Variation in risk-adjusted cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) length of stay and the association with in-hospital mortality: An analysis from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) registry.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that there is wide variability in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) length of stay (LOS); however, these studies are limited by the absence of detailed risk assessment at the time of admission. Thus, we evaluated inter-hospital differences in CICU LOS, and the association between LOS and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) registry, we included 22,862 admissions between 2017 and 2022 from 35 primarily tertiary and quaternary CICUs that captured consecutive admissions in annual 2-month snapshots. The primary analysis compared inter-hospital differences in CICU LOS, as well as the association between CICU LOS and all-cause in-hospital mortality using a Fine and Gray competing risk model. RESULTS: The overall median CICU LOS was 2.2 (1.1-4.8) days, and the median hospital LOS was 5.9 (2.8-12.3) days. Admissions in the longest tertile of LOS tended to be younger with higher rates of pre-existing comorbidities, and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, as well as higher rates of mechanical ventilation, intravenous vasopressor use, mechanical circulatory support, and renal replacement therapy. Unadjusted all-cause in-hospital mortality was 9.3%, 6.7%, and 13.4% in the lowest, intermediate, and highest CICU LOS tertiles. In a competing risk analysis, individual patient CICU LOS was correlated (r2 = 0.31) with a higher risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality. The relationship remained significant in admissions with heart failure, ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: In a large registry of academic CICUs, we observed significant variation in CICU LOS and report that LOS is independently associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality. These findings could potentially be used to improve CICU resource utilization planning and refine risk prognostication in critically ill cardiovascular patients.

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.

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.

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.

Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN): a cohort profile.

AIMS: The aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicentre research network to conduct randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness. METHODS AND RESULTS: The CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centres and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centres in the United States and Canada. Each centre enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least 2 months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterised utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicentre collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicentre registry-based randomised trials in patients with cardiac critical illness. CONCLUSION: The CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomised controlled trials in this important patient population.

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.

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.

Characteristics and Outcomes Based on Perceived Illness Severity in SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) epidemic is characterized by a global sense of uncertainty, partly driven by the paucity of real-life clinical data. This study assessed whether admission patient characteristics were associated with need for intensive care unit (ICU) care. METHODS: The observational study included consecutive patients admitted to a large community teaching hospital with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 between March 6, 2020 and March 31, 2020. Comparisons were made based on the need for ICU admission. RESULTS: A total of 156 patients were admitted, 42 of whom (26.9%) required ICU admission and 114 (73.1%) did not. No difference in age (61.9 years vs 60.5 years, P = 0.67), race/ethnicity, or comorbidities were noted, except that patients requiring ICU care had lower serum albumin levels and lymphocyte counts and higher liver function tests, white blood cell count, and absolute neutrophil count on admission. The average time from admission to death was similar (10 days in an ICU subset vs 9.2 days in a non-ICU subset, P = 0.78), yet patients necessitating ICU care had longer hospital lengths of stay (10.2 vs 5.1 days, P = 0.0002). At the time of data extraction, 15 patients in the ICU had died, 7 were discharged from the hospital, and 20 were still admitted while 5 patients died in the non-ICU cohort with 97 discharged and 12 patients admitted. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study assessing clinical differences based on the need for ICU admission in inpatients with SARS-CoV-2. It found few major differences in clinical variables between subsets. Among patients admitted to the ICU, outcomes were generally poor.

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.

Fires in the operating room and intensive care unit: awareness is the key to prevention.

Recent recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to use alcohol-based substances for hand hygiene and skin antisepsis could introduce new fire hazards in the operating room (OR). This potential for an increase in the number of fires in the hospital setting with wide spread use of alcohol-based agents warrants heightened awareness of the risks and implementation of safety measures when using these agents. Here, we report a patient who, during a tracheostomy, sustained severe burns resulting from a fire in the OR. In this case, the use of an alcohol-based antiseptic was the major contributing factor to the surgical fire.

Emergency cardiac imaging: state of the art.

Multiple strategies and testing modalities are available to evaluate patients presenting to the emergency department with cardiac complaints. Many provide anatomic and prognostic information about coronary stenosis and long-term out-comes. Although nuclear and stress echo imaging have the ability to predict outcomes in patients in the emergency department population, the newer modalities of cardiac imaging (EBCT, MDCT,and CMR) continue to show promising results and may soon be incorporated into emergency department chest pain centers. Protocols can be developed within an institution to meet the needs of the patient population while minimizing risk and improving outcomes for all patients.

Chest pain evaluation in the emergency department: can MDCT provide a comprehensive evaluation?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether MDCT can provide a comprehensive assessment of cardiac and noncardiac causes of chest pain in stable emergency department patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with chest pain who presented to the emergency department without definitive findings of acute myocardial infarction based on history, physical examination, and ECG were recruited immediately after the initial clinical assessment. For each patient, the emergency department physician was asked whether a CT scan would normally have been ordered on clinical grounds (e.g., to exclude pulmonary embolism). Each consenting patient underwent enhanced ECG-gated 16-MDCT. Ten cardiac phases were reconstructed. The images were evaluated for cardiac (coronary calcium and stenosis, ejection fraction, and wall motion and perfusion) and significant noncardiac (pulmonary embolism, dissection, pneumonia, and so forth) causes of chest pain. Correlation was made between the presence of significant cardiac and noncardiac findings on CT and the final clinical diagnosis based on history, examination, and any subsequent cardiac workup at the 1-month follow-up by a consensus of three physicians. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients met all criteria for enrollment in the study, of whom 45 (65%) would not otherwise have undergone CT. Fifty-two patients (75%) had no significant CT findings and a final diagnosis of clinically insignificant chest pain. Thirteen patients (19%) had significant CT findings (cardiac, 10; noncardiac, 3) concordant with the final diagnosis. CT failed to suggest a diagnosis in two patients (3%), both of whom proved to have clinically significant coronary artery stenoses. In two patients (3%), CT overdiagnosed a coronary stenosis. Sensitivity and specificity for the establishment of a cardiac cause of chest pain were 83% and 96%, respectively. Overall sensitivity and specificity for all other cardiac and noncardiac causes were 87% and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ECG-gated MDCT appears to be logistically feasible and shows promise as a comprehensive method for evaluating cardiac and noncardiac chest pain in stable emergency department patients. Further hardware and software improvements will be necessary for adoption of this paradigm in clinical practice.