Maintenance of Certification-The Value to Patients and Physicians.

This Viewpoint discusses the ABIM's continuing efforts to innovate and streamline maintenance of certification, including the recently launched Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA), to better accommodate physicians' schedules and desires for flexibility.

Modes of Death in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Report from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on how patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) die. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a research network of cardiac intensive care units coordinated by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group (Boston, MA). Using standardized definitions, site investigators classified direct modes of in-hospital death for CS admissions (October 2021 to September 2022). Mutually exclusive categories included 4 modes of cardiovascular death and 4 modes of noncardiovascular death. Subgroups defined by CS type, preceding cardiac arrest (CA), use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), and transition to comfort measures were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1068 CS cases, 337 (31.6%) died during the index hospitalization. Overall, the mode of death was cardiovascular in 82.2%. Persistent CS was the dominant specific mode of death (66.5%), followed by arrhythmia (12.8%), anoxic brain injury (6.2%), and respiratory failure (4.5%). Patients with preceding CA were more likely to die from anoxic brain injury (17.1% vs 0.9%; P < .001) or arrhythmia (21.6% vs 8.4%; P < .001). Patients managed with tMCS were more likely to die from persistent shock (P < .01), both cardiogenic (73.5% vs 62.0%) and noncardiogenic (6.1% vs 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Most deaths in CS are related to direct cardiovascular causes, particularly persistent CS. However, there is important heterogeneity across subgroups defined by preceding CA and the use of tMCS.

Training Paradigms in Critical Care Cardiology: A Scoping Review of Current Literature.

Background: Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training. Objective: To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Methods: We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected. Results: Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards. Conclusions: In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Perioperative Health Care Among Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

There has been little progress in reducing health care disparities since the 2003 landmark Institute of Medicine's report Unequal Treatment. Despite the higher burden of cardiovascular disease in underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, they have less access to cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons, and have higher rates of morbidity and mortality with cardiac surgical interventions. This review summarizes existing literature and highlights disparities in cardiovascular perioperative health care. We propose actionable solutions utilizing multidisciplinary perspectives from cardiology, cardiac surgery, cardiothoracic anesthesiology, critical care, medical ethics, and health disparity experts. Applying a health equity lens to multipronged interventions is necessary to eliminate the disparities in perioperative health care among patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Adoption of Internal Medicine Milestone Ratings and Changes in Bias Against Black, Latino, and Asian Internal Medicine Residents.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have affected evaluation bias against minoritized groups. OBJECTIVE: To assess bias in internal medicine (IM) residency knowledge ratings against Black or Latino residents-who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM)-and Asian residents before versus after Milestone adoption in 2014. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and interrupted time-series comparisons. SETTING: U.S. IM residencies. PARTICIPANTS: 59 835 IM residents completing residencies during 2008 to 2013 and 2015 to 2020. INTERVENTION: Adoption of the Milestone ratings system. MEASUREMENTS: Pre-Milestone (2008 to 2013) and post-Milestone (2015 to 2020) bias was estimated as differences in standardized knowledge ratings between U.S.-born and non-U.S.-born minoritized groups versus non-Latino U.S.-born White (NLW) residents, with adjustment for performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine IM certification examination and other physician characteristics. Interrupted time-series analysis measured deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends. RESULTS: During the pre-Milestone period, ratings biases against minoritized groups were large (-0.40 SDs [95% CI, -0.48 to -0.31 SDs; P < 0.001] for URiM residents, -0.24 SDs [CI, -0.30 to -0.18 SDs; P < 0.001] for U.S.-born Asian residents, and -0.36 SDs [CI, -0.45 to -0.27 SDs; P < 0.001] for non-U.S.-born Asian residents). These estimates decreased to less than -0.15 SDs after adoption of Milestone ratings for all groups except U.S.-born Black residents, among whom substantial (though lower) bias persisted (-0.26 SDs [CI, -0.36 to -0.17 SDs; P < 0.001]). Substantial deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends coincident with adoption of Milestone ratings were also observed. LIMITATIONS: Unobserved variables correlated with ratings bias and Milestone ratings adoption, changes in identification of race/ethnicity, and generalizability to Milestones 2.0. CONCLUSION: Knowledge ratings bias against URiM and Asian residents was ameliorated with the adoption of the Milestone ratings system. However, substantial ratings bias against U.S.-born Black residents persisted. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Research Priorities in Critical Care Cardiology: JACC Expert Panel.

