Barsness, Gregory W.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction (AMI); however, there are limited large-scale national data. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2000 to 2014, a retrospective cohort of AMI utilizing ECMO was identified. Use of percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was also identified in this population. Outcomes of interest included temporal trends in utilization of ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous LVAD), in-hospital mortality, and resource utilization. Results: In ≈9 million AMI admissions, ECMO was used in 2962 (<0.01%) and implanted a median of 1 day after admission. ECMO was used in 0.5% and 0.3% AMI admissions complicated by cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, respectively. ECMO was used more commonly in admissions that were younger, nonwhite, and with less comorbidity. ECMO use was 11× higher in 2014 as compared with 2000 (odds ratio, 11.37 [95% CI, 7.20–17.97]). Same-day percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 23.1%; intra-aortic balloon pump/percutaneous LVAD was used in 57.9%, of which 30.3% were placed concomitantly. In-hospital mortality with ECMO was 59.2% overall but decreased from 100% (2000) to 45.1% (2014). Durable LVAD and cardiac transplantation were performed in 11.7% as an exit strategy. Of the hospital survivors, 40.8% were discharged to skilled nursing facilities. Older age, male sex, nonwhite race, and lower socioeconomic status were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality with ECMO use. Conclusions: In AMI admissions, a steady increase was noted in the utilization of ECMO alone and with concomitant procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention, intra-aortic balloon pump, and percutaneous LVAD). In-hospital mortality remained high in AMI admissions treated with ECMO.

AbstractBackgroundThere are limited data on the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fractional flow reserve (FFR) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI).ObjectivesTo assess the temporal trends of IVUS, OCT, and FFR use in AMI.MethodsA retrospective cohort study from the National Inpatient Sample (2004–2014) was designed to include AMI admissions that received coronary angiography. Administrative codes were used to identify percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), IVUS, OCT, and FFR. Outcomes included temporal trends, inhospital mortality and resource utilization stratified by IVUS, OCT, or FFR use.ResultsIn 4,419,973 AMI admissions, IVUS, OCT, and FFR were used in 2.6%, 0.1%, and 0.6%, respectively. There was a 22‐fold, 118‐fold, and 33‐fold adjusted increase in IVUS, OCT, and FFR use, respectively, in 2014 compared to the first year of use. Non‐ST‐elevation AMI presentation, male sex, private insurance coverage, admission to a large urban hospital, and absence of cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock were associated with higher IVUS, OCT, or FFR use. PCI was performed in 83.2% of the IVUS, OCT, or FFR cohort compared to 64.2% of the control group (p < .001). The cohort with IVUS/OCT/FFR use had lower inhospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.53 [95% confidence interval 0.50–0.56]), more frequent discharges to home (83.7% vs. 76.8%), shorter hospital stays (4.3 ± 4.4 vs. 5.0 ± 5.5 days) and higher hospitalization costs ($90,683 ± 74,093 vs. $74,671 ± 75,841).ConclusionsIn AMI, the use of IVUS, OCT, and FFR has increased during 2004–2014. Significant patient and hospital‐level disparities exist in the use of these technologies.

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.

Abstract Abstract 2309 Introduction: We have previously investigated the incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) events in patients treated with the new oral, reversible, direct thrombin inhibitor, dabigatran etexilate (DE) compared with enoxaparin in the treatment and post-treatment periods in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery in three phase III trials (RE-MODEL™, RE-NOVATE® and RE-MOBILIZE®). Whether identified through local investigator reporting or blinded central event adjudication, no significant differences in ACS event rates were detected among orthopaedic surgery patients treated with DE compared with enoxaparin during or after treatment. Overall event rates were low, consistent between investigator and centrally adjudicated assessments, and without evidence for a ‘rebound’ effect for either agent in this post-surgical population. In a pooling with a fourth trial (RE-NOVATE® II), we have now conducted an analysis of investigator-reported adverse events possibly related to ACS from 10,148 treated patients. Methods: Patients in the RE-MODEL™, RE-NOVATE®, RE-NOVATE® II and RE-MOBILIZE® trials were randomized to receive oral DE 150 mg (n = 2737) or 220 mg (n = 3692) once daily, or subcutaneous enoxaparin (n = 3719) for 6–35 days, and were followed for 90 days post-surgery. Potential ACS events during treatment were identified based on investigator-reported adverse events classified using pre-specified Standard Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Authorities (MedDRA) Queries (SMQs). This list included terms relating to locally diagnosed ACS as well as broader MedDRA terms that could reflect undiagnosed ACS. Results: In all four trials, adverse events included in the SMQ ‘ischaemic heart disease’ (sub-terms myocardial infarction [MI], acute MI, angina pectoris, myocardial ischaemia, ACS, unstable angina, coronary artery disease, coronary artery occlusion, cardiac enzymes increased, electrocardiogram ST segment depression, electrocardiogram T wave abnormal, ischaemic cardiomyopathy and troponin increased) were reported by the investigator in 16 (0.4%) and 32 (1.2%) patients in the DE 220 mg and DE 150 mg groups, respectively, compared to 25 (0.7%) in the enoxaparin group during treatment. The incidence of individual adverse event terms possibly related to ACS in the respective treatment groups (DE 220 mg, DE 150 mg and enoxaparin) was as follows: MI 3 (0.1%), 11 (0.4%) and 9 (0.2%); acute MI 1 (0.0%), 3 (0.1%) and 1 (0.0%); ACS 1 (0.0%), 0 (0.0%) and 0 (0.0%); unstable angina 1 (0.0%), 0 (0.0%) and 0 (0.0%). Conclusions: The analysis of > 10,000 patients showed no significant differences in investigator-reported ACS-related adverse event rates among orthopaedic surgery patients during treatment, comparing DE with enoxaparin. This is in agreement with, and supports previous findings of, investigator-related and centrally adjudicated ACS events from three trials. Disclosures: Eriksson: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy. Smith:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Caprini:ESAI: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Covidien: Consultancy. Hantel:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Clemens:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment. Feuring:Boehringer Ingelheim: Employment.

