Search

Background: Sex disparities exist in the management and outcomes of various cardiovascular diseases. However, little is known about sex differences in cardiogenic shock (CS). We sought to assess sex-related differences in the characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes of patients with CS., Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of advanced cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. Between 2018 and 2022, each center (N=35) contributed annual 2-month snapshots of consecutive CICU admissions. Patients with CS were stratified as either CS after acute myocardial infarction or heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). Multivariable logistic regression was used for analyses., Results: Of the 22 869 admissions in the overall population, 4505 (20%) had CS. Among 3923 patients with CS due to ventricular failure (32% female), 1235 (31%) had CS after acute myocardial infarction and 2688 (69%) had HF-CS. Median sequential organ failure assessment scores did not differ by sex. Women with HF-CS had shorter CICU lengths of stay (4.5 versus 5.4 days; P <0.0001) and shorter overall lengths of hospital stay (10.9 versus 12.8 days; P <0.0001) than men. Women with HF-CS were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheters (50% versus 55%; P <0.01) and mechanical circulatory support (26% versus 34%; P <0.0001) compared with men. Women with HF-CS had higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after adjusting for age, illness severity, and comorbidities (34% versus 23%; odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.42-2.17]). In contrast, there were no significant sex differences in utilization of advanced CICU monitoring and interventions, or mortality, among patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction., Conclusions: Women with HF-CS had lower use of pulmonary artery catheters and mechanical circulatory support, shorter CICU lengths of stay, and higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after accounting for age, illness severity, and comorbidities. These data highlight the need to identify underlying reasons driving the differences in treatment decisions, so outcomes gaps in HF-CS can be understood and eliminated., Competing Interests: Drs Berg, Bohula, Park, and Morrow are members of the TIMI Study Group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc, Softcell Medical Ltd, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Katz reports modest research funding from Abbott Corporation. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Wide interhospital variations exist in cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) admission practices and the use of critical care restricted therapies (CCRx), but little is known about the differences in patient acuity, CCRx utilization, and the associated outcomes within tertiary centers., Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of tertiary and academic CICUs in the United States and Canada that captured consecutive admissions in 2-month periods between 2017 and 2022. This analysis included 17 843 admissions across 34 sites and compared interhospital tertiles of CCRx (eg, mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support, continuous renal replacement therapy) utilization and its adjusted association with in-hospital survival using logistic regression. The Pratt index was used to quantify patient-related and institutional factors associated with CCRx variability., Results: The median age of the study population was 66 (56-77) years and 37% were female. CCRx was provided to 62.2% (interhospital range of 21.3%-87.1%) of CICU patients. Admissions to CICUs with the highest tertile of CCRx utilization had a greater burden of comorbidities, had more diagnoses of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cardiogenic shock, and had higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality (median, 12.7%) was 9.6%, 11.1%, and 18.7% in low, intermediate, and high CCRx tertiles, respectively. No clinically meaningful differences in adjusted mortality were observed across tertiles when admissions were stratified by the provision of CCRx. Baseline patient-level variables and institutional differences accounted for 80% and 5.3% of the observed CCRx variability, respectively., Conclusions: In a large registry of tertiary and academic CICUs, there was a >4-fold interhospital variation in the provision of CCRx that was primarily driven by differences in patient acuity compared with institutional differences. No differences were observed in adjusted mortality between low, intermediate, and high CCRx utilization sites., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Barnett reports clinical trial enrollment for Acceleron, Merck, Merck Shape & Dohme, and Aerovate Therapeutics. Dr Bohula, Dr Morrow, and J. Guo are members of the TIMI study group, which has received institutional research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, ARCA Biopharma, Inc, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc, Softcell Medical Limited, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Morrow has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, ARCA Biopharma, InCarda, Inflammatix, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Daniels reports consulting income from Roche Diagnostics and QuidelOrtho serves on clinical end point adjudication committees for Abbottand Applied Therapeutics. Dr Prasad reports advisory board for Abiomed and NIH R01 grant. Dr Teuteberg reports consulting with Abbott, Abiomed advisory board, CareDx advisory board and speaking fees, Cytokinetics speaking fees, Medtronic advisory board, speaking and consulting fees, Paragonix speaking fees, and Takeda advisory board. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: With the improvement in outcomes for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the practice of routine admission to cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is evolving. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of patients with ACS admitted to contemporary CICUs., Methods: Using the CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) Registry for consecutive medical CICU admissions across 26 advanced CICUs in North America between 2017 and 2020, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of ACS at CICU admission and compared patient characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes to patients admitted with a non-ACS diagnosis and across sub-populations of patients with ACS, including by indication for CICU admission., Results: Of 10 118 CICU admissions, 29.4% (n=2978) were for a primary diagnosis of ACS, with significant interhospital variability (range, 13.4%-56.6%). Compared with patients admitted with a diagnosis other than ACS, patients with ACS had fewer comorbidities, lower acute severity of illness with less utilization of advanced CICU therapies (41.3% versus 66.1%, P <0.0001), and lower CICU mortality (5.4% versus 9.9%, P <0.0001). Monitoring alone, without another CICU indication at the time of admission, was the most frequent admission indication in patients with ACS (53.8%); less common indications in patients with ACS included respiratory insufficiency, shock, or the need for vasoactive therapy. Of patients with ACS admitted for monitoring alone, 94.8% did not subsequently require advanced intensive care unit therapies and had a low CICU length of stay (1.5 days [0.9-2.4] versus 2.6 [1.4-5.1], P <0.0001) and CICU mortality (0.6% versus 11.0%, P <0.0001), compared with patients with ACS with an admission indication beyond monitoring., Conclusions: In a registry of tertiary care CICUs, ACS represent ≈1/3 of all admissions with significant variability across hospitals. More than half of the ACS admissions to the CICU were for routine monitoring alone, with a low rate of complications and mortality. This observation highlights an opportunity for prospective studies to refine triage strategies for lower risk patients with ACS.

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.

Background: Several studies have concluded that diabetes mellitus and heart disease carry similar risk for future cardiovascular disease (CVD). Most of these studies were too small to quantify independent risks specific to women. The purpose of this study was to determine whether diabetes mellitus is a coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equivalent for prediction of future CHD and CVD events in women., Methods and Results: The Raloxifene Use for the Heart (RUTH) trial was an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of raloxifene and CVD outcomes in 10 101 postmenopausal women selected for high CHD risk. Of these, 3672 had a history of diabetes mellitus without known CHD, and 3265 had a history of CHD without known diabetes mellitus. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare cardiovascular outcomes in these 2 groups. Mean age at baseline was 67.5 years; median follow-up was 5.6 years. There were 725 deaths, including 450 cardiovascular deaths. In age-adjusted analyses, diabetic women had an increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with women with CHD. Although the overall risk of CHD and CVD was lower in diabetic women compared with women with CHD, the risk of fatal CHD, fatal CVD, and all-cause mortality was similar (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.85 [0.65-1.12], 0.99 [0.78-1.25], and 1.18 [0.98-1.42], respectively, after adjusting for age, lifestyle factors, CHD risk factors, statin use, and treatment assignment)., Conclusions: In the RUTH trial, diabetes mellitus was a CHD risk equivalent in women for fatal, but not nonfatal, CHD and CVD.