Over the last several decades, the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has seen a substantial evolution in the patient population, comorbidities, and diagnoses. However, the generation of high-quality evidence to manage these complex and critically ill patients has been slow. Given the scarcity of clinical trials focused on critical care cardiology (CCC), CICU clinicians are often left to extrapolate from studies that either exclude or poorly represent the patient population admitted to CICUs. The lack of high-quality evidence and limited guidance from society guidelines has led to significant variation in practice patterns for many of the most common CICU diagnoses. Several barriers, both common to critical care research and unique to CCC, have impeded progress. In this multinational perspective, we describe key areas of priority for CCC research, current challenges for investigation in the CICU, and essential elements of a path forward for the field.

Defining levels of care in cardiogenic shock.

Background: Expert opinion and professional society statements have called for multi-tier care systems for the management of cardiogenic shock (CS). However, little is known about how to pragmatically define centers with different levels of care (LOC) for CS. Methods: Eleven of 23 hospitals within our healthcare system sharing a common electronic health record were classified as different LOC according to their highest mechanical circulatory support (MCS) capabilities: Level 1 (L-1)-durable left ventricular assist device, Level 1A (L-1A)-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Level 2 (L-2)-intra-aortic balloon pump and percutaneous ventricular assist device; and Level 3 (L-3)-no MCS. All adult patients treated for CS (International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 code R57.0) between 2016 and 2022 were included. Etiologies of CS were identified using associated diagnostic codes. Management strategies and outcomes across LOC were compared. Results: Higher LOC centers had higher volumes: L-1 (n = 1): 2,831 patients, L-1A (n = 4): 3,452, L-2 (n = 1): 340, and L-3 (n = 5): 780. Emergency room admissions were more common in lower LOC (96% at L-3 vs. 46% L-1; p < 0.001), while hospital transfers were predominant at higher LOC (40% at L-1 vs. 2.7% at L-3; p < 0.001). Men comprised 61% of the cohort. Patients were younger in the higher LOC [69 (60-78) years at L-1 vs. 77 (67-85) years at L-3; p < 0.001]. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-CS and acute heart failure (AHF)-CS were concentrated in higher LOC centers while other etiologies of CS were more common in L-2 and L-3 (p < 0.001). Cardiac arrest on admission was more prevalent in lower LOC centers (L-1: 2.8% vs. L-3: 12.1%; p < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS received more percutaneous coronary intervention in lower LOC (51% L-2 vs. 29% L-1; p < 0.01) but more coronary arterial bypass graft surgery at higher LOC (L-1: 42% vs. L-1A: 23%; p < 0.001). MCS use was consistent across levels for AMI-CS but was more frequent in higher LOC for AHF-CS patients (L-1: 28% vs. L-2: 10%; p < 0.001). Despite increasing in-hospital mortality with decreasing LOC, no significant difference was seen after multivariable adjustment. Conclusion: This is the first report describing a pragmatic classification of LOC for CS which, based on MCS capabilities, can discriminate between centers with distinct demographics, practice patterns, and outcomes. This classification may serve as the basis for future research and the creation of CS systems of care.

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.

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.

Eliminating Disparities in Cardiovascular Disease for Black Women: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Black women are disproportionately affected by cardiovascular disease with an excess burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In addition, the racialized structure of the United States shapes cardiovascular disease research and health care delivery for Black women. Given the indisputable evidence of the disparities in health care delivery, research, and cardiovascular outcomes, there is an urgent need to develop and implement effective and sustainable solutions to advance cardiovascular health equity for Black women while considering their ethnic diversity, regions of origin, and acculturation. Innovative and culturally tailored strategies that consider the differential impact of social determinants of health and the unique challenges that shape their health-seeking behaviors should be implemented. A patient-centered framework that involves collaboration among clinicians, health care systems, professional societies, and government agencies is required to improve cardiovascular outcomes for Black women. The time is "now" to achieve health equity for all Black women.

