Katz, Jason N.

Background Patients with cardiohepatic syndrome are at higher risk of adverse outcomes in the cardiac intensive care unit. We hypothesized that cardiohepatic syndrome phenotypes would exhibit differences in their clinical and transthoracic echocardiogram hemodynamic profiles, portending a higher risk of mortality. Methods We included unique CICU patients with an admission diagnosis of heart failure from 2007 to 2018 with available data for 1 or more admission liver function tests. Echocardiographic variables were extracted from patients who had a transthoracic echocardiogram within 1 day of admission. We assigned patients to 1 of 4 mutually exclusive cardiohepatic syndrome phenotype groups: normal, hepatocellular, cholestasis, and combined. Results We included 3992 CICU patients; 2483 had an available transthoracic echocardiogram. Patients with cholestasis had more right ventricular systolic dysfunction and congestion, whereas those with hepatocellular injury had more left ventricular systolic dysfunction and poor forward flow; hemodynamics and biventricular function were worst in the combined group. In‐hospital mortality occurred in 14.6% and was higher for patients with cholestasis or hepatocellular injury, especially those with greater extent/severity and worse biventricular function or poor hemodynamics. After adjustment, only the group with hepatocellular injury (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.04–1.75], P =0.03) and the combined group (adjusted OR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.30–2.34], P <0.001) remained at higher risk. One‐year mortality was highest in the combined group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.29 [95% CI, 1.10–1.51], P =0.002). Conclusions Cardiohepatic syndrome phenotypes are associated with distinct echocardiographic profiles. Patients with the combined cardiohepatic syndrome phenotype were at highest risk of mortality, particularly if this was combined with poor cardiac function.

Introduction: Among patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), high right atrial pressure (RAP) and low mean arterial pressure (MAP) are associated with in-hospital mortality. Pressure-adjusted heart rate (PAHR), defined as heart rate * RAP-to-MAP ratio (HR * [RAP/MAP]), integrates these parameters and has been used to identify cardiovascular dysfunction in critical illness. Higher PAHR values associate with higher surgical ICU mortality, but the prognostic significance of PAHR has not been assessed in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients with CS. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that higher PAHR values are associated with higher risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with CS. Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a multinational registry of CICUs coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Among CS admissions (2018-2023) undergoing invasive hemodynamic assessment within 24h of CICU admission, we calculated PAHR (in bpm) and assessed its relationship with in-hospital mortality. Patients on temporary mechanical circulatory support were excluded. Odds ratios were adjusted for age, sex, vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), SCAI stage, and preceding cardiac arrest. Subgroup analyses stratifying by CS subtype were performed. Results: Among the 1411 CS admissions in the analysis cohort (mean age 61 years, 31% women), 18% had AMI-CS, 75% had HF-CS, and 7% had secondary CS. At the time of assessment (median 1.4h after CICU admission), 75% were on vasoactive support (median VIS 3.8). Median HR was 92 (Q1-Q3 77-109) bpm, RAP 15 (Q1-Q3 10-19) mmHg, MAP 75 (Q1-Q3 67-87) mmHg, and PAHR 17 (Q1-Q3 11-24) bpm. A stepwise gradient of higher in-hospital mortality with increasing PAHR values (p-trend <0.001; Fig ) was observed. In adjusted models, a higher PAHR was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (aOR per 10-bpm, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.15-1.58]), and had stronger prognostic associations with mortality than its individual hemodynamic components (Fig) . Conclusion: Higher PAHR is strongly associated with in-hospital mortality in CS patients. PAHR, a simple parameter which is readily calculable without needing a pulmonary artery catheter, may aid in identifying CS patients at higher risk of death.

