Katz, Jason N

Background Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Multicenter analyses describing the epidemiology of AKI in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are scarce. Here, we describe the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes associated with AKI in a contemporary multicenter CICU population. Methods The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) is a collaboration of CICUs in North America coordinated by the TIMI Study Group (Boston, MA). We evaluated patient and hospital-level outcomes as a function of creatinine-only Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) AKI stage within the CCCTN registry. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with in-hospital mortality. Results Among 21 603 admissions, the overall prevalence of AKI was 23.7%, which was composed of KDIGO stage 1: 12.7%, stage 2: 1.7%, and stage 3: 9.2%. A higher prevalence and severity of AKI were seen in patients with baseline kidney disease, hypertension, or diabetes and in admissions with heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest ( P < .001 for all). There was a stepwise increase in hospital mortality across AKI stages (stage 1: 23%, stage 2: 39%, stage 3: 42%; P < .0001). The increased risk of death associated with progressive AKI stage persisted after multivariate adjustment (adjusted OR: stage 1: 2.1, stage 2: 3.7, stage 3: 3.4). Conclusions AKI occurs in 1 in 4 admissions to the CICU, and a higher AKI stage is incrementally associated with in-hospital mortality, highlighting a need to develop strategies to mitigate AKI and its complications.

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.