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.

Association of race/ethnicity with mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in mortality among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after adjusting for baseline characteristics and comorbidities. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study at 13 acute care facilities in the New York City metropolitan area included sequentially hospitalized patients between March 1, 2020, and April 27, 2020. Last day of follow up was July 31, 2020. Patient demographic information, including race/ethnicity and comorbidities, were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 10 869 patients were included in the study (median age, 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 54-77; range, 18-107 years]; 40.5% female). In adjusted time-to-event analysis, increased age, male sex, insurance type (Medicare and Self-Pay), unknown smoking status, and a higher score on the Charlson Comorbidity Index were significantly associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Adjusted risk of hospital mortality for Black, Asian, Hispanic, multiracial/other, and unknown race/ethnicity patients were similar to risk for White patients. CONCLUSIONS: In a large diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, patients from racial/ethnic minorities experienced similar mortality risk as White patients.

Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Admitted to Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: Insights From the CCCTN Registry.

BACKGROUND: With the improvement in outcomes for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the practice of routine admission to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is evolving. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of patients with ACS admitted to contemporary CICUs. METHODS: Using the CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) Registry for consecutive medical CICU admissions across 26 advanced CICUs in North America between 2017 and 2020, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of ACS at CICU admission and compared patient characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes to patients admitted with a non-ACS diagnosis and across sub-populations of patients with ACS, including by indication for CICU admission. RESULTS: Of 10 118 CICU admissions, 29.4% (n=2978) were for a primary diagnosis of ACS, with significant interhospital variability (range, 13.4%-56.6%). Compared with patients admitted with a diagnosis other than ACS, patients with ACS had fewer comorbidities, lower acute severity of illness with less utilization of advanced CICU therapies (41.3% versus 66.1%, P<0.0001), and lower CICU mortality (5.4% versus 9.9%, P<0.0001). Monitoring alone, without another CICU indication at the time of admission, was the most frequent admission indication in patients with ACS (53.8%); less common indications in patients with ACS included respiratory insufficiency, shock, or the need for vasoactive therapy. Of patients with ACS admitted for monitoring alone, 94.8% did not subsequently require advanced intensive care unit therapies and had a low CICU length of stay (1.5 days [0.9-2.4] versus 2.6 [1.4-5.1], P<0.0001) and CICU mortality (0.6% versus 11.0%, P<0.0001), compared with patients with ACS with an admission indication beyond monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: In a registry of tertiary care CICUs, ACS represent ≈1/3 of all admissions with significant variability across hospitals. More than half of the ACS admissions to the CICU were for routine monitoring alone, with a low rate of complications and mortality. This observation highlights an opportunity for prospective studies to refine triage strategies for lower risk patients with ACS.

A pragmatic lab-based tool for risk assessment in cardiac critical care: data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry.

AIMS: Contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) outcomes remain highly heterogeneous. As such, a risk-stratification tool using readily available lab data at time of CICU admission may help inform clinical decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary derivation cohort included 4352 consecutive CICU admissions across 25 tertiary care CICUs included in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. Candidate lab indicators were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An integer risk score incorporating the top independent lab indicators associated with in-hospital mortality was developed. External validation was performed in a separate CICU cohort of 9716 patients from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). On multivariable analysis, lower pH [odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72-2.24], higher lactate (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22-1.62), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.45), and lower platelets (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32) were the top four independent lab indicators associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Incorporated into the CCCTN Lab-Based Risk Score, these four lab indicators identified a 20-fold gradient in mortality risk with very good discrimination (C-index 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84) in the derivation cohort. Validation of the risk score in a separate cohort of 3888 patients from the Registry demonstrated good performance (C-index of 0.82; 95% CI 0.80-0.84). Performance remained consistent in the external validation cohort (C-index 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.80). Calibration was very good in both validation cohorts (r = 0.99). CONCLUSION: A simple integer risk score utilizing readily available lab indicators at time of CICU admission may accurately stratify in-hospital mortality risk.

De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation.