Tendencias en el tratamiento del shock cardiogénico e impacto pronóstico del tipo de centros tratantes / Trends in cardiogenic shock management and prognostic impact of type of treating center

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: Las guías recomiendan centralizar la atención del shock cardiogénico (SC) en centros altamente especializados. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la asociación entre las características de los centros tratantes y la mortalidad en el SC secundario a infarto de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST (IAMCEST). MÉTODOS: Se seleccionaron los episodios de alta con diagnóstico de SC-IAMCEST entre 2003-2015 del Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos del Sistema Nacional de Salud español. Los centros se clasificaron según disponibilidad de servicio de cardiología, laboratorio de hemodinámica, cirugía cardiaca y disponibilidad de Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos Cardiológicos (UCIC). La variable objetivo principal fue la mortalidad hospitalaria. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 19.963 episodios. La edad media fue de 73,4±11,8 años. La proporción de pacientes tratados en hospitales con laboratorio de hemodinámica y cirugía cardiaca aumentó del 38,4% en 2005 al 52,9% en 2015; p <0,005). Las tasas de mortalidad bruta y ajustada por riesgo se redujeron progresivamente (del 82 al 67,1%, y del 82,7 al 66,8%, respectivamente, ambas p <0,001). La revascularización coronaria, tanto quirúgica como percutánea, se asoció de forma independiente con una menor mortalidad (OR = 0,29 y 0,25, p <0,001); La disponibilidad UCIC se asoció con menores tasas de mortalidad ajustadas (el 65,3±7,9% frente al 72±11,7%; p <0,001). CONCLUSIONES: La proporción de pacientes con SC-IAMCEST tratados en centros altamente especializados aumentó, mientras que la mortalidad disminuyó a lo largo del periodo de estudio. La revascularización y el ingreso en UCIC se asociaron con mejores resultados

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines recommend centralizing the care of patients with cardiogenic shock in high-volume centers. The aim of this study was to assess the association between hospital characteristics, including the availability of an intensive cardiac care unit, and outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)-related cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: Discharge episodes with a diagnosis of STEMI-related CS between 2003 and 2015 were selected from the Minimum Data Set of the Spanish National Health System. Centers were classified according to the availability of a cardiology department, catheterization laboratory, cardiac surgery department, and intensive cardiac care unit. The main outcome measured was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 19 963 episodes were identified. The mean age was 73.4±11.8 years. The proportion of patients with CS treated at hospitals with a catheterization laboratory and cardiac surgery department increased from 38.4% in 2005 to 52.9% in 2015 (P <.005). Crude- and risk-adjusted mortality rates decreased over time, from 82% to 67.1%, and from 82.7% to 66.8%, respectively (both P <.001). Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or coronary artery bypass grafting, was independently associated with a lower mortality risk (OR, 0.29 and 0.25; both P <.001, respectively). Intensive cardiac care unit availability was associated with lower adjusted mortality rates (65.3%±7.9 vs 72±11.7; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with STEMI-related CS treated at highly specialized centers increased while mortality decreased during the study period. Better outcomes were associated with the increased performance of revascularization procedures and access to intensive cardiac care units over time

Classification and Quality Standards of Heart Failure Units: Scientific Consensus of the Spanish Society of Cardiology.

The prevalence of heart failure remains high and represents the highest disease burden in Spain. Heart failure units have been developed to systematize the diagnosis, treatment, and clinical follow-up of heart failure patients, provide a structure to coordinate the actions of various entities and personnel involved in patient care, and improve prognosis and quality of life. There is ample evidence on the benefits of heart failure units or programs, which have become widespread in Spain. One of the challenges to the analysis of heart failure units is standardization of their classification, by determining which "programs" can be identified as heart failure "units" and by characterizing their complexity level. The aim of this article was to present the standards developed by the Spanish Society of Cardiology to classify and establish the requirements for heart failure units within the SEC-Excellence project.

From Coronary Care Units to Cardiac Intensive Care Units: Recommendations for Organizational, Staffing, and Educational Transformation.

Medical care in Canadian cardiac units has changed considerably over the past 3 decades in response to an increasingly complex and diverse patient population admitted with acute cardiac pathology. To maintain the highest level of care for these patients, there is a pressing need to evolve traditional coronary care units into contemporary cardiac intensive care units. In this article we aim to highlight the current variations in Canadian units, develop approaches to overcome logistical and infrastructural obstacles, and propose staffing and training recommendations that would allow for the establishment of contemporary cardiac intensive care units.

Evidence-based care and outcomes of acute stroke managed in hospital specialty units.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of evidence-based investigations and treatments in patients with acute stroke in selected Australian hospitals and to compare management and outcomes between stroke and other types of hospital specialty unit. DESIGN: Retrospective, multicentre audit of hospital case files. SETTING: Eight metropolitan tertiary-care hospitals from five Australian States. SUBJECTS: 300 consecutive patients from each hospital admitted between 17 September 1999 and 23 May 2001 and having a discharge diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic attack. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Use of investigations and treatments supported by best available evidence; comparison of management and outcomes between stroke, neurology, general medical and geriatric units. RESULTS: 2383 patients were audited (median age, 72.7 years; 52% men); 72% had ischaemic events, and 28% haemorrhagic events. Use of investigations and treatments varied between hospitals and types of unit. Stroke units or teams cared directly for 23% of patients (range across hospitals, 0-100%). Although 47% of patients with ischaemic events presented within 3 hours of symptom onset (when thrombolysis might provide benefit), only nine (2%) received thrombolysis. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were given to 28% of survivors at discharge (range, 14%-38%). Stroke units were more likely to use diagnostic tests, while neurology units were more likely to prescribe heparin acutely for patients with ischaemic stroke (not recommended for patients in general), and geriatric units were less likely to discharge patients with atrial fibrillation on anticoagulation therapy. Outcomes also varied significantly between types of unit. In-hospital survival rates were 90% (stroke units), 91% (neurological units), 82% (general medical units) and 79% (geriatric units) (P < 0.001). Stroke units and neurological units sent more patients home than the other units. Stroke units also sent fewer patients to rehabilitation and had longer mean length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Acute stroke care varies between Australian tertiary-care hospitals and types of specialty unit, with suboptimal use of many evidence-based interventions.

Review of intensive coronary care.

With a greater demand for cost consciousness in the health-care delivery system, it is time to review what we expect to accomplish with intensive coronary care. This paper reviews the literature on the subject, attempts to determine the nature and function of the "system," and tries to provide reasons for maintaining its existence or eliminating it altogether. The approach in this paper is objective, but not financially so. Funding to save lives is largely a matter of society's priorities, returning to the old question about how much a life is worth. Costs and priorities are so variable from place to place, this paper limits its coverage to "technical" aspects of the system.