Cardiovascular Critical Care Training: A Collaboration between Intensivists and Cardiologists

Evolution of Critical Care Cardiology: An Update on Structure, Care Delivery, Training, and Research Paradigms: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Critical care cardiology refers to the practice focus of and subspecialty training for the comprehensive management of life-threatening cardiovascular diseases and comorbid conditions that require advanced critical care in an intensive care unit. The development of coronary care units is often credited for a dramatic decline in mortality rates after acute myocardial infarction throughout the 1960s. As the underlying patient population became progressively sicker, changes in organizational structure, staffing, care delivery, and training paradigms lagged. The coronary care unit gradually evolved from a focus on rapid resuscitation from ventricular arrhythmias in acute myocardial infarction into a comprehensive cardiac intensive care unit designed to care for the sickest patients with cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, the cardiac intensive care unit has continued to transform with an aging population, increased clinical acuity, burgeoning cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, technologic advances in cardiovascular interventions, and increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices. Herein, we provide an update and contemporary expert perspective on the organizational structure, staffing, and care delivery in the cardiac intensive care unit; examine the challenges and opportunities present in the education and training of the next generation of physicians for critical care cardiology; and explore quality improvement initiatives and scientific investigation, including multicenter registry initiatives and randomized clinical trials, that may change clinical practice, care delivery, and the research landscape in this rapidly evolving discipline.

Evolution of Critical Care Cardiology: An Update on Structure, Care Delivery, Training, and Research Paradigms: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Critical care cardiology refers to the practice focus of and subspecialty training for the comprehensive management of life-threatening cardiovascular diseases and comorbid conditions that require advanced critical care in an intensive care unit. The development of coronary care units is often credited for a dramatic decline in mortality rates after acute myocardial infarction throughout the 1960s. As the underlying patient population became progressively sicker, changes in organizational structure, staffing, care delivery, and training paradigms lagged. The coronary care unit gradually evolved from a focus on rapid resuscitation from ventricular arrhythmias in acute myocardial infarction into a comprehensive cardiac intensive care unit designed to care for the sickest patients with cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, the cardiac intensive care unit has continued to transform with an aging population, increased clinical acuity, burgeoning cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, technologic advances in cardiovascular interventions, and increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices. Herein, we provide an update and contemporary expert perspective on the organizational structure, staffing, and care delivery in the cardiac intensive care unit; examine the challenges and opportunities present in the education and training of the next generation of physicians for critical care cardiology; and explore quality improvement initiatives and scientific investigation, including multicenter registry initiatives and randomized clinical trials, that may change clinical practice, care delivery, and the research landscape in this rapidly evolving discipline.

Contemporary Training in American Critical Care Cardiology: Minnesota Critical Care Cardiology Education Summit: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

This consensus statement emerges from collaborative efforts among leading figures in critical care cardiology throughout the United States, who met to share their collective expertise on issues faced by those active in or pursuing contemporary critical care cardiology education. The panel applied fundamentals of adult education and curriculum design, reviewed requisite training necessary to provide high-quality care to critically ill patients with cardiac pathology, and devoted attention to a purposeful approach emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion in developing this nascent field. The resulting paper offers a comprehensive guide for current trainees, with insights about the present landscape of critical care cardiology while highlighting issues that need to be addressed for continued advancement. By delineating future directions with careful consideration and intentionality, this Expert Panel aims to facilitate the continued growth and maturation of critical care cardiology education and practice.

