Search

Background: The presence of dedicated intensive care unit (ICU) physicians is associated with reduced ICU mortality. However, the information available on the role of cardiac intensivists in cardiac ICUs (CICUs) is limited. Therefore, we investigated the association of cardiac intensivist–directed care with clinical outcomes in adult patients admitted to the CICU. Methods: In this retrospective study, we extracted data from the SMART-RESCUE registry, a multicenter, retrospective, and prospective registry of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. Overall, 1,247 patients with CS were enrolled, between January 2014 and December 2018, from 12 tertiary centers in Korea. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the involvement of a cardiac intensivist in their care. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality rate. Results: The all-cause mortality rate was 33.6%. The in-hospital mortality rate was lower (25.4%) in the cardiac intensivist group than in the non-cardiac intensivist group (40.1%). Cardiac mortality rates were 20.5% and 35.4% in the cardiac intensivist and non-cardiac intensivist groups, respectively. In patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, the mortality rate at centers with cardiac intensivists was 38.0%, whereas that at centers without cardiac intensivists was 62.2%. The dopamine use was lower, norepinephrine use was higher, and vasoactive-inotropic score was lower in the cardiac intensivist group than in the non-cardiac intensivist group. Conclusions: Involvement of a cardiac intensivist in CICU patient care was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality rate and the administration of a low dose of vasopressors and inotropes according to the cardiogenic shock guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The HeartMate Risk Score (HMRS), a simple clinical prediction rule based on the patients' age, albumin, creatinine, and the international normalized ratio of the prothrombin time (PT-INR), is correlated with mortality in the cohort of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. However, in an aging society, an LAVD is indicated for only a small proportion of patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and whether the HMRS has prognostic implications for unselected patients with AHF is unknown. This study aimed to assess the prognostic value of HMRS categories on admission in patients with AHF. We analyzed 339 hospitalized patients with AHF who had albumin, creatinine, and the PT-INR recorded on admission. The patients were categorized as follows: the High group (HMRS > 2.48, n = 131), Mid group (HMRS of 1.58–2.48, n = 97) group, and Low group (HMRS < 1.58, n = 111). The endpoints of this study were all-cause death and readmission for heart failure (HF). During a median follow-up of 247 days, 24 (18.3%) patients died in the High group, 7 (7.2%) died in the Mid group, and 8 (7.2%) died in the Low group. In a multivariable analysis adjusted for highly imbalanced baseline variables, a high HMRS was independently associated with survival, with a hazard ratio of 2.90 (95% confidence interval 1.42–5.96, P = 0.004). With regard to the composite endpoint of all-cause death and readmission for HF, the Mid group had a worse prognosis than the Low group, and the High group had the worst prognosis. A high HMRS on admission is associated with all-cause mortality and readmission for HF, and a mid-HMRS is associated with readmission for HF after AHF hospitalization. The HMRS may be a valid clinical tool to stratify the risk of adverse outcomes after hospitalization in unselected patients with AHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The presence of dedicated intensive care unit (ICU) physicians is associated with reduced ICU mortality. However, the information available on the role of cardiac intensivists in cardiac ICUs (CICUs) is limited. Therefore, we investigated the association of cardiac intensivist–directed care with clinical outcomes in adult patients admitted to the CICU. Methods In this retrospective study, we extracted data from the SMART-RESCUE registry, a multicenter, retrospective, and prospective registry of patients presenting with cardiogenic shock. Overall, 1,247 patients with CS were enrolled, between January 2014 and December 2018, from 12 tertiary centers in Korea. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the involvement of a cardiac intensivist in their care. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality rate. Results The all-cause mortality rate was 33.6%. The in-hospital mortality rate was lower (25.4%) in the cardiac intensivist group than in the non-cardiac intensivist group (40.1%). Cardiac mortality rates were 20.5% and 35.4% in the cardiac intensivist and non-cardiac intensivist groups, respectively. In patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, the mortality rate at centers with cardiac intensivists was 38.0%, whereas that at centers without cardiac intensivists was 62.2%. The dopamine use was lower, norepinephrine use was higher, and vasoactive-inotropic score was lower in the cardiac intensivist group than in the non-cardiac intensivist group. Conclusions Involvement of a cardiac intensivist in CICU patient care was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality rate and the administration of a low dose of vasopressors and inotropes according to the cardiogenic shock guidelines.

Introduction: Interprofessional teams in the pediatric cardiac ICU consolidate their management plans in pre-family meeting huddles, a process that affects the course of family meetings but often lacks optimal communication and teamwork., Methods: Cardiac ICU clinicians participated in an interprofessional intervention to improve how they prepared for and conducted family meetings. We conducted a pretest-posttest study with clinicians participating in huddles before family meetings. We assessed feasibility of clinician enrollment, assessed clinician perception of acceptability of the intervention via questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, and impact on team performance using a validated tool. Wilcoxon rank sum test assessed intervention impact on team performance at meeting level comparing pre- and post-intervention data., Results: Totally, 24 clinicians enrolled in the intervention (92% retention) with 100% completion of training. All participants recommend cardiac ICU T eams a nd L oved ones C ommunicating to others and 96% believe it improved their participation in family meetings. We exceeded an acceptable level of protocol fidelity (>75%). Team performance was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in post-intervention huddles (n = 30) than in pre-intervention (n = 28) in all domains. Median comparisons: Team structure [2 vs. 5], Leadership [3 vs. 5], Situation Monitoring [3 vs. 5], Mutual Support [ 3 vs. 5], and Communication [3 vs. 5]., Conclusion: Implementing an interprofessional team intervention to improve team performance in pre-family meeting huddles is feasible, acceptable, and improves team function. Future research should further assess impact on clinicians, patients, and families.