Search

Aim This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered. Structure Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

This study sought to define the 2-dimensional and Doppler echocardiographic hemodynamics associated with each Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage, and to determine their association with mortality.The SCAI shock stages classification stratifies mortality risk in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients, but the echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters that define these SCAI shock stages are unknown.Unique CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2015 who had a transthoracic echocardiogram within 1 day of CICU admission were included. Echocardiographic variables were evaluated as a function of SCAI shock stage. Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between echocardiographic parameters with adjusted hospital mortality.We included 5,453 patients with a median age of 69.3 years (interquartile range: 58.2 to 79.0 years) (37% women), and a median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 50% (interquartile range: 35% to 61%). Higher SCAI shock stages were associated with lower LVEF and worse systemic hemodynamics. Hospital mortality was higher in patients with LVEF 40%, cardiac index 1.8 l/min/mNoninvasive 2-dimensional and Doppler echocardiographic parameters correlate with the SCAI shock stages and improve risk stratification for hospital mortality in CICU patients. Low stroke volume index and high E/e' ratio demonstrated the strongest association with hospital mortality.

Little is known regarding the causes of critical illness and determinants of prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) admitted to the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of patients with HF admitted to the contemporary CICU.Retrospective cohort analysis of Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted with HF from 2007 to 2018 who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) data. HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF) was defined as a LVEF of less than 50%, and HF with preserved LVEF (HFpEF) as a LVEF of 50% or greater. In-hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Survival to 1 year was analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. We included 4012 patients, including 67.8% with HFrEF and 32.2% with HFpEF. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were comparable and had equivalent severity of illness. Critical care therapies were used in 59.4%, with a slight preponderance in patients with HFrEF. In-hospital mortality occurred in 12.5% of patients and was similar in HFrEF vs HFpEF. Shock and cardiac arrest were the strongest predictors of adjusted in-hospital mortality, followed by Braden skin score and serum chloride level; patients with HFrEF and HFpEF had similar adjusted mortality rates. The 1-year survival after hospital discharge was 74.5% and was slightly lower for patients with HFpEF. All-cause rehospitalization occurred in 36.6%, and 52.8% of hospital survivors died or were readmitted within 1 year.CICU patients with HF have a substantial burden of critical illness, high use of critical care therapies, and poor outcomes regardless of LVEF. This finding emphasizes the potential unmet care needs in this cohort.Patients with heart failure who require admission to the cardiac intensive care unit have high severity of illness and are at significant risk of death during and after hospitalization. These patients often require specialized critical care therapies to treat manifestations of critical illness. Patients who are admitted with cardiac arrest or shock, including those who require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors, are at particularly high risk of death. Patients' left ventricular ejection fraction is not strongly associated with the risk of death when accounting for other major predictors including frailty and laboratory abnormalities.

Aim:This clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain provides recommendations and algorithms for clinicians to assess and diagnose chest pain in adult patients.Methods:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from November 11, 2017, to May 1, 2020, encompassing randomized and nonrandomized trials, observational studies, registries, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through April 2021, were also considered.Structure:Chest pain is a frequent cause for emergency department visits in the United States. The “2021 AHA/ACC/ASE/CHEST/SAEM/SCCT/SCMR Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain” provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence on the assessment and evaluation of chest pain. This guideline presents an evidence-based approach to risk stratification and the diagnostic workup for the evaluation of chest pain. Cost-value considerations in diagnostic testing have been incorporated, and shared decision-making with patients is recommended.