Background There are no risk scores designed specifically for mortality risk prediction in unselected cardiac intensive care unit ( CICU ) patients. We sought to develop a novel CICU ‐specific risk score for prediction of hospital mortality using variables available at the time of CICU admission. Methods and Results A database of CICU patients admitted from January 1, 2007 to April 30, 2018 was divided into derivation and validation cohorts. The top 7 predictors of hospital mortality were identified using stepwise backward regression, then used to develop the Mayo CICU Admission Risk Score (M‐ CARS ), with integer scores ranging from 0 to 10. Discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver‐operator curve analysis. Calibration was assessed using the Hosmer–Lemeshow statistic. The derivation cohort included 10 004 patients and the validation cohort included 2634 patients (mean age 67.6 years, 37.7% females). Hospital mortality was 9.2%. Predictor variables included in the M‐ CARS were cardiac arrest, shock, respiratory failure, Braden skin score, blood urea nitrogen, anion gap and red blood cell distribution width at the time of CICU admission. The M‐ CARS showed a graded relationship with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.84 for each 1‐point increase in M‐ CARS , 95% CI 1.78–1.89). In the validation cohort, the M‐ CARS had an area under the receiver‐operator curve of 0.86 for hospital mortality, with good calibration ( P =0.21). The 47.1% of patients with M‐ CARS <2 had hospital mortality of 0.8%, and the 5.2% of patients with M‐ CARS >6 had hospital mortality of 51.6%. Conclusions Using 7 variables available at the time of CICU admission, the M‐ CARS can predict hospital mortality in unselected CICU patients with excellent discrimination.

There are contrasting data on concomitant Impella device in cardiogenic shock patients treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) (ECPELLA). This study sought to compare early mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock treated with ECPELLA in comparison to VA ECMO alone. We reviewed the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for randomized, cohort, case-control, and case series studies evaluating adult patients requiring VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock. Five retrospective observational studies, representing 425 patients, were included. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella strategy was used in 27% of the patients. Median age across studies varied between 51 and 63 years with 59–88% patients being male. Use of ECPELLA was associated with higher weaning from VA ECMO and bridging to permanent ventricular assist device or cardiac transplant in three and four studies, respectively. The studies showed moderate heterogeneity with possible publication bias. The two studies that accounted for differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups reported lower 30 day mortality with ECPELLA versus VA ECMO. The remaining three studies did not adjust for potential confounding and were at high risk for selection bias. In conclusion, ECPELLA is being increasingly used as a strategy in patients with cardiogenic shock. Additional large, high-quality studies are needed to evaluate clinical outcomes with ECPELLA.

Background This study sought to evaluate the 15‐year national utilization, trends, predictors, disparities, and outcomes of palliative care services ( PCS ) use in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2014 was analyzed using the National Inpatient Sample database. Administrative codes for acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock and PCS were used to identify eligible admissions. The primary outcomes were the frequency, utilization trends, and predictors of PCS . Secondary outcomes included in‐hospital mortality and resources utilization. Multivariable regression and propensity‐matching analyses were used to control for confounding. In this 15‐year period, there were 444 253 acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock admissions, of which 4.5% received PCS . The cohort receiving PCS was older, of white race, female sex, and with higher comorbidity and acute organ failure. The PCS cohort received fewer cardiac procedures, but more noncardiac organ support therapies. Older age, female sex, white race, higher comorbidity, higher socioeconomic status, admission to a larger hospital, and admission after 2008 were independent predictors of PCS use. Use of PCS was independently associated with higher in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio 6.59 [95% CI 6.37–6.83]; P <0.001). The cohort with PCS use had >2‐fold higher in‐hospital mortality, 12‐fold higher use of do‐not‐resuscitate status, lesser in‐hospital resource utilization, and fewer discharges to home. Similar findings were observed in the propensity‐matched cohort. Conclusions PCS use in patients with acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock is low, though there is a trend towards increased adoption. There are significant patient and hospital‐specific disparities in the utilization of PCS .