Abstract Introduction Non-cardiovascular end-organ dysfunction is an important determinant of outcomes in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients. We examined the association between in-hospital mortality with the severity and extent of admission liver function test (LFT) abnormalities in a heterogeneous CICU population. Purpose We hypothesized that a greater severity or extent of LFT abnormalities would be associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Methods We included consecutive unique adult CICU patients with available data for one or more of the admission LFT values of interest. Admission laboratory values were defined as those closest to CICU admission. We used the NIH Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 to categorize the severity of each LFT abnormality from Grade 0 (normal) to Grade 4 (life-threatening). We defined the extent of LFT abnormality as the number of individual LFTs meeting criteria for CTCAE Grade 1 or greater. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values for in-hospital mortality were estimated using logistic regression, before and after multivariable adjustment. Results Of 12,428 unique CICU patients, 5,144 were excluded due to a lack of available data for any admission LFT values. The remaining 7,284 patients comprised the final study population. Among patients with available data for each individual LFT, abnormal values were present in: AST, 2,743/5,733 (47.8%); ALT 1,576/5,512 (28.6%); ALK 611/3,684 (16.6%); and TB 898/5,155 (17.4%). A total of 864 (11.9%) patients died during hospitalization. In-hospital mortality was higher for patients with one or more LFTs meeting criteria for CTCAE Grade 1 or greater (17.9% vs. 6.4%, adjusted OR 1.54 [1.27-1.86], p &lt;0.001). A stepwise increase in in-hospital mortality was observed with increasing CTCAE grade, both overall (adjusted OR 1.25 per each higher CTCAE grade [1.16-1.34], p &lt;0.001); (Figure 1A), and for each individual LFT (Figure 1B). Conclusion Cardiohepatic syndrome is an important predictor of prognosis in CICU patients, as the extent and severity of LFT abnormalities are strongly associated with in-hospital mortality. This is the first large-scale study to examine the association between the magnitude of hepatic biomarker derangement with in-hospital mortality in unselected CICU patients. Patients with markedly elevated LFT values exhibited the highest risk of in-hospital mortality. This analysis advocates for the inclusion of commonly obtained LFTs in future risk-prediction tools for enhanced prognostication.

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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.001). Patients with AMI-CS and mixed CS were most likely to present in more severe shock stages (SCAI D or E; P &lt; 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 &lt; 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.

BACKGROUND: Associations of early changes in vasoactive support with cardiogenic shock (CS) mortality remain incompletely defined. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units. Patients admitted with CS (2018–2023) had vasoactive dosing assessed at 4 and 24 hours from cardiac intensive care unit admission and quantified by the vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS). Prognostic associations of VIS at both time points, as well as change in VIS from 4 to 24 hours, were examined. Interaction testing was performed based on mechanical circulatory support status. RESULTS: Among 3665 patients, 82% had a change in VIS <10, with 7% and 11% having a ≥10-point increase and decrease from 4 to 24 hours, respectively. The 4 and 24-hour VIS were each associated with cardiac intensive care unit mortality (13%–45% and 11%–73% for VIS <10 to ≥40, respectively; P trend <0.0001 for each). Stratifying by the 4-hour VIS, changes in VIS from 4 to 24 hours had a graded association with mortality, ranging from a 2- to >4-fold difference in mortality comparing those with a ≥10-point increase to ≥10-point decrease in VIS ( P trend <0.0001). The change in VIS alone provided good discrimination of cardiac intensive care unit mortality (C-statistic, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.70–0.75]) and improved discrimination of the 24-hour Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.72 [95% CI, 0.69–0.74] to 0.76 [95% CI, 0.74–0.78]) and the clinician-assessed Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions shock stage (0.72 [95% CI, 0.70–0.74] to 0.77 [95% CI, 0.75–0.79]). Although present in both groups, the mortality risk associated with VIS was attenuated in patients managed with versus without mechanical circulatory support (odds ratio per 10-point higher 24-hour VIS, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.23–1.49] versus 1.84 [95% CI, 1.69–2.01]; P interaction <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Early changes in the magnitude of vasoactive support in CS are associated with a gradient of risk for mortality. These data suggest that early VIS trajectory may improve CS prognostication, with the potential to be leveraged for clinical decision-making and research applications in CS.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time‐sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well‐resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team‐based approach to care (the “shock team”) has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high‐volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative—akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium—with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Background: Up to 70% of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) will survive hospitalization, yet studies on the outcomes of CS survivors are scarce. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that CS survivors would be at high risk of rehospitalization, particularly CS without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who may have chronic heart failure (HF). Methods: We used the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to examine adult patients who were discharged alive after an index CS admission from 2016-2019. We compared demographic and clinical features during the index admission and the readmission mortality rate between the AMI-CS versus non-AMI-CS groups. We analyzed the cumulative hazard for all-cause readmission within 90 days after index hospitalization using Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: We included 134,793 survivors of CS hospitalization from 2016 to 2019 who were discharged to home or a long-term facility, including 43.9% with AMI-CS and 56.1% with non-AMI-CS. The demographics and clinical features differed between the AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS groups, with more HF and non-cardiac comorbidities in the non-AMI-CS group. The non-AMI-CS patients were more likely to be readmitted after discharge, with a higher 90-day readmission rate compared to the AMI-CS group (31.6% vs 25.9%, p <0.001; Figure). During the readmission, the non-AMI-CS group had a higher rate of repeat CS presentation compared to the AMI-CS group (8.9% vs.. 6.1%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality during readmission was higher in the non-AMI-CS group (8.6% vs.7.2%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Nearly one-third of CS survivors require readmission within 90 days after their index hospitalization. Non-AMI-CS patients have a higher re-admission rate after their index hospitalization and worse outcomes during readmission. This analysis identifies an unmet need and an important opportunity to improve long-term outcomes for CS survivors.

