Search

There are limited data on how patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) die. The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a research network of cardiac intensive care units coordinated by the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group (Boston, MA). Using standardized definitions, site investigators classified direct modes of in-hospital death for CS admissions (October 2021 to September 2022). Mutually exclusive categories included 4 modes of cardiovascular death and 4 modes of noncardiovascular death. Subgroups defined by CS type, preceding cardiac arrest (CA), use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS), and transition to comfort measures were evaluated. Among 1068 CS cases, 337 (31.6%) died during the index hospitalization. Overall, the mode of death was cardiovascular in 82.2%. Persistent CS was the dominant specific mode of death (66.5%), followed by arrhythmia (12.8%), anoxic brain injury (6.2%), and respiratory failure (4.5%). Patients with preceding CA were more likely to die from anoxic brain injury (17.1% vs 0.9%; P <.001) or arrhythmia (21.6% vs 8.4%; P <.001). Patients managed with tMCS were more likely to die from persistent shock (P <.01), both cardiogenic (73.5% vs 62.0%) and noncardiogenic (6.1% vs 2.9%). Most deaths in CS are related to direct cardiovascular causes, particularly persistent CS. However, there is important heterogeneity across subgroups defined by preceding CA and the use of tMCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case report of a 55-year-old man who experienced cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock, and hypoxemia. Topics include the patient's presentation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, initial management including defibrillation and intravenous medications, and subsequent complications such as acute respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation and percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support.

Evaluation of knowledge among internal medicine residents is subjective and can be biased. This study assesses how knowledge ratings changed after adoption of the 2014 milestone ratings system compared with standardized knowledge ratings among different racial and ethnic groups. Background: The 2014 adoption of the Milestone ratings system may have affected evaluation bias against minoritized groups. Objective: To assess bias in internal medicine (IM) residency knowledge ratings against Black or Latino residents—who are underrepresented in medicine (URiM)—and Asian residents before versus after Milestone adoption in 2014. Design: Cross-sectional and interrupted time-series comparisons. Setting: U.S. IM residencies. Participants: 59 835 IM residents completing residencies during 2008 to 2013 and 2015 to 2020. Intervention: Adoption of the Milestone ratings system. Measurements: Pre-Milestone (2008 to 2013) and post-Milestone (2015 to 2020) bias was estimated as differences in standardized knowledge ratings between U.S.-born and non–U.S.-born minoritized groups versus non-Latino U.S.-born White (NLW) residents, with adjustment for performance on the American Board of Internal Medicine IM certification examination and other physician characteristics. Interrupted time-series analysis measured deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends. Results: During the pre-Milestone period, ratings biases against minoritized groups were large (−0.40 SDs [95% CI, −0.48 to −0.31 SDs; P < 0.001] for URiM residents, −0.24 SDs [CI, −0.30 to −0.18 SDs; P < 0.001] for U.S.-born Asian residents, and −0.36 SDs [CI, −0.45 to −0.27 SDs; P < 0.001] for non–U.S.-born Asian residents). These estimates decreased to less than −0.15 SDs after adoption of Milestone ratings for all groups except U.S.-born Black residents, among whom substantial (though lower) bias persisted (−0.26 SDs [CI, −0.36 to −0.17 SDs; P < 0.001]). Substantial deviations from pre-Milestone linear bias trends coincident with adoption of Milestone ratings were also observed. Limitations: Unobserved variables correlated with ratings bias and Milestone ratings adoption, changes in identification of race/ethnicity, and generalizability to Milestones 2.0. Conclusion: Knowledge ratings bias against URiM and Asian residents was ameliorated with the adoption of the Milestone ratings system. However, substantial ratings bias against U.S.-born Black residents persisted. Primary Funding Source: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Viewpoint discusses the ABIM's continuing efforts to innovate and streamline maintenance of certification, including the recently launched Longitudinal Knowledge Assessment (LKA), to better accommodate physicians' schedules and desires for flexibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate racial and ethnic differences in mortality among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) after adjusting for baseline characteristics and comorbidities. Methods: This retrospective cohort study at 13 acute care facilities in the New York City metropolitan area included sequentially hospitalized patients between March 1, 2020, and April 27, 2020. Last day of follow up was July 31, 2020. Patient demographic information, including race/ethnicity and comorbidities, were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 10 869 patients were included in the study (median age, 65 years [interquartile range (IQR) 54–77; range, 18–107 years]; 40.5% female). In adjusted time-to-event analysis, increased age, male sex, insurance type (Medicare and Self-Pay), unknown smoking status, and a higher score on the Charlson Comorbidity Index were significantly associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Adjusted risk of hospital mortality for Black, Asian, Hispanic, multiracial/other, and unknown race/ethnicity patients were similar to risk for White patients. Conclusions: In a large diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, patients from racial/ethnic minorities experienced similar mortality risk as White patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last several decades, the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has seen a substantial evolution in the patient population, comorbidities, and diagnoses. However, the generation of high-quality evidence to manage these complex and critically ill patients has been slow. Given the scarcity of clinical trials focused on critical care cardiology (CCC), CICU clinicians are often left to extrapolate from studies that either exclude or poorly represent the patient population admitted to CICUs. The lack of high-quality evidence and limited guidance from society guidelines has led to significant variation in practice patterns for many of the most common CICU diagnoses. Several barriers, both common to critical care research and unique to CCC, have impeded progress. In this multinational perspective, we describe key areas of priority for CCC research, current challenges for investigation in the CICU, and essential elements of a path forward for the field. [Display omitted] • Evidence generation in the modern CICU has not matched the evolution of the patient population. • Beyond difficulties of studying critically ill patients, there are unique barriers to research in CCC. • Overcoming these barriers will require novel research designs and collaboration among multiple stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]