Clinical decision making for VA ECMO weaning in patients with cardiogenic shock A formative qualitative study

Weaning and liberation from VA ECMO in cardiogenic shock patients comprises a complex process requiring a continuous trade off between multiple clinical parameters. In the absence of dedicated international guidelines, we hypothesized a great heterogeneity in weaning practices among ECMO centers due to a variety in local preferences, logistics, case load and individual professional experience. This qualitative study focused on the appraisal of clinicians' preferences in decision processes towards liberation from VA ECMO after cardiogenic shock while using focus group interviews in 4 large hospitals. The goal was to provide novel and unique insights in daily clinical weaning practices. As expected, we found we a great heterogeneity of weaning strategies among centers and professionals, although participants appeared to find common ground in a clinically straightforward approach to assess the feasibility of ECMO liberation at the bedside. This was shown in a preference for robust, easily accessible parameters such as arterial pulse pressure, stable cardiac index ≥2.1 L/min, VTI LVOT and 'eyeballing' LVEF.

Defining Intensivists: A Retrospective Analysis of the Published Studies in the United States, 2010-2020

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine last published an intensivist definition in 1992. Subsequently, there have been many publications relating to intensivists. Our purpose is to assess how contemporary studies define intensivist physicians.

DESIGN

Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2010-2020) for publication titles with the terms intensivist, and critical care or intensive care physician, specialist, or consultant. We included studies focusing on adult U.S. intensivists and excluded non-data-driven reports, non-U.S. publications, and pediatric or neonatal ICU reports. We aggregated the study title intensivist nomenclatures and parsed Introduction and Method sections to discern the text used to define intensivists. Fourteen parameters were found and grouped into five definitional categories: A) No definition, B) Background training and certification, C) Works in ICU, D) Staffing, and E) Database related. Each study was re-evaluated against these parameters and grouped into three definitional classes (single, multiple, or no definition). The prevalence of each parameter is compared between groups using Fisher exact test.

SETTING

U.S. adult ICUs and databases.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 657 studies, 105 (16%) met inclusion criteria. Within the study titles, 17 phrases were used to describe an intensivist; these were categorized as intensivist in 61 titles (58%), specialty intensivist in 30 titles (29%), and ICU/critical care physician in 14 titles (13%). Thirty-one studies (30%) used a single parameter (B-E) as their definition, 63 studies (60%) used more than one parameter (B-E) as their definition, and 11 studies (10%) had no definition (A). The most common parameter "Works in ICU" (C) in 52 studies (50%) was more likely to be used in conjunction with other parameters rather than as a standalone parameter (multiple parameters vs single-parameter studies; 73% vs 17%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistency of intensivist nomenclature or definitions in contemporary adult intensivist studies in the United States.

Integrating a Virtual ICU with Cardiac and Cardiovascular ICUs: Managing the Needs of a Complex and High-Acuity Specialty ICU Cohort

A long-standing shortage of critical care intensivists and nurses, exacerbated by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, has led to an accelerated adoption of tele-critical care in the United States (US). Due to their complex and high-acuity nature, cardiac, cardiovascular, and cardiothoracic intensive care units (ICUs) have generally been limited in their ability to leverage tele-critical care resources. In early 2020, Houston Methodist Hospital (HMH) launched its tele-critical care program called Virtual ICU, or vICU, to improve its ICU staffing efficiency while providing high-quality, continuous access to in-person and virtual intensivists and critical care nurses. This article provides a roadmap with prescriptive specifications for planning, launching, and integrating vICU services within cardiac and cardiovascular ICUs-one of the first such integrations among the leading academic US hospitals. The success of integrating vICU depends upon the (1) recruitment of intensivists and RNs with expertise in managing cardiac and cardiovascular patients on the vICU staff as well as concerted efforts to promote mutual trust and confidence between in-person and virtual providers, (2) consultations with the bedside clinicians to secure their buy-in on the merits of vICU resources, and (3) collaborative approaches to improve workflow protocols and communications. Integration of vICU has resulted in the reduction of monthly night-call requirements for the in-person intensivists and an increase in work satisfaction. Data also show that support of the vICU is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of Code Blue events (denoting a situation where a patient requires immediate resuscitation, typically due to a cardiac or respiratory arrest). As the providers become more comfortable with the advances in artificial intelligence and big data-driven technology, the Cardiac ICU Cohort continues to improve methods to predict and track patient trends in the ICUs.