Citations

Purpose Despite the need for advanced hemodynamic monitoring, the role of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains controversial due to conflicting evidence from previous studies. Material and Methods This single-center retrospective study utilized the MIMIC-IV database to assess the impact of PAC use on 30-day in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes in CS patients admitted between 2008 and 2019. Propensity score matching (PS) and inverse propensity treatment weighting (IPTW) were employed to adjust for baseline differences. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU length of stay and complications. Cox proportional hazard ratio analyses were performed to evaluate the association between PAC use and mortality outcomes. Results The final cohort consisted of 1940 adult CS patients, with 134 receiving PAC and 1806 not. PAC use significantly reduced 30-day in-hospital mortality (PS-matched HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39-0.83; IPTW HR 0.58, 95% CI: 0.35-0.96) but was associated with longer hospital stays (16.47 vs 12.37 days) and ICU stays (9.26 vs 7.52 days). Conclusion PAC use in CS patients was associated with improved short-term survival but also with longer hospitalization and potential complications, underscoring the need for careful patient selection and further research.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use during liver transplantation is a complex and evolving aspect of critical care. This retrospective analysis presents the largest North American case series to date, offering a detailed comparison of survival outcomes in liver transplant (LT) patients supported by ECMO. A total of 15 patients were supported with ECMO, eight were supported on venoarterial (VA) ECMO and the remaining seven on venovenous (VV) ECMO. The median duration of ECMO support was 10 days. Mean intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays were 34.8 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1–158) and 49.2 days (IQR: 1–121), respectively. Overall survival was 33.3%, comparable to published rates (20–30%). Survival was based on ECMO initiation timing: preoperative 33.3% (1/3); intraoperative 50% (3/6); postoperative, 16.6% (1/6). All the patients (five) discharged from hospital were alive at 1 year follow-up. Significant ECMO-related complications included acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (40%, n = 6/15), neurological complications (40%, n = 6/15), and bleeding requiring transfusion (26.6%, n = 4/15). Literature review suggests better outcomes with intraoperative or postoperative ECMO. While ECMO use is increasing in LT, outcomes remain poor. Improved survival may depend on careful patient selection, optimal timing of initiation, and distinguishing reversible pathology from irreversible one.

Background: Sepsis survivors experience substantial long-term cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. The pooled-cohort atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) score estimates 10-year risk in the general population, but its accuracy soon after sepsis is unknown. Objectives: (1) Describe the absolute five-year incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after sepsis hospitalization. (2) Evaluate the discrimination and calibration of the 10-year ASCVD score for predicting five-year MACE in this setting. Research Questions: The ASCVD score would underpredict five-year MACE in sepsis survivors, reflecting their heightened risk. Methods: We performed a retrospective closed-cohort study using electronic health records from Mayo Clinic hospitals (USA). Adults aged 40–75 years hospitalized for sepsis between 2018 and 2020 were eligible if follow-up was ≥5 years; the age criterion matched the derivation range of the ASCVD score. The primary outcome was five-year MACE—myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, or CV death. Secondly we evaluated the predictive performance of ASCVD score for five-year MACE. Discrimination was assessed with the area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC); calibration with Calibration-in-the-Large (CITL, ideal = 0) and slope (ideal = 1). Performance metrics were calculated in patients with complete ASCVD variables. Results: A total of 6306 sepsis admissions were screened. 2424 patients were excluded for age outside 40–75 years and 879 for <5 year follow-up, leaving 2718 patients for incidence analyses. Median age was 65 years (IQR 56–70); 55 % were male, 38 % required ICU care, and 91 % were White. Median body-mass index was 28.2 kg/m2 (IQR 23.7-34.7). During follow-up, 125 patients (4.6 %) had MI, 219 (8.1 %) experienced stroke, and 303 (11.1 %) died of CV causes; overall, 1573 patients (57.9 %) met the composite MACE outcome. Complete ASCVD data were available for 409 patients. In this subset, discrimination was moderate (AUROC 0.65; 95 % CI 0.59–0.71). Calibration showed CITL +0.34 (95 % CI 0.09–0.59) and slope 0.50 (95 % CI 0.28–0.72), indicating systematic infra-prediction and over-fitting, respectively. Conclusion: Five-year MACE incidence after sepsis is high. The 10-year ASCVD score moderately discriminates but underestimates five-year CV risk in this population, highlighting the need for sepsis-specific predictive models or recalibration to guide targeted post-sepsis cardiovascular prevention.

