Background Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg with end-organ dysfunction ascribed to the hypotension. Shock type was classified by site investigators as cardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5–8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1–8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9–10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0–3.6) for patients without shock ( P <0.01 for each). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were higher in patients with mixed shock (10; IQR, 6–13) versus AMICS (8; IQR, 5–11) or CS without AMI (7; IQR, 5–11; each P <0.01). In-hospital mortality rates were 36% (95% CI, 28%–45%), 31% (95% CI, 26%–36%), and 39% (95% CI, 31%–48%) in AMICS, CS without AMI, and mixed shock, respectively. Conclusions The epidemiology of shock in contemporary advanced CICUs is varied, and AMICS now represents less than one-third of all CS. Despite advanced therapies, mortality in CS and mixed shock remains high. Investigation of management strategies and new therapies to treat shock in the CICU should take this epidemiology into account.
IMPORTANCE Dapagliflozin has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (HF) in patients with chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, clinical inertia often underlies deferred initiation of effective therapies.OBJECTIVE To examine timing of onset of clinical benefit with dapagliflozin and magnitude as a function of proximity to prior HF hospitalization.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This is a secondary analysis of a completed multinational trial. The Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse-Outcomes in Heart Failure trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of dapagliflozin in patients with chronic HFrEF (n = 4744). From February 2017 to August 2018, the study enrolled patients in New York Heart Association classes II through IV and with left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less; the median (range) follow-up time was 18.2 (0-27.8) months. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for the primary efficacy outcome with dapagliflozin vs placebo by time following randomization. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin were assessed according to the timing of the most recent HF hospitalization prior to trial enrollment. EXPOSURES None. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Composite of cardiovascular death or worsening HF.RESULTS A total of 4744 patients were included (1109 women [23.4%]; mean [SD] age, 66.3 [10.9] years). The reduction in the primary outcome with dapagliflozin was rapidly apparent, with a sustained statistically significant benefit by 28 days after randomization (HR at 28 days, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.94]; P = .03). A total of 2251 patients (47.4%) had been previously hospitalized for HF, and 1301 (27.4%) had been hospitalized within 12 months prior to enrollment. Among patients treated with placebo, there was a stepwise gradient of risk for the primary outcome according to timing of most recent HF hospitalization, with 2-year Kaplan-Meier rates of 21.1%, 25.3%, and 33.8% (adjusted P = .003) for patients with a prior HF hospitalization never, more than 12 months ago, and 12 or fewer months ago, respectively. Across these subgroups, dapagliflozin reduced the relative risk of the primary outcome by 16% (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]), 27% (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.54-0.99]), and 36% (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51-0.80]), respectively (P = .07 for trend). Accordingly, patients with a more recent HF hospitalization tended to experience greater absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin at 2 years: 2.1% (95% CI, −1.9% to 6.1%), 4.1% (95% CI, −3.6% to 11.7%), and 9.9% (95% CI, 3.3%-16.5%), respectively (P = .05 for trend). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this study, treatment with dapagliflozin was associated with rapid reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening HF, with a sustained statistically significant benefit emerging very early after randomization. Patients with a more recent HF hospitalization were at particularly high risk and experienced greater relative and absolute risk reductions with dapagliflozin.TRIAL REGISTRATION Clin...
Background-Survival after nontraumatic out-of-hospital (OOH) cardiac arrest in Tucson, Arizona, has been flat at 6%(121/2177) for the decade 1992 to 2001. We hypothesized that interruptions of chest compressions occur commonly and for substantial periods during treatment of OOH cardiac arrest and could be contributing to the lack of improvement in resuscitation outcome.
