Advances in the Management of Cardiogenic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: To review a contemporary approach to the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). DATA SOURCES: We reviewed salient medical literature regarding CS. STUDY SELECTION: We included professional society scientific statements and clinical studies examining outcomes in patients with CS, with a focus on randomized clinical trials. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted salient study results and scientific statement recommendations regarding the management of CS. DATA SYNTHESIS: Professional society recommendations were integrated with evaluated studies. CONCLUSIONS: CS results in short-term mortality exceeding 30% despite standard therapy. While acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been the focus of most CS research, heart failure-related CS now predominates at many centers. CS can present with a wide spectrum of shock severity, including patients who are normotensive despite ongoing hypoperfusion. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Classification categorizes patients with or at risk of CS according to shock severity, which predicts mortality. The CS population includes a heterogeneous mix of phenotypes defined by ventricular function, hemodynamic profile, biomarkers, and other clinical variables. Integrating the shock severity and CS phenotype with nonmodifiable risk factors for mortality can guide clinical decision-making and prognostication. Identifying and treating the cause of CS is crucial for success, including early culprit vessel revascularization for AMI. Vasopressors and inotropes titrated to restore arterial pressure and perfusion are the cornerstone of initial medical therapy for CS. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is indicated for appropriately selected patients as a bridge to recovery, decision, durable MCS, or heart transplant. Randomized controlled trials have not demonstrated better survival with the routine use of temporary MCS in patients with CS. Accordingly, a multidisciplinary team-based approach should be used to tailor the type of hemodynamic support to each individual CS patient's needs based on shock severity, phenotype, and exit strategy.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations

To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

Guidelines for the Management of Adult Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure in the ICU: Neurology, Peri-Transplant Medicine, Infectious Disease, and Gastroenterology Considerations.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute liver failure (ALF) or acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) in the ICU. DESIGN: The guideline panel comprised 27 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure or methodology. We adhered to the Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. INTERVENTIONS: In part 2 of this guideline, the panel was divided into four subgroups: neurology, peri-transplant, infectious diseases, and gastrointestinal groups. We developed and selected Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each PICO question, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis where applicable. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We report 28 recommendations (from 31 PICO questions) on the management ALF and ACLF in the ICU. Overall, five were strong recommendations, 21 were conditional recommendations, two were best-practice statements, and we were unable to issue a recommendation for five questions due to insufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary, international experts formulated evidence-based recommendations for the management ALF and ACLF patients in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low quality and indirect evidence.

COVID-19: Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned, Lessons for the Future.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected clinicians in many different ways. Clinicians have their own experiences and lessons that they have learned from their work in the pandemic. This article outlines a few lessons learned from the eyes of CHEST Critical Care Editorial Board members, namely practices which will be abandoned, novel practices to be adopted moving forward, and proposed changes to the health care system in general. In an attempt to start the discussion of how health care can grow from the pandemic, the editorial board members outline their thoughts on these lessons learned.

Prospective Evaluation of Autonomic Dysfunction in Post-Acute Sequela of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patients with post-acute sequela of COVID-19 (PASC) often report symptoms of orthostatic intolerance and autonomic dysfunction. Numerous case reports link postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) to PASC. No prospective analysis has been performed. OBJECTIVES: This study performed head-up tilt table (HUTT) testing in symptomatic patients with PASC to evaluate for orthostatic intolerance suggestive of autonomic dysfunction. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational evaluation of patients with PASC complaining of poor exertional tolerance, tachycardia with minimal activity or positional change, and palpitations. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, pre-PASC autonomic dysfunction or syncope, or another potential explanation of PASC symptoms. All subjects underwent HUTT. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with the described PASC symptoms were included. HUTT was performed a mean of 5.8 ± 3.5 months after symptom onset. Twenty-three of the 24 had orthostatic intolerance on HUTT, with 4 demonstrating POTS, 15 provoked orthostatic intolerance (POI) after nitroglycerin, 3 neurocardiogenic syncope, and 1 orthostatic hypotension. Compared with those with POTS, patients with POI described significantly earlier improvement of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective evaluation of HUTT in patients with PASC revealed orthostatic intolerance on HUTT suggestive of autonomic dysfunction in nearly all subjects. Those with POI may be further along the path of clinical recovery than those demonstrating POTS.

