Sinha, Shashank S

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.

AbstractBackgroundInvasive hemodynamics are fundamental in assessing patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Several novel hemodynamic parameters have been studied; however, the relative prognostic potential remains ill‐defined.HypothesisAdvanced hemodynamic parameters provide additional prognostication beyond the standard hemodynamic assessment.MethodsPatients from the PRognostic Evaluation During Invasive CaTheterization for Heart Failure (PREDICT‐HF) registry who underwent right heart catheterization (RHC) were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was survival to orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or death within 6 months of RHC.ResultsOf 846 patients included, 176 (21%) met the primary endpoint. In a multivariate model that included traditional hemodynamic variables, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (OR: 1.10, 1.04−1.15, p < .001), and cardiac index (CI) (OR: 0.86, 0.81−0.92, p < .001) were shown to be predictive of adverse outcomes. In a separate multivariate model that incorporated advanced hemodynamic parameters, cardiac power output (CPO) (OR: 0.76, 0.71−0.83, p < .001), aortic pulsatility index (API) (OR: 0.94, 0.91−0.96, p < .001), and pulmonary artery pulsatility index (OR: 1.02, 1.00−1.03, p .027) were all significantly associated with the primary outcome. Positively concordant API and CPO afforded the best freedom from the endpoint (94.7%), whilst negatively concordant API and CPO had the worst freedom from the endpoint (61.5%, p < .001). Those with discordant API and CPO had similar freedom from the endpoint.ConclusionThe advanced hemodynamic parameters API and CPO are independently associated with death or the need for OHT or LVAD within 6 months. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these parameters and elucidate their role in patients with advanced HF.

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.

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: Algorithmic application of the 2019 Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stages effectively stratifies mortality risk for patients with cardiogenic shock. However, clinician assessment of SCAI staging may differ. Moreover, the implications of the 2022 SCAI criteria update remain incompletely defined. Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs). Between 2019 and 2021, participating centers (n=32) contributed at least a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. In-hospital mortality was assessed across 3 separate staging methods: clinician assessment, Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network algorithmic application of the 2019 SCAI criteria, and a revision of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network application using the 2022 SCAI criteria. Results: Of 9612 admissions, 1340 (13.9%) presented with cardiogenic shock with in-hospital mortality of 35.2%. Both clinician and algorithm-based staging using the 2019 SCAI criteria identified a stepwise gradient of mortality risk (stage C–E: 19.0% to 83.7% and 14.6% to 52.2%, respectively; P trend <0.001 for each). Clinician assignment of SCAI stages identified higher risk patients compared with algorithm-based assignment (stage D: 49.9% versus 29.3%; stage E: 83.7% versus 52.2%). Algorithmic application of the 2022 SCAI criteria, with incorporation of the vasoactive-inotropic score, more closely approximated clinician staging (mortality for stage C-E: 21.9% to 70.5%; P trend <0.001). Conclusions: Both clinician and algorithm-based application of the 2019 SCAI stages identify a stepwise gradient of mortality risk, although clinician-staging may better allocate higher risk patients into advanced SCAI stages. Updated algorithmic staging using the 2022 SCAI criteria and vasoactive-inotropic score further refines risk stratification.

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.

OBJECTIVES: Mixed cardiogenic-septic shock is common and associated with high mortality. There are limited contemporary data on concomitant sepsis in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Twenty percent stratified sample of all community hospitals (2000–2014) in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (> 18 yr) with AMI-CS with and without concomitant sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes of interest included inhospital mortality, development of noncardiac organ failure, complications, utilization of guideline-directed procedures, length of stay, and hospitalization costs. Over 15 years, 444,253 AMI-CS admissions were identified, of which 27,057 (6%) included sepsis. The sepsis cohort had more comorbidities and had higher rates of noncardiac multiple organ failure (92% vs 69%) (all p < 0.001). In 2014, compared with 2000, the prevalence of sepsis increased from 0.5% versus 11.5% with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 11.71 (95% CI, 9.7–14.0) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 24.6 (CI, 16.4–36.7) (all p < 0.001) in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. The sepsis cohort received fewer cardiac interventions (coronary angiography [65% vs 68%], percutaneous coronary intervention [43% vs 48%]) and had greater use of mechanical circulatory support (48% vs 45%) and noncardiac support (invasive mechanical ventilation [65% vs 41%] and acute hemodialysis [12% vs 3%]) (p < 0.001). The sepsis cohort had higher inhospital mortality (44.3% vs 38.1%; aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18–1.25; p < 0.001), longer length of stay (14.0 d [7–24 d] vs 7.0 d [3–12 d]), greater hospitalization costs (×1,000 U.S. dollars) ($176.0 [$85–$331] vs $77.0 [$36–$147]), fewer discharges to home (22% vs 44%) and more discharges to skilled nursing facilities (51% vs 28%) (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In AMI-CS, concomitant sepsis is associated with higher mortality and morbidity highlighting the need for early recognition and integrated management of mixed shock.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiogenic shock presents with variable severity. Categorizing cardiogenic shock into clinical stages may improve risk stratification and patient selection for therapies. We sought to determine whether a structured implementation of the 2019 Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions clinical cardiogenic shock staging criteria that is ascertainable in clinical registries discriminates mortality in a contemporary population with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock. DESIGN: We developed a pragmatic application of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock staging criteria—A (at-risk), B (beginning), C (classic cardiogenic shock), D (deteriorating), or E (extremis)—and examined outcomes by stage. SETTING: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is an investigator-initiated multicenter research collaboration coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). Consecutive admissions with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock during two annual 2-month collection periods (2017–2019) were analyzed. PATIENTS: Patients with or at-risk for cardiogenic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,240 CICU admissions reviewed, 1,991 (24%) had or were at-risk for cardiogenic shock. Distributions across the five stages were as follows: A: 33%; B: 7%; C: 16%; D: 23%; and E: 21%. Overall in-hospital mortality among patients with established cardiogenic shock was 39%; however, mortality varied from only 15.8% to 32.1% to 62.5% across stages C, D, and E (Cochran-Armitage p trend < 0.0001). The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions stages improved mortality prediction beyond the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment and Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumpin Cardiogenic Shock II scores. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall mortality in cardiogenic shock remains high, it varies considerably based on clinical stage, identifying stage C as relatively lower risk. We demonstrate a pragmatic adaptation of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions cardiogenic shock stages that effectively stratifies mortality risk and could be leveraged for future clinical research.

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.