Abstract Aims Invasive haemodynamic assessment with a pulmonary artery catheter is often used to guide the management of patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and may provide important prognostic information. We aimed to assess prognostic associations and relationships to end-organ dysfunction of presenting haemodynamic parameters in CS. Methods and results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Patients with CS (2018–2022) who underwent invasive haemodynamic assessment within 24 h of CICU admission were included. Associations of haemodynamic parameters with in-hospital mortality were assessed using logistic regression, and associations with presenting serum lactate were assessed using least squares means regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding patients on temporary mechanical circulatory support and adjusted for vasoactive-inotropic score. Among the 3603 admissions with CS, 1473 had haemodynamic data collected within 24 h of CICU admission. The median cardiac index was 1.9 (25th–75th percentile, 1.6–2.4) L/min/m2 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) was 74 (66–86) mmHg. Parameters associated with mortality included low MAP, low systolic blood pressure, low systemic vascular resistance, elevated right atrial pressure (RAP), elevated RAP/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio, and low pulmonary artery pulsatility index. These associations were generally consistent when controlling for the intensity of background pharmacologic and mechanical haemodynamic support. These parameters were also associated with higher presenting serum lactate. Conclusion In a contemporary CS population, presenting haemodynamic parameters reflecting decreased systemic arterial tone and right ventricular dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes and systemic hypoperfusion.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular and critical care professional societies recommend incorporating family engagement practices into routine clinical care. However, little is known about current family engagement practices in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). METHODS: We implemented a validated 12-item family engagement practice survey among site investigators participating in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, a collaborative network of CICUs in North America. The survey includes 9 items assessing specific engagement practices, 1 item about other family-centered care practices, and 2 open-ended questions on strategies and barriers concerning family engagement practice. We developed an engagement practice score by assigning 1 point for each family engagement practice partially or fully adopted at each site (max score 9). We assessed for relationships between the engagement practice score and CICU demographics. RESULTS: All sites (N=39; 100%) completed the survey. The most common family engagement practices were open visitation (95%), information and support to families (85%), structured care conferences (n=82%), and family participation in rounds (77%). The median engagement practice score was 5 (interquartile range, 4). There were no differences in engagement practice scores by geographic region or CICU type. The most commonly used strategies to promote family engagement were family presence during rounds (41%), communication (28%), and family meetings (28%). The most common barriers to family engagement were COVID-related visitation policies (38%) and resource limitations (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Family engagement practices are routinely performed in many CICUs; however, considerable variability exists. There is a need for strategies to address the variability of family engagement practices in CICUs.