Outcomes and Predictors of Mortality Among Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the causes of critical illness and determinants of prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) admitted to the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of patients with HF admitted to the contemporary CICU. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort analysis of Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted with HF from 2007 to 2018 who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data. HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) was defined as a LVEF of less than 50%, and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) as a LVEF of 50% or greater. In-hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival to 1 year was analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. We included 4012 patients, including 67.8% with HFrEF and 32.2% with HFpEF. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were comparable and had equivalent severity of illness. Critical care therapies were used in 59.4%, with a slight preponderance in patients with HFrEF. In-hospital mortality occurred in 12.5% of patients and was similar in HFrEF vs HFpEF. Shock and cardiac arrest were the strongest predictors of adjusted in-hospital mortality, followed by Braden skin score and serum chloride level; patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had similar adjusted mortality rates. The 1-year survival after hospital discharge was 74.5% and was slightly lower for patients with HFpEF. All-cause rehospitalization occurred in 36.6%, and 52.8% of hospital survivors died or were readmitted within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: CICU patients with HF have a substantial burden of critical illness, high use of critical care therapies, and poor outcomes regardless of LVEF. This finding emphasizes the potential unmet care needs in this cohort. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with heart failure who require admission to the cardiac intensive care unit have high severity of illness and are at significant risk of death during and after hospitalization. These patients often require specialized critical care therapies to treat manifestations of critical illness. Patients who are admitted with cardiac arrest or shock, including those who require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, are at particularly high risk of death. Patients' left ventricular ejection fraction is not strongly associated with the risk of death when accounting for other major predictors including frailty and laboratory abnormalities.

Psychosocial Well-Being and Progression of Coronary Artery Calcification in Midlife Women.

Background Prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a public health priority. The combination of physical activity, a healthy diet, and abstaining from tobacco plays an important role in prevention whereas aspects of psychosocial well-being have largely been examined separately with conflicting results. This study evaluated whether the combination of indices of psychosocial well-being was associated with less progression of coronary artery calcium (CAC). Methods and Results Participants were 312 women (mean age 50.8) from the SWAN (Study of Women's Health Across the Nation) ancillary Heart Study, free of clinical CVD at baseline. A composite psychosocial well-being score was created from 6 validated psychosocial questionnaires assessing optimism, vitality, life engagement, life satisfaction, rewarding multiple roles, and positive affect. Subclinical CAC progression was defined as an increase of ≥10 Agatston units over 2.3 years measured using electron beam tomography. Relative risk (RR) regression models examined the effect of well-being on CAC progression, progressively adjusting for sociodemographic factors, depression, healthy lifestyle behaviors, and standard CVD risk factors. At baseline, 42.9% had a CAC score >0, and progression was observed in 17.6%. Well-being was associated with less progression (RR, 0.909; 95% CI, 0.843-0.979; P=0.012), which remained significant with adjustment for potential confounders, depression, and health behaviors. Further adjustment for standard CVD risk factors weakened the association for the total sample (RR, 0.943; 95% CI, 0.871-1.020; P=0.142) but remained significant for the 134 women with baseline CAC>0 (RR, 0.921; 95% CI, 0.852-0.995; P=0.037). Conclusions Optimum early prevention of CVD in women may result from including the mind side of the mind-heart-body continuum.

Shock Severity Assessment in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients With Sepsis and Mixed Septic-Cardiogenic Shock.

We sought to validate the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification for mortality risk stratification in patients with sepsis and concomitant cardiovascular disease or mixed septic-cardiogenic shock. We conducted a single-center retropective cohort study of cardiac intensive care unit patients with an admission diagnosis of sepsis. We used clinical, vital sign, and laboratory data during the first 24 hours after admission to assign SCAI shock stage. We included 605 patients with a median age of 69.4 years (interquartile range, 57.9 to 79.8 years), 222 of whom (36.7%) were female. Acute coronary syndrome or heart failure was present in 480 patients (79.3%), and cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest was present in 271 patients (44.8%). The median day 1 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) cardiovascular subscore was 1.5 (interquartile range, 1 to 4), and the admission SCAI shock stage distribution was stage B, 40.7% (246); stage C, 19.3% (117); stage D, 32.9% (199); and stage E, 7.1% (43). In-hospital mortality occurred in 177 of the 605 patients (29.3%) and increased incrementally with higher SCAI shock stage. After multivariable adjustment, admission SCAI shock stage was associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per stage, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.88; P=.003). Admission SCAI shock stage had higher discrimination for in-hospital mortality than the day 1 SOFA cardiovascular subscore (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68 vs 0.64; P=.04 by the DeLong test). Admission SCAI shock stage was associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio per stage, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.37; P=.02). The SCAI shock classification provides improved mortality risk stratification over the day 1 SOFA cardiovascular subscore in cardiac intensive care unit patients with sepsis and concomitant cardiovascular disease or mixed septic-cardiogenic shock.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: This executive summary of the clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure: Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The "2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain" provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. These guidelines present an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.