Katz, Jason N.

Abstract Background The incidences of invasive mechanical ventilation and non-invasive ventilation among patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and associated prognosis are not well characterized. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with admission diagnosis of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction using the US National Inpatient Sample database between 2002–2014. The exposure variable was invasive mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilation within 24 h of admission, compared to no respiratory support. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We determined the association between respiratory support and mortality using Cox proportional hazard models. Results A total of 4,152,421 non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction hospitalizations were identified, among whom 1.3% required non-invasive ventilation and 1.9% required invasive mechanical ventilation. Non-invasive ventilation use increased over time (0.4% in 2002 to 2.4% in 2014, p<0.001) while there was no definite trend in invasive mechanical ventilation use. Revascularization was lower for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction hospitalizations including invasive mechanical ventilation (23.9%) and non-invasive ventilation (14.5%) compared to 36.5% of those without respiratory support (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality was 3.1% for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction without respiratory support compared to 9.2% with non-invasive ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.74–1.98) and 37.2% with invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio 3.03, 95% confidence interval 2.88–3.19). Mortality for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-non-invasive ventilation is improving over time while mortality for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-invasive mechanical ventilation is increasing over time. Conclusion Mechanical respiratory support in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction is used in an important minority of cases, is increasing and is independently associated with mortality. Studies of the optimal management of acute coronary syndrome complicated by respiratory failure are needed to improve outcomes.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. Methods: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Results: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%–50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%–100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. Conclusions: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Background Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg with end-organ dysfunction ascribed to the hypotension. Shock type was classified by site investigators as cardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5–8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1–8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9–10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0–3.6) for patients without shock ( P <0.01 for each). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were higher in patients with mixed shock (10; IQR, 6–13) versus AMICS (8; IQR, 5–11) or CS without AMI (7; IQR, 5–11; each P <0.01). In-hospital mortality rates were 36% (95% CI, 28%–45%), 31% (95% CI, 26%–36%), and 39% (95% CI, 31%–48%) in AMICS, CS without AMI, and mixed shock, respectively. Conclusions The epidemiology of shock in contemporary advanced CICUs is varied, and AMICS now represents less than one-third of all CS. Despite advanced therapies, mortality in CS and mixed shock remains high. Investigation of management strategies and new therapies to treat shock in the CICU should take this epidemiology into account.

Background Cardiovascular intensive care units ( CICUs ) have evolved from coronary care wards into distinct units for critically ill patients with primary cardiac diseases, often suffering from illnesses that cross multiple disciplines. Mounting evidence has demonstrated improved survival with the incorporation of dedicated CICU providers with expertise in critical care medicine ( CCM ). This is the first study to systematically survey dual certified physicians in order to assess the relevance of CCM training to contemporary CICU care. Methods and Results Utilizing American Board of Internal Medicine data through 2014, 397 eligible physicians had obtained initial certification in both cardiovascular disease and CCM . A survey to delineate the role of critical care training in the CICU was provided to these physicians. Among those surveyed, 120 physicians (30%) responded. Dual certified physicians reported frequent use of their CCM skills in the CICU , highlighting ventilator management, multiorgan dysfunction management, end‐of‐life care, and airway management. The majority (85%) cited these skills as the reason CCM training should be prioritized by future CICU providers. Few (17%) agreed that general cardiology fellowship alone is currently sufficient to care for patients in the modern CICU . Furthermore, there was a consensus that there is an unmet need for cardiologists trained in CCM (70%) and that CICU s should adopt a level system similar to trauma centers (61%). Conclusions Citing specific skills acquired during CCM training, dual certified critical care cardiologists reported that their additional critical care experience was necessary in their practice to effectively deliver care in the modern CICU .