Alfonso, Carlos E.

Abstract Aims The Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC) recently proposed pragmatic consensus definitions to standardize classification of cardiogenic shock (CS) in registries and clinical trials. We aimed to describe contemporary CS epidemiology using the SHARC definitions in a cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) population. Methods and results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational research network of advanced CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Cardiogenic shock was defined as a cardiac disorder resulting in SBP < 90 mmHg for ≥30 min [or the need for vasopressors, inotropes, or mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to maintain SBP ≥ 90 mmHg] with evidence of hypoperfusion. Primary aetiologic categories included acute myocardial infarction-related CS (AMI-CS), heart failure-related CS (HF-CS), and non-myocardial (secondary) CS. Post-cardiotomy CS was not included. Heart failure-related CS was further subcategorized as de novo vs. acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Patients with both cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic components of shock were classified separately as mixed CS. Of 8974 patients meeting shock criteria (2017–23), 65% had isolated CS and 17% had mixed shock. Among patients with CS (n = 5869), 27% had AMI-CS (65% STEMI), 59% HF-CS (72% acute-on-chronic, 28% de novo), and 14% secondary CS. Patients with AMI-CS and de novo HF-CS were most likely to have had concomitant cardiac arrest (P < 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P < 0.001). Temporary MCS use was highest in AMI-CS (59%). In-hospital mortality was highest in mixed CS (48%), followed by AMI-CS (41%), similar in de novo HF-CS (31%) and secondary CS (31%), and lowest in acute-on-chronic HF-CS (25%; P < 0.001). Conclusion SHARC consensus definitions for CS classification can be pragmatically applied in contemporary registries and reveal discrete subpopulations of CS with distinct phenotypes and outcomes that may be relevant to clinical practice and future research.

AbstractAimsThe 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 resultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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.

AbstractBackgroundPulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) is the initial rhythm in a third of in‐hospital cardiac arrest patients. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device use remains poorly understood in this population.MethodsWe conducted an observational analysis of temporal trends in the utilization of MCS in VT/VF IHCA between January 2008 and December 2014 utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Using multivariable analysis, we assessed factors associated with MCS use and survival to discharge.ResultsAmong 151,628 hospitalizations with VT/VF IHCA, 14,981 (9.9%) received MCS. Intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) was the most commonly used MCS (9.1%). From 2008 to 2014, there was significant increase in the utilization of MCS (8.7–11%; ptrend < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was 12‐fold increase and three‐fold increase in the utilization of PVAD and ECMO respectively; however, there was no significant change in the use of IABP. Over the seven‐year sample period, there was significant increase in the overall survival to hospital discharge (35.4–43.5%; ptrend < 0.0001). Survival to hospital discharge increased in both MCS and non‐MCS groups.ConclusionThere was significant increase in utilization of MCS after VT/VF IHCA during the study period. IABP was the most commonly utilized MCS. The survival to hospital discharge increased in the overall study population including both MCS and non‐MCS groups. Future studies are needed to identify patient population most likely to benefit from the use of MCS after VT/VF IHCA.