The Road Not Yet Traveled: Distinction in Critical Care Cardiology through the Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Training Pathway

Training Paradigms in Critical Care Cardiology: A Scoping Review of Current Literature

Background

Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training.

Objective

To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training.

Methods

We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected.

Results

Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards.

Conclusions

In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.

The HFSA Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology Fellowship Consensus Conference

There is waning interest among cardiology trainees in pursuing an Advanced Heart Failure/Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) fellowship as evidenced by fewer applicants in the National Resident Matching Program match to this specialty. This trend has generated considerable attention across the heart failure community. In response, the Heart Failure Society of America convened the AHFTC Fellowship Task Force with a charge to develop strategies to increase the value proposition of an AHFTC fellowship. Subsequently, the HFSA sponsored the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference April 26-27, 2023. Before the conference, interviews of 44 expert stakeholders diverse across geography, site of practice (traditional academic medical center or other centers), specialty/area of expertise, sex, and stage of career were conducted virtually. Based on these interviews, potential solutions to address the declining interest in AHFTC fellowship were categorized into five themes: (1) alternative training pathways, (2) regulatory and compensation, (3) educational improvements, (4) exposure and marketing for pipeline development, and (5) quality of life and mental health. These themes provided structure to the deliberations of the AHFTC Fellowship Consensus Conference. The recommendations from the Consensus Conference were subsequently presented to the HFSA Board of Directors to inform strategic plans and interventions. The HFSA Board of Directors later reviewed and approved submission of this document. The purpose of this communication is to provide the HF community with an update summarizing the processes used and concepts that emerged from the work of the HFSA AHFTC Fellowship Task Force and Consensus Conference.

Training Pathways in Critical Care Cardiology: Competencies and Considerations for Cardiologists

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critical care cardiology (CCC) is a rapidly developing field undergoing a renaissance of interest and growth to meet the well-documented population shift in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). With this has come the emergence of novel training paradigms that seek to combine specialties with meaningful overlap.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefit of having critical care expertise in the CICU has been clearly established; however, there is no formal or uniform CCC training pathway. Contemporary approaches seek to provide appropriate clinical and procedural experience while minimizing opportunity cost. The combination of additional cardiology subspecialties, specifically advanced heart failure or interventional cardiology, has been demonstrated. Educational tracks that integrate critical care training have generated interest but have not yet manifested. CCC training strives to meet the needs of an increasingly sick and diverse patient population while preparing trainees for fulfilling and meaningful careers. The hope is for ongoing development of novel training pathways to satisfy evolving needs.

The burden of heart failure in cardiac intensive care unit: a prospective 7 years analysis

AIMS

The profiles of patients at cardiac intensive care units (CICU) have evolved towards a patient population with an increasing number of co-morbid medical conditions and acute heart failure (HF). The current study was designed to illustrate the burden of HF patients admitted to CICU, and evaluate patient characteristics, in-hospital course and outcomes of CICU patients with HF compared with patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective study including all consecutive patients admitted to the CICU at a tertiary medical centre between 2014 and 2020. The main outcome was a direct comparison between HF and ACS patients in processes of care, resource use, and outcomes during CICU hospitalization. A secondary analysis compared ischaemic versus non-ischaemic HF aetiology. Adjusted analysis evaluated parameters associated with prolonged hospitalization. The cohort included 7674 patients with a total annual CICU admissions of 1028-1145 patients. HF diagnosis patients represented 13-18% of the annual CICU admissions and were significantly older with higher incidence of multiple co-morbidities compared with patients with ACS. HF patients also required more intensive therapies and demonstrated higher incidence of acute complications as compared with ACS patients. Length of stay at the CICU was significantly longer among HF patients compared with patients with ACS (either STEMI or NSTEMI) (6.2 ± 4.3 vs. 4.1 ± 2.5 vs. 3.5 ± 2.1, respectively, P < 0.001). HF patients represented a disproportionately higher amount of total CICU patient days during the study period, as the total length of hospitalization of HF patients was 44-56% out of the total cumulative days in CICU of patients with ACS every year. In hospital mortality rates were also significantly higher among patients with HF compared with STEMI or NSTEMI (4.2% vs. 3.1% vs. 0.7%, respectively, P < 0.001). Despite several differences in baseline characteristics between patients with ischaemic versus non-ischaemic HF, which can be attributed mainly to disease aetiology, hospitalization length and outcomes were similar among the groups regardless of HF aetiology. In multivariable analysis for the risk of prolonged hospitalization in the CICU adjusted to potential significant co-morbidities associated with poor outcomes, HF was found to be an independent and significant parameter associated with the risk of prolonged hospitalization with an OR of 3.5 (95% CI 2.9-4.1, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HF in CICU have higher severity of illness with a prolonged and complicated hospital course, all of which can substantially increase the burden on clinical resources.

