characterize the current use of PACs in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) with attention to patient-level and institutional factors influencing their application and explore the association with in-hospital mortality. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of CICUs in North America. Between 2017 and 2021, participating centers contributed annual 2-month snapshots of consecutive CICU admissions. Admission diagnoses, clinical and demographic data, use of PACs, and in-hospital mortality were captured. RESULTS: Among 13,618 admissions at 34 sites, 3,827 were diagnosed with shock, with 2,583 of cardiogenic etiology. The use of mechanical circulatory support and heart failure were the patient-level factors most strongly associated with a greater likelihood of the use of a PAC (OR: 5.99 [95% CI: 5.15-6.98]; P < 0.001 and OR: 3.33 [95% CI: 2.91-3.81]; P < 0.001, respectively). The proportion of shock admissions with a PAC varied significantly by study center ranging from 8% to 73%. In analyses adjusted for factors associated with their placement, PAC use was associated with lower mortality in all shock patients admitted to a CICU (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.66-0.96]; P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the use of PACs that is not fully explained by patient level-factors and appears driven in part by institutional tendency. PAC use was associated with higher survival in cardiac patients with shock presenting to CICUs. Randomized trials are needed to guide the appropriate use of PACs in cardiac critical care.

The Impact of Randomized Family-Centered Interventions on Family-Centered Outcomes in the Adult Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To review the literature for randomized family-centered interventions with family-centered outcomes in the adult intensive care unit (ICU). Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library database from inception until February 2023. Study Selection: We included articles involving randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the adult critical care setting evaluating family-centered interventions and reporting family-centered outcomes. Data Extraction: We extracted data on author, year of publication, setting, number of participants, intervention category, intervention, and family-centered outcomes. Data Synthesis: There were 52 RCTs included in the analysis, mostly involving communication and receiving information (38%) and receiving care and meeting family member needs (38%). Nearly two-thirds of studies (N = 35; 67.3%) found improvements in at least 1 family-centered outcome. Most studies (N = 24/40; 60%) exploring the impact of family-centered interventions on mental health outcomes showed improvement. Improvements in patient-centered outcomes (N = 7/17; 41%) and healthcare worker outcomes (N = 1/5; 20%) were less commonly found. Conclusions: Family-centered interventions improve family-centered outcomes in the adult ICU and may be beneficial to patients and healthcare workers.

Validation of an Instrument to Measure Family Engagement in Acute Cardiac Care.

Background: Engaging families in care leads to improved patient- and family-centreed outcomes and is recommended by cardiovascular societies. However, no validated tools are currently available to measure family engagement in acute cardiac care. We previously described the development of the FAMily Engagement (FAME) instrument. The purpose of this study is to validate the FAME instrument in acute cardiac care. Methods: The FAME questionnaire was administered to family members of patients in a cardiovascular intensive care unit and ward at an academic tertiary care hospital in Montreal, Canada. After hospital discharge, we assessed family satisfaction in the intensive care unit (FS-ICU) and mental health (using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]). Higher FAME scores indicate increased care engagement. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency testing. Predictive validity was evaluated by assessing the relationship between the FAME score and the FS-ICU score and whether the FAME score was correlated with the HADS score. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing the FAME score with engagement elements of the FS-ICU score. Results: A total of 160 family participants were included (age 54.8 ± 14.8 years; 66% women; 36% non-White). The most common relationships to the patient were spouse/partner and adult child (both n = 62; 39%). The mean FAME score was 70.8 ± 16.0. The FAME instrument had high internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.86). The FAME score was associated with family satisfaction in the multivariable analysis (P < 0.001). No correlation occurred between FAME and HADS anxiety or depression scores. Conclusions: The FAME tool demonstrated reliability and convergent and predictive validity in the acute care cardiac population. Further research is needed to explore whether selected engagement interventions can impact the FAME score favourably.

