Background-In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the modern era, the incidence and prognostic implications of acute renal failure (ARF) are unknown. Methods and Results-With a retrospective analysis of the Mayo Clinic PCI registry, we determined the incidence of, risk factors for, and prognostic implications of ARF (defined as an increase in serum creatinine [Cr] Ͼ0.5 mg/dL from baseline) after PCI. Of 7586 patients, 254 (3.3%) experienced ARF. Among patients with baseline Cr Ͻ2.0, the risk of ARF was higher among diabetic than nondiabetic patients, whereas among those with a baseline Cr Ͼ2.0, all had a significant risk of ARF. In multivariate analysis, ARF was associated with baseline serum Cr, acute myocardial infarction, shock, and volume of contrast medium administered. Twenty-two percent of patients with ARF died during the index hospitalization compared with only 1.4% of patients without ARF (PϽ0.0001). After adjustment, ARF remained strongly associated with death. Among hospital survivors with ARF, 1-and 5-year estimated mortality rates were 12.1% and 44.6%, respectively, much greater than the 3.7% and 14.5% mortality rates in patients without ARF (PϽ0.0001). Conclusions-The overall incidence of ARF after PCI is low. Diabetic patients with baseline Cr values Ͻ2.0 mg/dL are at higher risk than nondiabetic patients, whereas all patients with a serum Cr Ͼ2.0 are at high risk for ARF. ARF was highly correlated with death during the index hospitalization and after dismissal.

No abstract

Enhanced external counterpulsation enhances peripheral endothelial function with beneficial effects persisting at one-month follow-up in patients with a positive clinical response. This suggests that improvement in endothelial function may contribute to the clinical benefit of EECP in patients with symptomatic CAD.

Background and Purpose: This scientific statement provides an interprofessional, comprehensive review of evidence and recommendations for indications, duration, and implementation of continuous electro cardiographic monitoring of hospitalized patients. Since the original practice standards were published in 2004, new issues have emerged that need to be addressed: overuse of arrhythmia monitoring among a variety of patient populations, appropriate use of ischemia and QT-interval monitoring among select populations, alarm management, and documentation in electronic health records. Methods: Authors were commissioned by the American Heart Association and included experts from general cardiology, electrophysiology (adult and pediatric), and interventional cardiology, as well as a hospitalist and experts in alarm management. Strict adherence to the American Heart Association conflict of interest policy was maintained throughout the consensus process. Authors were assigned topics relevant to their areas of expertise, reviewed the literature with an emphasis on publications since the prior practice standards, and drafted recommendations on indications and duration for electrocardiographic monitoring in accordance with the American Heart Association Level of Evidence grading algorithm that was in place at the time of commissioning. Results: The comprehensive document is grouped into 5 sections: (1) Overview of Arrhythmia, Ischemia, and QTc Monitoring; (2) Recommendations for Indication and Duration of Electrocardiographic Monitoring presented by patient population; (3) Organizational Aspects: Alarm Management, Education of Staff, and Documentation; (4) Implementation of Practice Standards; and (5) Call for Research. Conclusions: Many of the recommendations are based on limited data, so authors conclude with specific questions for further research.

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.