The Coronary (Cardiac) Care Unit at 50 Years: A Major Advance in the Practice of Hospital Medicine

Interhospital Variation in Admissions Managed With Critical Care Therapies or Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Tertiary Cardiac Intensive Care Units: An Analysis From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry

BACKGROUND

Wide interhospital variations exist in cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admission practices and the use of critical care restricted therapies (CCRx), but little is known about the differences in patient acuity, CCRx utilization, and the associated outcomes within tertiary centers.

METHODS

The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of tertiary and academic CICUs in the United States and Canada that captured consecutive admissions in 2-month periods between 2017 and 2022. This analysis included 17 843 admissions across 34 sites and compared interhospital tertiles of CCRx (eg, mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support, continuous renal replacement therapy) utilization and its adjusted association with in-hospital survival using logistic regression. The Pratt index was used to quantify patient-related and institutional factors associated with CCRx variability.

RESULTS

The median age of the study population was 66 (56-77) years and 37% were female. CCRx was provided to 62.2% (interhospital range of 21.3%-87.1%) of CICU patients. Admissions to CICUs with the highest tertile of CCRx utilization had a greater burden of comorbidities, had more diagnoses of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock, and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality (median, 12.7%) was 9.6%, 11.1%, and 18.7% in low, intermediate, and high CCRx tertiles, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences in adjusted mortality were observed across tertiles when admissions were stratified by the provision of CCRx. Baseline patient-level variables and institutional differences accounted for 80% and 5.3% of the observed CCRx variability, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large registry of tertiary and academic CICUs, there was a >4-fold interhospital variation in the provision of CCRx that was primarily driven by differences in patient acuity compared with institutional differences. No differences were observed in adjusted mortality between low, intermediate, and high CCRx utilization sites.

Simulation in cardiac critical care

Medical simulation is a broad topic but at its core is defined as any effort to realistically reproduce a clinical procedure, team, or situation. Its goal is to allow risk-free practice-until-perfect, and in doing so, augment performance, efficiency, and safety. In medicine, even complex clinical situations can be dissected into reproducible parts that may be repeated and mastered, and these iterative improvements can add up to major gains. With our modern cardiac intensive care units treating a growing number of medically complex patients, the need for well-trained personnel, streamlined care pathways, and quality teamwork is imperative for improved patient outcomes. Simulation is therefore a potentially life-saving tool relevant to anyone working in cardiac intensive care. Accordingly, we believe that simulation is a priority for cardiac intensive care, not just a luxury. We offer the following primer on simulation in the cardiac intensive care environment.

External validation and comparison of two delirium prediction models in patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit

Background

No data is available on delirium prediction models in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), although preexisting delirium prediction models [PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (PRE-DELIRIC) and Early PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (E-PRE-DELIRIC)] were developed and validated based on a population admitted to the general intensive care unit (ICU). Therefore, we externally validated the usefulness of the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models and compared their predictive performance in patients admitted to the CICU.

Methods

A total of 2,724 patients admitted to the CICU were enrolled between September 2012 and December 2018. Delirium was defined as at least one positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) which was screened at least once every 8 h. The PRE-DELIRIC value was calculated within 24 h of CICU admission, and the E-PRE-DELIRIC value was calculated at CICU admission. The predictive performance of the models was evaluated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and the calibration slope was assessed graphically by plotting.

Results

Delirium occurred in 677 patients (24.8%) when the patients were assessed thrice daily until 7 days of the CICU stay. The AUROC curve for the prediction of delirium was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC values [0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82–0.86] than for E-PRE-DELIRIC values (0.79, 95% CI: 0.77–0.80) [z score of −6.24 (p < 0.001)]. Net reclassification improvement for the prediction of delirium increased by 0.27 (95% CI: 0.21–0.32, p < 0.001). Calibration was acceptable in the PRE-DELIRIC model (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.170) but not in the E-PRE-DELIRIC model (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Although both models have good predictive performance for the development of delirium, even in critically ill cardiac patients, the performance of the PRE-DELIRIC model might be superior to that of the E-PRE-DELIRIC model. Further studies are required to confirm our results and design a specific delirium prediction model for CICU patients.

Literature and new innovations leading to the rise and fall of the Swan-Ganz catheter

BACKGROUND

In 1970, Harold James Charles Swan and William Ganz published their work on the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC or Swan-Ganz catheter). They described the successful bedside use of a flow-directed catheter to continuously evaluate the heart, and it was used extensively in the years following to care for critically ill patients. In recent decades, clinicians have reevaluated the risks and benefits of the PAC.

AIM

We acknowledge the contributions of Swan and Ganz and discuss literature, including randomized controlled trials, and new technology surrounding the rise and fall in use of the PAC.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of retrospective and prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials, and editorials to understand the history and clinical outcomes of the PAC.

RESULTS

In the 1980s, clinicians began to question the benefits of the PAC. In 1996 and 2003, a large observational study and randomized controlled trial, respectively, showed no clear benefits in outcome. Thereafter, use of PACs began to drop precipitously. New less and noninvasive technology can estimate cardiac output and blood pressure continuously.

CONCLUSIONS

Swan and Ganz contributed to the bedside understanding of the pathophysiology of the heart. The history of the rise and fall in use of the PAC parallels the literature and invention of less-invasive technology. Although the PAC has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes in large randomized controlled trials, it may still be useful in select patients. New less-invasive and noninvasive technology may ultimately replace it if literature supports it.

Temporary support strategies for cardiogenic shock: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, percutaneous ventricular assist devices and surgically placed extracorporeal ventricular assist devices

The majority of clinical pathways and paradigms utilized in the treatment and management of cardiogenic shock with temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) are largely based on individual physician intuition and ad hoc problem-solving. Substantial mortality gains in the acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) population were observed with the reported outcomes of the SHOCK trial in 1999 compared to previous populations with AMI-CS. Nonetheless even in the age of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct related artery, survival rates continue to be only approximately 50%. The conventional focus since the SHOCK trial has centered on revascularization strategies and the subsequent medical management of these patients post-PCI with ever diminishing returns. Perhaps we have hit the "glass ceiling" with current strategies and it is time to explore novel strategies to salvage not only the heart but more importantly the patient and potentially more of both. Going forward, researchers need to focus on developing a systematic approach to problem solving in utilizing MCS for patients with cardiogenic shock. Effective methodologies that are evidence based will help physicians in their decision-making when considering temporary MCS for patients.

Implementation of a Nationwide Strategy for the Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation of Cardiovascular Disease "A Todo Corazón"

The cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have a growing impact over the world mortality, affecting mostly low and middle-income countries. This is due to changes in the population pyramid and the increase in unhealthy lifestyles that predispose the global population to cardiovascular risk factors such as overweight, obesity, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemias and metabolic syndrome. Ischemic heart disease and the cerebral vascular event remain the first causes of death reported by the World Health Organization (WHO) for more than a decade. Mexico has high prevalence in obesity, overweight, hypertension and diabetes in the population over 20 years old; Within the OECD countries (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) are the country with the highest mortality due to acute myocardial infarction over 45 years in the first 30 days. In order to face the growing pandemic of CVDs, the IMSS, it has developed and implemented a comprehensive care program called "A Todo Corazon", it is the first program of integral care which seeks to strengthen the actions to improving the impact of CVDs from health. This review is focused on describing the 7 axes that make up the program; each axe is described in detail. Axes one to three are dedicated to promotion and primary prevention of CVDs. Axes 4 and 5 are dedicated to infarction code, as a national strategy to confront the principal cause of death in Mexico. Finally axes 6 and 7 are dedicated to intensive care, secondary prevention and rehabilitation of CVDs.