Contexte: La participation des familles aux soins entraîne une amélioration des résultats centrés sur le patient et sur la famille et est recommandée par les sociétés cardiovasculaires. Cependant, il n'existe actuellement aucun outil validé pour mesurer la participation des familles aux soins cardiaques aigus. Par le passé, nous avons décrit l'élaboration de l'instrument FAMily Engagement (FAME). L'étude dont il est question ici vise à valider l'instrument FAME en contexte de soins cardiaques aigus. Méthodologie: Nous avons soumis le questionnaire FAME aux proches des patients admis aux soins intensifs cardiovasculaires et à l'unité de soins cardiovasculaires dans un hôpital universitaire de soins tertiaires à Montréal, au Canada. Lorsque le patient a reçu son congé de l'hôpital, nous avons évalué la satisfaction de la famille à l'égard de l'unité des soins intensifs (FS-ICU, de l'anglais : family satisfaction in the intensif care unit) de même que l'état de santé mentale (à l'aide de l'échelle d'anxiété et de dépression en milieu hospitalier [EHAD]). Un score élevé au questionnaire FAME indiquait une participation plus active aux soins. La fiabilité a été évaluée selon la méthode de cohérence interne. Pour mesurer la validité prédictive, nous avons étudié le lien entre le score au questionnaire FAME et le score FS-ICU, et déterminé si le score au questionnaire FAME était corrélé au score à l'EHAD. La validité convergente a été évaluée en comparant le score du questionnaire FAME avec les composantes de la participation du score FS-ICU. Résultats: Au total, 160 participants ont été inclus (âge : 54,8 ± 14,8 ans; 66 % de femmes; 36 % de personnes non blanches). En général, les participants étaient soit les conjoint(e)s/partenaires des patients, soit les enfants adultes des patients (n = 62 pour chacun des deux cas; 39 %). Le score FAME moyen était de 70,8 ± 16,0. L'instrument FAME présentait une forte cohérence interne (a de Cronbach = 0,86). Le score FAME était associé à la satisfaction familiale dans l'analyse multivariée (p < 0,001). Aucune corrélation n'a été notée entre le score FAME et les scores de dépression ou d'anxiété de l'EHAD. Conclusions: L'outil FAME a présenté une fiabilité et une validité convergente et prédictive dans la population des patients recevant des soins cardiaques aigus. D'autres recherches sont nécessaires pour déterminer si certaines interventions relatives à la participation peuvent améliorer le score FAME.

Multicomponent intervention for frail and pre-frail older adults with acute cardiovascular conditions: The TARGET-EFT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization for cardiovascular disease (CVD) may be complicated by hospital-acquired disability (HAD) and subsequently poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL). While frailty has been shown to be a risk factor, it has yet to be studied as a therapeutic target to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This trial sought to determine the effects of an in-hospital multicomponent intervention targeting physical weakness, cognitive impairment, malnutrition, and anemia on patient-centered outcomes compared to usual care. METHODS: A single-center parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in older patients with acute CVD and evidence of frailty or pre-frailty as measured by the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT). Patients were randomized to usual care or a multicomponent intervention. Outcomes were HRQOL (EQ-5D-5L score) and disability (Older Americans Resources and Services score) at 30 days post-discharge and mood disturbances (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) at discharge. RESULTS: The trial cohort consisted of 142 patients with a mean age of 79.5 years and 55% females. The primary diagnosis was heart failure in 29%, valvular heart disease in 28%, ischemic heart disease in 14%, arrhythmia in 11%, and other CVDs in 18%. The intervention improved HRQOL scores (coefficient 0.08; 95% CI 0.01, 0.15; p = 0.03) and mood scores (coefficient -1.95; 95% CI -3.82, -0.09; p = 0.04) but not disability scores (coefficient 0.18; 95% CI -1.44, 1.81; p = 0.82). There were no intervention-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: In frail older patients hospitalized for acute CVDs, an in-hospital multicomponent intervention targeted to frailty was safe and led to modest yet clinically meaningful improvements in HRQOL and mental well-being. The downstream impact of these effects on event-free survival and functional status remains to be evaluated in future research, as does the generalizability to other healthcare systems. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04291690.

Characteristics, therapies, and outcomes of In-Hospital vs Out-of-Hospital cardiac arrest in patients presenting to cardiac intensive care units: From the critical care Cardiology trials network (CCCTN).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common reason for admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), though the relative burden of morbidity, mortality, and resource use between admissions with in-hospital (IH) and out-of-hospital (OH) CA is unknown. We compared characteristics, care patterns, and outcomes of admissions to contemporary CICUs after IHCA or OHCA. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in the US and Canada. Participating centers contributed data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2021. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions by IHCA vs OHCA. RESULTS: We analyzed 2,075 admissions across 29 centers (50.3% IHCA, 49.7% OHCA). Admissions with IHCA were older (median 66 vs 62 years), more commonly had coronary disease (38.3% vs 29.7%), atrial fibrillation (26.7% vs 15.6%), and heart failure (36.3% vs 22.1%), and were less commonly comatose on CICU arrival (34.2% vs 71.7%), p < 0.001 for all. IHCA admissions had lower lactate (median 4.3 vs 5.9) but greater utilization of invasive hemodynamics (34.3% vs 23.6%), mechanical circulatory support (28.4% vs 16.8%), and renal replacement therapy (15.5% vs 9.4%); p < 0.001 for all. Comatose IHCA patients underwent targeted temperature management less frequently than OHCA patients (63.3% vs 84.9%, p < 0.001). IHCA admissions had lower unadjusted CICU (30.8% vs 39.0%, p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (36.1% vs 44.1%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite a greater burden of comorbidities, CICU admissions after IHCA have lower lactate, greater invasive therapy utilization, and lower crude mortality than admissions after OHCA.