Background: Progressive heart failure cardiogenic shock (HFCS) often requires escalation to temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Following the 2018 UNOS allocation changes, our center revised its BTT strategy to optimize support and shorten wait times. At our institution, the Impella 5.5 with SmartAssist via the axillary approach was selectively used for patients who remained refractory to guideline-directed medical therapy, failed single-inotrope therapy, and were not considered suitable durable LVAD candidates by our multidisciplinary heart team. We compared transplant-related outcomes of BTT patients supported with Impella 5.5 versus durable LVAD. Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all heart and heart/kidney transplant candidates at Mayo Clinic Florida from October 2018 to February 2021. INTERMACS profile, baseline characteristics, and perioperative data were collected at the time of device implantation and throughout the transplant hospitalization. Results: A total of 87 heart and 4 heart–kidney transplants were completed. Forty-five patients (49%) required MCS as BTT: 27 (60%) with a durable LVAD and 18 (40%) with an Impella 5.5. All eighteen patients with Impella 5.5 as BTT (100%) were transplanted compared to nineteen patients with durable LVAD (70%), p = 0.001. The median time from listing to transplant was substantially shorter with Impella (32 vs. 696 days, p < 0.001), and this difference persisted across INTERMACS profiles. UNOS status at transplant was more urgent for Impella than LVAD (p < 0.001). Transplant surgery following Impella support required shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (181 vs. 219 min, p < 0.001) and resulted in lower postoperative vasoactive-inotropic requirements (7.9 vs. 13, p = 0.003). No patients in the Impella group died or were delisted while awaiting transplant, whereas 5 LVAD patients (26%) died or were removed due to LVAD complications (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates that the use of the Impella 5.5 as BTT was associated with significantly shorter waitlist time, higher transplantation rates, reduced perioperative morbidity, and lower postoperative vasoactive support compared with durable LVAD as BTT. These benefits were achieved despite a higher severity of illness at transplantation in the Impella cohort.

Introduction: Life-support limits (i.e., code status), the first step in the continuum of palliation and end-of-life (EoL) care, stem from decisions made by patients and their providers to align care near the EoL with patients’ wishes. The pandemic created health care strain that may have influenced life-support limitation practices among patients with serious COVID-19. In this study, we examine variations in life-support limitations (do-not-resuscitate, DNR; do-not-intubate, DNI) depending on the hospital and period of hospitalization. Methods: We included all adults admitted to a hospital in the United States with COVID-19 from January 2020 to December 2021 using the VIRUS registry. Our outcome was any life-support limitation on admission (DNR, DNI, or both) using regression modeling. Main exposures were hospital and period of hospitalization (early vs. late pandemic). Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and hospitalization diagnoses. Results: There were 42,383 patients from 75 hospitals in the US. The median age was 63 (interquartile range: 50–75), 46.5% were female, and 37.5% were non-Hispanic White. The life-support limitation rate was 7.9%, and the palliative care consultation rate was 2.3%. The odds of life-support limitation were 1.86 (95% CI: 1.6–2.1) depending on the hospital, but the period of hospitalization was not associated with odds of life-support limitation. Older age was associated with the greatest increased odds (4.1 per standard deviation ∼ 17.9 years, 95% CI: 3.9–4.4), followed by comorbidities including paralysis (2.4, 95% CI: 1.8–3.0) and dementia (2.3, 95% CI: 2.0–2.6). Conclusions: After adjusting for patient-level factors, we report significant inter-hospital but no temporal variation in life-support limitation upon admission with COVID-19. Future studies should investigate specific practices that led to health care resilience to temporal practice variations in life-support limitation during the pandemic.