Background: The ABC-stroke and ABC-bleeding risk scores incorporate clinical variables and cardiovascular biomarkers to estimate risk of stroke or systemic embolic events (S/SEE) and bleeding, respectively, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). These scores have been proposed for routine clinical use but their performance in external cohorts remains uncertain. Methods: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 was a multinational, randomized trial of the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban in patients with AF and CHADS 2 score ≥2. We performed a nested prospective biomarker study in 8705 patients, analyzing baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), Nterminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and growth differentiation factor (GDF)-15, as well as in serial samples after 12 months. The ABC-stroke (age, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, hsTnT, NT-proBNP) and ABC-bleeding (age, prior bleeding, hemoglobin, hsTnT, and GDF-15) scores were tested. Hazard ratios were adjusted for estimated glomerular filtration rate and the components of the CHA 2 DS 2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores, respectively. Discrimination and reclassification were compared with these established scores. Results: Median baseline hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 levels were 13.7 ng/L (25 th-75 th percentiles, 9.6-20.4 ng/L), 811 pg/mL (386-1436 pg/L), and 1661 pg/mL (1179-2427 pg/mL), respectively. Elevated hsTnT, NT-proBNP, and GDF-15 were independently associated with higher
Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk of developing heart failure. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) in patients with T2DM. We aimed to develop and validate a practical clinical risk score for HHF in patients with T2DM and assess whether this score can identify high-risk patients with T2DM who have the greatest reduction in risk for HHF with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor. Methods: We developed a clinical risk score for HHF in 8212 patients with T2DM in the placebo arm of SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53). Candidate variables were assessed using multivariable Cox regression, and independent clinical risk indicators achieving statistical significance of P <0.001 were included in the risk score. We externally validated the score in 8578 patients with T2DM in the placebo arm of DECLARE-TIMI 58 (Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 58). The relative and absolute risk reductions in HHF with the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin were assessed by baseline HHF risk. Results: Five clinical variables were independent risk predictors of HHF: prior heart failure, history of atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio. A simple integer-based score (0–7 points) using these predictors identified a >20-fold gradient of HHF risk ( P for trend <0.001) in both the derivation and validation cohorts, with C indices of 0.81 and 0.78, respectively. Although relative risk reductions with dapagliflozin were similar for patients across the risk scores (25%–34%), absolute risk reductions were greater in those at higher baseline risk (1-sided P for trend=0.04), with high-risk (2 points) and very-high-risk (≥3 points) patients having 1.5% and 2.7% absolute reductions in Kaplan-Meier estimates of HHF risk at 4 years, respectively. Conclusions: Risk stratification using a novel clinical risk score for HHF in patients with T2DM identifies patients at higher risk for HHF who derive greater absolute benefit from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT01107886 and NCT01730534.
hen we entered cardiology training, we never expected to think of our own safety before initiating chest compressions on a pulseless patient. Yet, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has raised new questions, including issues of clinician safety during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).CPR and endotracheal intubation are aerosol-generating procedures. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, aerosolizing procedures should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE) consisting of eye protection, N95 respirators, gloves, and gowns in airborne infection isolation rooms given the higher risk of viral transmission. 1 In New York City, the need for intensive care unit capacity has surpassed the number of negative-pressure rooms. Most intubated patients are placed in non-negative-pressure rooms where CPR should, in theory, be avoided given the risks of dislodgement of the endotracheal tube and aerosolization of secretions. Furthermore, there are already dramatic PPE shortages. These resource constraints challenge our ability to comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Because of the complex realities of resuscitation in the COVID-19 era, we encourage a national conversation on the following 4 points.First, how can we better identify patients who would not want CPR? As clinicians, one of our priorities has been, and continues to be, to provide patients with care aligned with their values and preferences in the event that they become critically ill. Advanced care planning is more imperative now than ever, particularly among older adults with chronic, life-limiting illnesses who are at higher risk for severe infection. Ideally, these conversations should occur before patients become infected and present to the hospital. Primary care clinicians or specialists who have longitudinal relationships with patients can address advanced care planning during outpatient visits scheduled for other reasons or during dedicated telemedicine visits. 2 In addition, patients and families can be directed to online resources to guide these conversations and to facilitate completion of physician order for life-sustaining treatments forms. 2 At the time of hospital admission, all patients should have conversations with their clinicians about goals of care and preferences for resuscitation, regardless of their CO-VID-19 status; however, these conversations should be prioritized in older patients with multiple comorbidities who test positive. Some institutions have also created palliative care telehealth services to assist frontline clinicians with reaching out to family members beginning in the emergency room. These services can dedicate time to having these important family discussions via phone or video conference because most hospitals now restrict inpatient visitation. Whenever feasible, primary team members should also partake in these conversations and revisit goals of care as a patient's clinical status changes.
Background: Racial inequities for patients with heart failure (HF) have been widely documented. HF patients who receive cardiology care during a hospital admission have better outcomes. It is unknown whether there are differences in admission to a cardiology or general medicine service by race. This study examined the relationship between race and admission service, and its effect on 30-day readmission and mortality Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from September 2008 to November 2017 at a single large urban academic referral center of all patients self-referred to the emergency department and admitted to either the cardiology or general medicine service with a principal diagnosis of HF, who self-identified as white, black, or Latinx. We used multivariable generalized estimating equation models to assess the relationship between race and admission to the cardiology service. We used Cox regression to assess the association between race, admission service, and 30-day readmission and mortality. Results: Among 1967 unique patients (66.7% white, 23.6% black, and 9.7% Latinx), black and Latinx patients had lower rates of admission to the cardiology service than white patients (adjusted rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.98, for black; adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.97 for Latinx). Female sex and age >75 years were also independently associated with lower rates of admission to the cardiology service. Admission to the cardiology service was independently associated with decreased readmission within 30 days, independent of race. Conclusions: Black and Latinx patients were less likely to be admitted to cardiology for HF care. This inequity may, in part, drive racial inequities in HF outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.