Management of Cardiogenic Shock Unrelated to Acute Myocardial Infarction

Cardiogenic shock is an extreme manifestation of acute decompensated heart failure. Cardiogenic shock is often caused by-and has traditionally been studied in the setting of-acute myocardial infarction (AMI CS); however, there is increasing incidence and recognition of cardiogenic shock not associated with acute myocardial infarction (non-AMI CS) as a distinct entity. Despite decades of study and technologic advancements, cardiogenic shock mortality remains as high as 50%, regardless of etiology. New approaches to shock phenotyping and classification have emerged, with a focus on appropriately matching patient physiology to a growing list of available interventions. Further study is needed to determine whether these efforts will lead to more nuanced use of mechanical circulatory support and improved patient outcomes, especially in non-AMI CS. In the meantime, models of care incorporating multidisciplinary decision making, such as shock teams, may improve patient selection and outcomes.

Patient Outcomes and Characteristics in a Contemporary Quaternary Canadian Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Background

The modern-day cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved to care for patients with acute critical cardiac illness. We describe the current population of cardiac patients in a quaternary CICU.

Methods

Consecutive CICU patients admitted to the CICU at the Toronto General Hospital from 2014 to 2020 were studied. Patient demographics, admission diagnosis, critical care resources, complications, in-hospital mortality, and CICU and hospital length of stay were recorded.

Results

A total of 8865 consecutive admissions occurred, with a median age of 64.9 years. The most common primary cardiac diagnoses were acute decompensated heart failure (17.8%), non ST-elevation myocardial infarction (16.8%), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (15.5%), and arrhythmias (14.7%). Cardiogenic shock was seen in 13.2%, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 4.1%. A noncardiovascular admission diagnosis accounted for 13.9% of the cases. Over the period studied, rates of admission were higher for cardiogenic shock (P < 0.001 for trend), with a higher use of critical care resources. Additionally, rates of admission were higher in female patients and those who had chronic kidney disease and diabetes. The in-hospital mortality rate of all CICU admissions was 13.2%, and it was highest in those with noncardiac conditions, compared to the rate in those with cardiac diagnoses (29.4% vs 10.6%, P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Given the trends of higher acuity of patients with cardiac critical illness, with higher use of critical care resources, education streams for critical care within cardiology, and alternative pathways of care for patients who have lower-acuity cardiac disease remain imperative to manage this evolving population.

Staffing models in the cardiac intensive care unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved into a high-intensity unit that cares for critically ill patients. Despite this transformation, changes to the staffing model and organizational structure in these specialized units have only recently begun to meet these challenges. We describe the most recent evidence which will inform future CICU staffing models.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the United States, the majority of CICUs are open as opposed to closed units, yet recent data suggests that transition to a closed staffing model is associated with a decrease in mortality. These reductions in mortality in closed CICUs are most pronounced in the most critically ill populations, such as patients with mechanical circulatory support, cardiac arrest, and respiratory failure. In addition, one study has shown that transition to a cardiac intensivist staffed CICU was associated with a reduction in mortality. Finally, multidisciplinary and protocolized teams imbedded within the CICU, specifically 'shock teams,' have recently been developed and may reduce mortality in this particularly sick patient population.

SUMMARY

Although the preponderance of data suggests improved outcomes with a closed, intensivist staffed CICU model, future multicenter studies are needed to better define the ideal staffing models for the contemporary CICU.

Cardiac Critical Care: The Evolution of a Novel Subspecialty

Driven by evolving patient demographics and disease burdens over the past several decades, the demands placed on the cardiac intensive care unit have steadily increased. Originally born out of the need for post-infarction arrhythmia monitoring, the modern cardiac intensive care space is now encountering progressively more complex patients with multisystem organ failure and, increasingly, complex mechanical circulatory support. This complexity has fueled a demand for specifically trained cardiac intensivists, and many different training pathways have emerged nationwide. In this article, we provide an overview of the evolution, landscape, training, and future of the subspecialty of cardiac critical care.

The Great Asian Mismatch - Training Versus Care in Heart Failure

Prevalence of heart failure (HF) in South-East Asia (SEA) is relatively higher to western countries, and yet there is a lack of established fellowship programmes within the region to help cultivate HF specialist. Part of this may be due to a misunderstanding that HF training and curriculums requires incorporation of advanced therapies such as ventricular assist device implantation and heart transplantation, which is rarely performed in the region. Developing a structured curriculum tailored to the needs of HF care in SEA may help provide for this sub-specialty the much needed, and long-overdue recognition it deserves. Collaboration between local societies and their international counterparts is an important starting point. Customization of local and regional curriculums, depending on local needs and capabilities, allows for the gap in this 'Great Asian Mismatch' to be bridged and to ensure that equitable training is delivered for all.