Brennan, Joseph

Background Several studies have shown improved outcomes in closed compared with open medical and surgical intensive care units. However, very little is known about the ideal organizational structure in the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed consecutive unique admissions (n=3996) to our tertiary care CICU from September 2013 to October 2017. The aim of our study was to assess for differences in clinical outcomes between an open compared with a closed CICU. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. We identified 2226 patients in the open unit and 1770 in the closed CICU. The unadjusted in‐hospital mortality in the open compared with closed unit was 9.6% and 8.9%, respectively ( P =0.42). After multivariable adjustment, admission to the closed unit was associated with a lower in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53–0.90, P =0.007) and CICU mortality (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52–0.94, P =0.02). In subgroup analysis, admissions for cardiac arrest (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20–0.88, P =0.02) and respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22–0.82, P =0.01) were also associated with a lower in‐hospital mortality in the closed unit. We did not find a difference in CICU length of stay or total hospital charges ( P >0.05). Conclusions We found an association between lower in‐hospital and CICU mortality after the transition to a closed CICU. These results may help guide the ongoing redesign in other tertiary care CICUs.

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.