Background Safety-net hospitals (SNH) provide care to a significant proportion of low-income, uninsured, and underserved populations disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the impact of safety-net burden on outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Methods We identified patients aged ≥ 18 years hospitalized with COVID-19 from the nationwide inpatient database using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10-CM) code U07.1. The primary study outcomes were inpatient mortality, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, and tracheostomy use. Secondary outcomes were total hospitalization costs (THC) and length of hospital stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare the primary and secondary outcomes in HBH and medium safety-net burden (MBH) with lower-burden hospitals (LBH) (reference). Results An estimated 2,608,232 COVID-19 hospitalizations met the inclusion criteria, with 68.7% occurring in HBH, 22.8% in MBH, and 8.5% in LBH. On adjusted multivariable analysis, HBH was associated with increased odds of inpatient mortality (aOR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09-1.28) compared with LBH. Both HBH (aOR 1.30, 95% CI 1.21-1.40) and MBH (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.24) demonstrated increased odds of mechanical ventilation compared with LBH. THC was lower in HBH and MBH compared with LBH. The LOS was similar across safety net burden categories. Conclusion After adjusting for patient- and hospital-level factors, COVID-19 hospitalizations at HBH had inferior inpatient outcomes compared with LBH. Targeted policy reforms are needed to address the underlying causes of these disparities and increase our health systems’ readiness for future crises, particularly in underserved communities.

Objectives: This study evaluates the efficacy of existing and new aerosol mitigation methods during nebulization (Neb) in combination with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen supplementation and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: We recorded fugitive aerosol particle concentrations over time and assessed the peak (P) and area (A) efficacy of active and passive mitigation methods, comparing them to a no-mitigation condition. Peak efficacy was measured by the reduction in maximum aerosol concentration, while area efficacy was quantified by the reduction of the area under the aerosol concentration–time curve. Results: For HFNC with Neb, we found that active mitigation using a mask with a biofilter and a fan (referred to as the aerosol barrier mask) significantly outperformed passive mitigation with a face mask. The peak and area efficacy for aerosol reduction were 99.0% and 96.4% for active mitigation and 35.9% and 7.6% for passive mitigation, respectively. For NIV with Neb, the active mitigation method, using a box with a biofilter and fan, also outperformed passive mitigation using only the box. The peak and area efficacy for aerosol reduction were 92.1% and 85.5% for active mitigation and 53.7.0% and 25.4% for passive mitigation, respectively. Conclusion: We concluded that active mitigation set up systems advantageous for effective reduction of airborne aerosols during aerosol generated procedures.

Heart transplantation is a well-established treatment for end-stage heart failure, but many patients present in poor physical condition, complicating outcomes. The Impella 5.5 device, used in cardiogenic shock, may support pretransplant rehabilitation by stabilizing organ function and promoting functional improvement. This retrospective cohort study assessed the relationship between functional status, measured by standardized Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Basic Mobility (AM-PAC) scores, and days alive outside the hospital within 30 days post-transplant (DAOH-30). Patients who received Impella 5.5 support before transplantation between January 2019 and October 2023 were included, excluding those without AM-PAC scores within 24 hours pretransplant. Among 65 patients, the median DAOH-30 was 15 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8–19). Higher pretransplant standardized AM-PAC scores correlate with increased DAOH-30 (adjusted coefficient 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04), as did AM-PAC score improvement during rehabilitation (adjusted coefficient 0.35; 95% CI = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04). Extended rehabilitation was associated with greater functional gains. These findings suggest that better pretransplant functional status and rehabilitation-related improvements were associated with increased DAOH-30. The Impella 5.5 device facilitates rehabilitation and may enhance post-transplant outcomes. Further research should refine strategies to optimize rehabilitation and recovery in this high-risk population.