Palliative Care Services in Patients Admitted With Cardiogenic Shock in the United States: Frequency and Predictors of 30-Day Readmission

Building a cardiogenic shock response team: key considerations necessary to improve outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides key information about cardiogenic shock (CS) teams, including published evidence and practical recommendations to create a CS team and program.

RECENT FINDINGS

CS is a complex disease process with a high in-hospital mortality rate ranging from 30% to 70% according to recent registries and randomized studies. The explanation for the elevated rates is likely multifactorial, including the various etiologies of cardiogenic shock as well as delays in recognition and deployment of appropriate therapies. Accordingly, the use of cardiogenic shock team has been implemented with the aim of improving outcomes in these patients. The CS team typically consists of members with critical care or cardiac critical care expertise, heart failure, cardiothoracic surgery, and interventional cardiology. A number of retrospective studies have now supported the benefits of a CS team, particularly in selecting the appropriate candidates for tailored mechanical circulatory support therapies and providing interventions in a timely manner, which have translated into improved outcomes.

SUMMARY

CS teams provides a platform for expedited recognition of CS and timely, standardized, and multidisciplinary discussions regarding appropriate management and care.

Comparison of the prognosis among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock based on etiology: AMI and Non-AMI

BACKGROUND

Current data on post-discharge mortality and rehospitalization is still insufficient among in-hospital survivors of cardiogenic shock (CS), including acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and non-AMI survivors.

METHODS

Patients with CS who survived after hospital discharge were selected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Each patient was followed up at 3-year intervals. Mortality and rehospitalization were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models.

RESULTS

There were 16,582 eligible patients. Of these, 42.4% and 57.6% were AMI-CS and non-AMI-CS survivors, respectively. The overall mortality and rehospitalization rates were considerably high, with reports of 7.0% and 22.1% at 30 days, 24.5% and 58.2% at 1 year, and 38.9% and 73.0% at 3 years, respectively, among in-hospital CS survivors. Cardiovascular (CV) problems caused approximately 40% mortality and 60% rehospitalization. Overall, the non-AMI-CS group had a higher mortality burden than the AMI-CS group owing to older age and a higher prevalence of comorbidities. In multivariable models, the non-AMI-CS group exhibited a lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.78) and CV mortality (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78) compared to the AMI-CS group. However, these risks diminished and even reversed after one year (aHR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25 for all-cause mortality; aHR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49 for CV mortality).This reversal was not observed in all-cause and CV rehospitalization. For rehospitalization, AMI-CS was associated with the risk of CV rehospitalization in the entire observation period (aHR:0.80, 95% CI:0.76-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital AMI-CS survivors had an increased risk of CV rehospitalization and 30-day mortality, whereas those with non-AMI-CS had a greater mortality risk after 1-year follow-up.

Palliative care in the cardiovascular intensive care unit: A systematic review of current literature

BACKGROUND

There has been an evolution in the disease severity and complexity of patients presenting to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). There are limited data evaluating the role of palliative care in contemporary CICU practice.

METHODS

PubMed Central, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were evaluated for studies on palliative care in adults (≥18 years) admitted with acute cardiovascular conditions - acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, advanced heart failure, post-cardiac surgery, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, and pulmonary embolism - admitted to the CICU, coronary care unit or cardiovascular intensive care unit from 1/1/2000 to 8/8/2022. The primary outcome of interest was the utilization of palliative care services. Secondary outcomes of included studies were also addressed. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of 5711 citations, 30 studies were included. All studies were published in the last seven years and 90 % originated in the United States. Twenty-seven studies (90 %) were retrospective analyses, with a majority from the National Inpatient Sample database. Heart failure was the most frequent diagnosis (47 %), and in-hospital mortality was reported in 67 % of studies. There was heterogeneity in the timing, frequency, and background of the care team that determined palliative care consultation. In two randomized trials, there appeared to be improvement in quality of life without an impact on mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the growing recognition of the role of palliative care, there are limited data on palliative care consultation in the CICU.

Contemporary approach to cardiogenic shock care: a state-of-the-art review

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and hemodynamically complex syndrome with a broad spectrum of etiologies and clinical presentations. Despite contemporary therapies, CS continues to maintain high morbidity and mortality ranging from 35 to 50%. More recently, burgeoning observational research in this field aimed at enhancing the early recognition and characterization of the shock state through standardized team-based protocols, comprehensive hemodynamic profiling, and tailored and selective utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices has been associated with improved outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiology of CS, novel phenotypes, evolving definitions and staging systems, currently available pharmacologic and device-based therapies, standardized, team-based management protocols, and regionalized systems-of-care aimed at improving shock outcomes. We also explore opportunities for fertile investigation through randomized and non-randomized studies to address the prevailing knowledge gaps that will be critical to improving long-term outcomes.

