Diepen, Sean van

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: Emerging evidence suggests that coronary intensive care units are evolving into intensive care environments with an increasing burden of non-cardiovascular illness, but previous studies have been limited to older populations or single center experiences. Methods: Canadian national health-care data was used to identify all patients ≥18 years admitted to dedicated coronary intensive care units (2005–2015) and admissions were categorized as primary cardiac or non-cardiac. The outcomes of interest included longitudinal trends in admission diagnoses, critical care therapies, and all-cause in-hospital mortality. Results: Among the 373,992 patients admitted to a coronary intensive care unit, minimal changes in the proportion of patients admitted with a primary cardiac (88.2% to 86.9%; p<0.001) and non-cardiac diagnoses (11.8% to 13.1%; p<0.001) were observed. Among cardiac admissions, a temporal increase in the proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (19.4% to 24.1%, p<0.001), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (14.6% to 16.2%, p<0.001), heart failure (7.3% to 8.4%, p<0.001), shock (4.9% to 5.7%, p<0.001), and decline in unstable angina (4.9% to 4.0%, p<0.001) and stable coronary diseases (21.3% to 12.4%, p<0.001) was observed. The proportion of patients requiring critical care therapies (57.8% to 63.5%, p<0.001) including mechanical ventilation (9.6% to 13.1%, p<0.001) increased. In-hospital mortality rates for patients with primary cardiac (4.9% to 4.4%; adjusted odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.63–0.79) and non-cardiac (17.8% to 16.1%; adjusted odds ratio 0.84, 0.73–0.97) declined; results were consistent when stratified by academic vs community hospital, and by the presence of on-site percutaneous coronary intervention. Conclusion: In a national dataset we observed a changing case-mix among patients admitted to a coronary intensive care unit, though the proportion of patients with a primary cardiac diagnosis remained stable. There was an increase in clinical acuity highlighted by critical care therapies, but in-hospital mortality rates for both primary cardiac and non-cardiac conditions declined across all hospitals. Our findings confirm the changing coronary intensive care unit case-mix and have implications for future coronary intensive care unit training and staffing.

Aims: Registries have reported large inter-hospital differences in intensive care unit admission rates for patients with acute heart failure, but little is known about the potential economic impact of over-admission of low-risk patients with heart failure to higher cost intensive care units. We described the variability in intensive care unit admission practices, the provision of critical care therapies, and estimated the potential national cost savings if all hospitals adopted low intensive care unit admission practices for patients admitted with heart failure. Methods: Using a national population health dataset, we identified 349,693 heart failure admission hospitalisations with a primary diagnosis of heart failure between 2007 and 2016. Hospitals were categorised as low (first quartile), medium (second and third quartile) and high (fourth quartiles) intensive care unit utilisation. Results: The mean intensive care unit admission rate was 16.4% (inter-hospital range 0.3–51%) including 5.4% in low, 14.5% in medium and 30% in high utilisation hospitals. Intensive care unit therapies in low, medium and high intensive care unit utilisation hospitals were 54.5%, 45.1% and 24.1% ( P<0.001), respectively and the inhospital mortality rate was not significantly different. The proportion of hospital costs incurred by intensive care unit care was 7.8% in low, 19.8% in medium and 28.2% in high ( P<0.001) admission hospitals. The potential cost savings of altering intensive care unit utilisation practices for patients with heart failure was CAN$234.8m over the study period. Conclusions: In a national cohort of patients hospitalised with heart failure, we observed that low intensive care unit utilisation centres had lower hospital costs with no differences in mortality rates. The development of standardised admission criteria for high-cost and high acuity intensive care unit beds could reduce costs to the healthcare system.

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 .

Background: Noncardiovascular comorbidities and critical illness are increasing in cardiovascular intensive care units (CICUs). There are limited data comparing critical care delivery, resource utilization, and costs between contemporary CICUs and medical intensive care units (MICUs). Methods: All CICU (n = 6967; 22 748 patient-days) and MICU (n = 10 892; 39 211 patient-days) admissions to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a tertiary care academic medical center, between January 2011 and December 2016 were reviewed. Both the CICU and MICU admitted patients for primary cardiovascular or medical conditions during the study period, but not for postoperative surgical care. Results: Patients admitted to the CICU were more frequently older, male, and had more preexisting cardiac disease ( P < .0001). More than one-fifth (21.4%) of CICU patients had a noncardiovascular primary admission diagnosis, compared to 89.2% of MICU patients. Cardiovascular intensive care unit patients had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III scores (51.1 [19.9] vs 61.1 [24.9], P < .0001) and shorter median hospital length of stay ( P < .001), but not in-unit stay, as compared to MICU patients. Mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, inotropes, renal replacement therapy, and/or blood transfusion were required in 35.0% of CICU patients compared with 62.2% of MICU patients ( P < .0001). The unit mortality rate was lower for CICU than MICU patients (4.8% vs 13.0%, P < .0001), as was the hospital mortality rate (9.3% vs 21.6%, P < .0001). The standardized mortality ratio was 0.73 for the CICU and 0.86 for the MICU. There was no difference in the mean direct cost of care per patient-day between the CICU and MICU ($4011 USD [376] vs $3990 USD [214], P = .77). Conclusions: The burden of noncardiovascular diseases and the requirement for critical care therapies are high in contemporary CICU patients but remain lower compared to the MICU population. Our findings support the growing complexity of care in tertiary CICUs. Further studies are required to explore the association between critical care delivery and outcomes in this evolving population.

Background— We examined the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) conferred by heart failure (HF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation Trial (ARISTOTLE), as well as the effect of apixaban versus warfarin. Methods and Results— The risk of a number of outcomes, including the composite of SSE or death (to take account of competing risks) and composite of SSE, major bleeding, or death (net clinical benefit) were calculated in 3 patient groups: (1) no HF/no LVSD (n=8728), (2) HF/no LVSD (n=3207), and (3) LVSD with/without symptomatic HF (n=2736). The rate of both outcomes was highest in patients with LVSD (SSE or death 8.06; SSE, major bleeding, or death 10.46 per 100 patient-years), intermediate for HF but preserved LV systolic function (5.32; 7.24), and lowest in patients without HF or LVSD (1.54; 5.27); each comparison P <0.0001. Each outcome was less frequent in patients treated with apixaban: in all ARISTOTLE patients, the apixaban/warfarin hazard ratio for SSE or death was 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.98; P =0.02); for SSE, major bleed, or death it was 0.85 (0.78–0.92; P <0.001). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect across the 3 groups. Conclusions— Patients with LVSD (with/without HF) had a higher risk of SSE or death (but similar rate of SSE) compared with patients with HF but preserved LV systolic function; both had a greater risk than patients without either HF or LVSD. Apixaban reduced the risk of both outcomes more than warfarin in all 3 patient groups. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.