Search

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., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Drs Bohula and Morrow are members of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Arca Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Intarcia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Poxel, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron, Roche, Siemens, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Pöss receives institutional research fees from the German Cardiac Society, German Heart Research Foundation, Dr Rolf M. Schwiete Foundation and Getinge. Dr Solomon receives research support from the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center intramural research funds. Dr Kristensen is National Coordinator of the SOS-AMI study (Idorsia departmental grant). Dr Morrow has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, Arca Biopharma, InCarda, Inflammatix, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Krychtiuk has received speaker fees from Zoll Medical, Sanofi, and Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common reason for admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), though the relative burden of morbidity, mortality, and resource use between admissions with in-hospital (IH) and out-of-hospital (OH) CA is unknown. We compared characteristics, care patterns, and outcomes of admissions to contemporary CICUs after IHCA or OHCA., Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in the US and Canada. Participating centers contributed data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2021. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions by IHCA vs OHCA., Results: We analyzed 2,075 admissions across 29 centers (50.3% IHCA, 49.7% OHCA). Admissions with IHCA were older (median 66 vs 62 years), more commonly had coronary disease (38.3% vs 29.7%), atrial fibrillation (26.7% vs 15.6%), and heart failure (36.3% vs 22.1%), and were less commonly comatose on CICU arrival (34.2% vs 71.7%), p < 0.001 for all. IHCA admissions had lower lactate (median 4.3 vs 5.9) but greater utilization of invasive hemodynamics (34.3% vs 23.6%), mechanical circulatory support (28.4% vs 16.8%), and renal replacement therapy (15.5% vs 9.4%); p < 0.001 for all. Comatose IHCA patients underwent targeted temperature management less frequently than OHCA patients (63.3% vs 84.9%, p < 0.001). IHCA admissions had lower unadjusted CICU (30.8% vs 39.0%, p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (36.1% vs 44.1%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Despite a greater burden of comorbidities, CICU admissions after IHCA have lower lactate, greater invasive therapy utilization, and lower crude mortality than admissions after OHCA., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aims of the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) are to develop a registry to investigate the epidemiology of cardiac critical illness and to establish a multicentre research network to conduct randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in patients with cardiac critical illness., Methods and Results: The CCCTN was founded in 2017 with 16 centres and has grown to a research network of over 40 academic and clinical centres in the United States and Canada. Each centre enters data for consecutive cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) admissions for at least 2 months of each calendar year. More than 20 000 unique CICU admissions are now included in the CCCTN Registry. To date, scientific observations from the CCCTN Registry include description of variations in care, the epidemiology and outcomes of all CICU patients, as well as subsets of patients with specific disease states, such as shock, heart failure, renal dysfunction, and respiratory failure. The CCCTN has also characterised utilization patterns, including use of mechanical circulatory support in response to changes in the heart transplantation allocation system, and the use and impact of multidisciplinary shock teams. Over years of multicentre collaboration, the CCCTN has established a robust research network to facilitate multicentre registry-based randomised trials in patients with cardiac critical illness., Conclusion: The CCCTN is a large, prospective registry dedicated to describing processes-of-care and expanding clinical knowledge in cardiac critical illness. The CCCTN will serve as an investigational platform from which to conduct randomised controlled trials in this important patient population., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Contemporary cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) outcomes remain highly heterogeneous. As such, a risk-stratification tool using readily available lab data at time of CICU admission may help inform clinical decision-making., Methods and Results: The primary derivation cohort included 4352 consecutive CICU admissions across 25 tertiary care CICUs included in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. Candidate lab indicators were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. An integer risk score incorporating the top independent lab indicators associated with in-hospital mortality was developed. External validation was performed in a separate CICU cohort of 9716 patients from the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). On multivariable analysis, lower pH [odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72-2.24], higher lactate (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.22-1.62), lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.45), and lower platelets (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32) were the top four independent lab indicators associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Incorporated into the CCCTN Lab-Based Risk Score, these four lab indicators identified a 20-fold gradient in mortality risk with very good discrimination (C-index 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.84) in the derivation cohort. Validation of the risk score in a separate cohort of 3888 patients from the Registry demonstrated good performance (C-index of 0.82; 95% CI 0.80-0.84). Performance remained consistent in the external validation cohort (C-index 0.79, 95% CI 0.77-0.80). Calibration was very good in both validation cohorts (r = 0.99)., Conclusion: A simple integer risk score utilizing readily available lab indicators at time of CICU admission may accurately stratify in-hospital mortality risk., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2022. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown., Methods and Results: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P < 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P < 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)