The Changing Epidemiology of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Coronary care units (CCUs) were originally designed to monitor and treat peri-infarction ventricular arrhythmias but have evolved into highly specialized cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) that provide care to a patient population that is increasingly heterogeneous and complex. Paralleling broader epidemiologic trends, patients admitted to contemporary CICUs are older and have a greater burden of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities. Moreover, contemporary CICU patients have high illness severity and often present with acute noncardiac organ dysfunction. In addition to these shifting demographic patterns, there have been important epidemiologic changes in CICU technologies, multidisciplinary systems of care, and physician staffing and training.

Integrating palliative care into the modern cardiac intensive care unit: a review

The modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) specializes in the care of a broad range of critically ill patients with both cardiac and non-cardiac serious illnesses. Despite advances, most conditions that necessitate CICU admission such as cardiogenic shock, continue to have a high burden of morbidity and mortality. The CICU often serves as the final destination for patients with end-stage disease, with one study reporting that one in five patients in the USA die in an intensive care unit (ICU) or shortly after an ICU admission. Palliative care is a broad subspecialty of medicine with an interdisciplinary approach that focuses on optimizing patient and family quality of life (QoL), decision-making, and experience. Palliative care has been shown to improve the QoL and symptom burden in patients at various stages of illness, however, the integration of palliative care in the CICU has not been well-studied. In this review, we outline the fundamental principles of high-quality palliative care in the ICU, focused on timeliness, goal-concordant decision-making, and family-centred care. We differentiate between primary palliative care, which is delivered by the primary CICU team, and secondary palliative care, which is provided by the consulting palliative care team, and delineate their responsibilities and domains. We propose clinical triggers that might spur serious illness communication and reappraisal of patient preferences. More research is needed to test different models that integrate palliative care in the modern CICU.

Temporal Trends, Predictors and Outcomes of Inpatient Palliative Care Use in Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Utilization of inpatient palliative care services (PCS) has been infrequently studied in patients with cardiac arrest complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CA).

METHODS

Adult AMI-CA admissions were identified from the National Inpatient Sample (2000-2017). Outcomes of interest included temporal trends and predictors of PCS use and in-hospital mortality, length of stay, hospitalization costs and discharge disposition in AMI-CA admissions with and without PCS use. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity matching were used to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

Among 584,263 AMI-CA admissions, 26,919 (4.6%) received inpatient PCS. From 2000 to 2017 PCS use increased from <1% to 11.5%. AMI-CA admissions that received PCS were on average older, had greater comorbidity, higher rates of cardiogenic shock, acute organ failure, lower rates of coronary angiography (48.6% vs 63.3%), percutaneous coronary intervention (37.4% vs 46.9%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (all p < 0.001). Older age, greater comorbidity burden and acute non-cardiac organ failure were predictive of PCS use. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the PCS cohort (multivariable logistic regression: 84.6% vs 42.9%, adjusted odds ratio 3.62 [95% CI 3.48-3.76]; propensity-matched analysis: 84.7% vs. 66.2%, p < 0.001). The PCS cohort received a do- not-resuscitate status more often (47.6% vs. 3.7%), had shorter hospital stays (4 vs 5 days), and were discharged more frequently to skilled nursing facilities (73.6% vs. 20.4%); all p < 0.001. These results were consistent in the propensity-matched analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in PCS use in AMI-CA, it remains significantly underutilized highlighting the role for further integrating of these specialists in AMI-CA care.

Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Pathophysiology, Evaluation and Management Considerations: Review of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock

Despite increasing prevalence in critical care units, cardiogenic shock related to HF (HF-CS) is incompletely understood and distinct from acute myocardial infarction related CS. This review highlights the pathophysiology, evaluation, and contemporary management of HF-CS.

Quality of Heart Failure Care in the Intensive Care Unit

Patients with heart failure (HF) who are seen in an intensive care unit (ICU) manifest the highest-risk, most complex and most resource-intensive disease states. These patients account for a large relative proportion of days spent in an ICU. The paradigms by which critical care is provided to patients with HF are being reconsidered, including consideration of various multidisciplinary ICU staffing models and the development of acute-response teams. Traditional HF quality initiatives have centered on the peri- and postdischarge period in attempts to improve adherence to guideline-directed therapies and reduce readmissions. There is a compelling rationale for expanding high-quality efforts in treating patients with HF who are receiving critical care so we can improve outcomes, reduce preventable harm, improve teamwork and resource use, and achieve high health-system performance. Our goal is to answer the following question: For a patient with HF in the ICU, what is required for the provision of high-quality care? Herein, we first review the epidemiology of HF syndromes in the ICU and identify relevant critical care and quality stakeholders in HF. We next discuss the tenets of high-quality care for patients with HF in the ICU that will optimize critical care outcomes, such as ICU staffing models and evidence-based management of cardiac and noncardiac disease. We discuss strategies to mitigate preventable harm, improve ICU culture and conduct outcomes review, and we conclude with our summative vision of high-quality of ICU care for patients with HF; our vision includes clinical excellence, teamwork and ICU culture.