Cardiogenic Shock Intravascular Cooling Trial (CHILL-SHOCK).

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is complicated by high mortality rates. Targeted temperature control (TTC) has been proposed as an adjunct therapy in CS. This study aims to examine the safety of TTC in patients presenting with CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this open-label, randomized controlled pilot trial, 20 patients with hemodynamic criteria for CS were assigned to standard of care plus TTC vs standard of care alone. The primary outcome was a composite safety outcome, including well-described complications of TTC. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, invasive hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters, electrocardiographic measurements, and inotrope dosing. There were no significant differences in the composite analysis of prespecified safety outcomes (3 events in the TTC group vs 0 events in the control group; P = 0.24). Patients randomized to TTC demonstrated a statistically significant increase in cardiac index and cardiac power index compared to the control group at 48-96 hours after randomization (3.6 [3.1, 3.9] L/min/m2 vs 2.6 [2.5, 3.15] L/min/m2; P = 0.029 and 0.61 [0.55, 0.7] W/m2 vs 0.53 [0.435, 0.565] W/m2; P = 0.029, respectively). CONCLUSION: TTC may be a safe adjunct therapy for patients presenting with CS and may yield improvement in specific hemodynamic parameters.

Subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhage, and fracture triad as a clinical predictor for the diagnosis of child abuse.

OBJECTIVE: Nonaccidental trauma (NAT) is a major cause of traumatic death during infancy and early childhood. Several findings are known to raise the index of clinical suspicion: subdural hematoma (SDH), retinal hemorrhage (RH), fracture, and external trauma. Combinations of certain injury types, determined via statistical frequency associations, may assist clinical diagnostic tools when child abuse is suspected. The present study sought to assess the statistical validity of the clinical triad (SDH + RH + fracture) in the diagnosis of child abuse and by extension pediatric NAT. METHODS: A retrospective review of The University of Arizona Trauma Database was performed. All patients were evaluated for the presence or absence of the components of the clinical triad according to specific International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. Injury type combinations included some variation of SDH, RH, all fractures, noncranial fracture, and cranial fracture. Each injury type was then correlated with the ICD-10 codes for child abuse or injury comment keywords. Statistical analysis via contingency tables was then conducted for test characteristics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. RESULTS: There were 3149 patients younger than 18 years of age included in the quantitative analysis, all of whom had at least one component of the clinical triad. From these, 372 patients (11.8%) had a diagnosis of child abuse. When compared to a single diagnosis of either SDH, RH, all fractures, noncranial fracture, or cranial fracture, the clinical triad had a significantly greater correlation with the diagnosis of child abuse (100% of cases) (p < 0.0001). The dyad of SDH + RH also had a significantly greater correlation with a child abuse diagnosis compared to single diagnoses (88.9%) (p < 0.0001). The clinical triad of SDH + RH + fracture had a sensitivity of 88.8% (95% CI 87.6%-89.9%), specificity of 100% (95% CI 83.9%-100%), and positive predictive value of 100% (95% CI 99.9%-100%). The dyad of SDH + RH had a sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI 87.9%-90.1%), specificity of 88.9% (95% CI 74.7%-95.6%), and positive predictive value of 99.9% (95% CI 99.6%-100%). All patients with the clinical triad were younger than 3 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: When SDH, RH, and fracture were present together, child abuse and by extension pediatric NAT were highly likely to have occurred.

Variation in Hemodynamic Assessment and Interpretation: A Call to Standardize the Right Heart Catheterization.

BACKGROUND: Invasive hemodynamic measurement via right heart catheterization has shown divergent data in its role in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiogenic shock. We hypothesized that variation in data acquisition technique and interpretation might contribute to these observations. We sought to assess differences in hemodynamic acquisition and interpretation by operator subspecialty as well as level of experience. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individual-level responses to how physicians both collect and interpret hemodynamic data at the time of right heart catheterization was solicited via a survey distributed to international professional societies in HF and interventional cardiology. Data were stratified both by operator subspecialty (HF specialists or interventional cardiologists [IC]) and operator experience (early career [≤10 years from training] or late career [>10 years from training]) to determine variations in clinical practice. For the sensitivity analysis, we also look at differences in each subgroup. A total of 261 responses were received. There were 141 clinicians (52%) who self-identified as HF specialists, 99 (38%) identified as IC, and 20 (8%) identified as other. There were 142 early career providers (54%) and late career providers (119 [46%]). When recording hemodynamic values, there was considerable variation in practice patterns, regardless of subspecialty or level of experience for the majority of the intracardiac variables. There was no agreement or mild agreement among HF and IC as to when to record right atrial pressures or pulmonary capillary wedge pressures. HF cardiologists were more likely to routinely measure both Fick and thermodilution cardiac output compared with IC (51% vs 29%, P < .001), something mirrored in early career vs later career cardiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists between the acquisition and interpretation of right heart catheterization measurements between HF and IC, as well as those early and late in their careers. With the growth of the heart team approach to management of patients in cardiogenic shock, standardization of both assessment and management practices is needed.