Introduction: The response to COVID infection has been associated with intense inflammation, and some patients have cardiac involvement. In a group of patients with COVID infection and shock whose ventricular function was characterized by echocardiography, we examined the relationship between levels of ferritin, an inflammatory marker that is elevated in COVID, and LV ejection fraction (EF). Methods: Of 1275 patients hospitalized with COVID pneumonia, 215 had shock requiring vasopressors. 162 had echocardiography to assess ventricular function and stroke volume. EF was measured using Simpson’s rule and stroke volume (SV) by Doppler. Patients were divided into groups with low or preserved EF ( EF L or EF P , cutoff &lte45%), and low or normal cardiac index, (CI, CI L or CI N , cutoff ≤&lte2.2 L/min/m 2 ). Ferritin within 7 days of the echo was available in 147/162 patients. We examined the association between ferritin levels and ejection fraction. Results: Mean age was 66.7, EF 58.7±13.9; CI 2.41±0.89 L/min/m 2 , ferritin 3036±2318 ng/mL (normal Figure ). High ferritin levels correlated with low EF (r=-0.18, p=0.02), and ferritin levels were greatly increased in patients with a hemodynamic profile of cardiogenic shock. ( EF L CI L , Figure, p=0.017 by ANOVA) Conclusion: COVID-induced shock had a cardiogenic profile (EF L CI L ) in 10% of patients, and another 5% had low EF but normal CI. Ferritin correlated with low EF and was increased in patients with a profile of cardiogenic shock. This suggests that marked inflammation may depress myocardial function in COVID patients with shock - analogous to a similar myocardial depression seen with bacterial-associated septic shock.

Ty J. Gluckman, MD, FACC, Chair Niti R. Aggarwal, MD, FACC Nicole M. Bhave, MD, FACC Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, MACC Olivia N. Gilbert, MD, MSc, FACC Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM, FACC Andrea L. Price, MS, CPHQ, RCIS, AACC David E. Winchester, MD, MS, FACC Martha Gulati, MD, MS, FACC— Ex

Scientific statements and publications have recommended the use of vasoconstrictors as the first-line pharmacologic choice for most cases of cardiogenic shock (CS), without the abundance of strong clinical evidence. One challenge of guidelines is that the way recommendations are stated can potentially lead to oversimplification of complex situations. Except for acute coronary syndrome with CS, in which maintenance of coronary perfusion pressure seems logical prior to revascularization, physiologic consequences of increasing afterload by use of vasoconstrictors should be analyzed. Changing the CS conceptual frame, emphasizing inflammation and other vasodilating consequences of prolonged CS, mixes causes and consequences. Moreover, the considerable interpatient differences regarding the initial cause of CS and subsequent consequences on both macro- and microcirculation, argue for a dynamic, step-by-step, personalized therapeutic strategy. In CS, vasoconstrictors should be used only after a reasoning process, a review of other possible options, and then should be titrated to reach a reasonable pressure target, while checking cardiac output and organ perfusion.

Patients with serious COVID infections develop shock frequently. To characterize the hemodynamic profile of this cohort, 156 patients with COVID pneumonia and shock requiring vasopressors had interpretable echocardiography with measurement of ejection fraction (EF) by Simpson's rule and stroke volume (SV) by Doppler. RV systolic pressure (RVSP) was estimated from the tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity. Patients were divided into groups with low or preserved EF (EFL or EFP, cutoff ≤45%), and low or normal cardiac index (CIL or CIN, cutoff ≤2.2 L/min/m2). Mean age was 67 ± 12.0, EF 59.5 ± 12.9, and CI 2.40 ± 0.86. A minority of patients had depressed EF (EFLCIL, n = 15, EFLCIN, n = 8); of those with preserved EF, less than half had low CI (EFPCIL, n = 55, EFPCIN, n = 73). Overall hospital mortality was 73%. Mortality was highest in the EFLCIL group (87%), but the difference between groups was not significant (p = 0.68 by ANOVA). High PEEP correlated with low CI in the EFPCIL group (r = 0.44, p = 0.04). In conclusion, this study reports the prevalence of shock characterized by EF and CI in patients with COVID-19. COVID-induced shock had a cardiogenic profile (EFLCIL) in 9.6% of patients, reflecting the impact of COVID-19 on myocardial function. Low CI despite preservation of EF and the correlation with PEEP suggests underfilling of the LV in this subset; these patients might benefit from additional volume. Hemodynamic assessment of COVID patients with shock with definition of subgroups may allow therapy to be tailored to the underlying causes of the hemodynamic abnormalities.

Contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have an increasing prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction. However, little guidance exists to support the development of best-practice principles specific to the CICU. This scientific statement evaluates strategies to avoid the potentially preventable complications encountered within contemporary CICUs, focusing on those that are most applicable to the CICU environment. This scientific statement reviews evidence-based practices derived in non–CICU populations, assesses their relevance to CICU practice, and highlights key knowledge gaps warranting further investigation to attenuate patient risk.

Sepsis is the life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection and is the leading cause of death in intensive care units. Cardiac dysfunction caused by sepsis, usually termed sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy, is common and has long been a subject of interest. In this Review, we explore the definition, epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of septic cardiomyopathy, with an emphasis on how best to interpret this condition in the clinical context. Advances in diagnostic techniques have increased the sensitivity of detection of myocardial abnormalities but have posed challenges in linking those abnormalities to therapeutic strategies and relevant clinical outcomes. Sophisticated methodologies have elucidated various pathophysiological mechanisms but the extent to which these are adaptive responses is yet to be definitively answered. Although the indications for monitoring and treating septic cardiomyopathy are clinical and directed towards restoring tissue perfusion, a better understanding of the course and implications of septic cardiomyopathy can help to optimize interventions and improve clinical outcomes.

Patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) are often in shock and require hemodynamic support. Identifying and addressing the pathophysiology mechanisms operating in an individual patient is crucial to achieving a successful outcome, while initiating circulatory support therapy to restore adequate tissue perfusion. Vasopressors and inotropes are the cornerstone of supportive medical therapy for shock, in addition to fluid resuscitation when indicated. Timely initiation of optimal vasopressor and inotrope therapy is essential for patients with shock, with the ultimate goals of restoring effective tissue perfusion in order to normalize cellular metabolism. Use of vasoactive agents for hemodynamic support of patients with shock should take both arterial pressure and tissue perfusion into account when choosing therapeutic interventions. For most patients with shock, including cardiogenic or septic shock, norepinephrine (NE) is an appropriate choice as a first-line vasopressor titrated to achieve an adequate arterial pressure due to a lower risk of adverse events than other catecholamine vasopressors. If tissue and organ perfusion remain inadequate, an inotrope such as dobutamine may be added to increase cardiac output to a sufficient level that meets tissue demand. Low doses of epinephrine or dopamine may be used for inotropic support, but high doses of these drugs carry an excessive risk of adverse events when used for vasopressor support and should be avoided. When NE alone is inadequate to achieve an adequate arterial pressure, addition of a noncatecholamine vasopressor such as vasopressin or angiotensin-II is reasonable, in addition to rescue therapies that may improve vasopressor responsiveness. In this review, we discuss the pharmacology and evidence-based use of vasopressor and inotrope drugs in critically ill patients, with a focus on the CICU population.

Objectives To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for adults with acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU. Design The guideline panel comprised 29 members with expertise in aspects of care of the critically ill patient with liver failure and/or methodology. The Society of Critical Care Medicine standard operating procedures manual and conflict-of-interest policy were followed throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the panel, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development. Setting The panel was divided into nine subgroups: cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, endocrine and nutrition, gastrointestinal, infection, perioperative, and neurology. Interventions We developed and selected population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions according to importance to patients and practicing clinicians. For each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question, we conducted a systematic review aiming to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence whenever applicable, and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence to decision framework to facilitate recommendations formulation as strong or conditional. We followed strict criteria to formulate best practice statements. Measurements and main results In this article, we report 29 recommendations (from 30 population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions) on the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, related to five groups (cardiovascular, hematology, pulmonary, renal, and endocrine). Overall, six were strong recommendations, 19 were conditional recommendations, four were best-practice statements, and in two instances, the panel did not issue a recommendation due to insufficient evidence. Conclusions Multidisciplinary international experts were able to formulate evidence-based recommendations for the management acute or acute on chronic liver failure in the ICU, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on low-quality indirect evidence.

Objective: Menopause may augment age-dependent increases in arterial stiffness, with black women having greater progression in midlife compared with white women. We sought to determine whether and when women experience changes in arterial stiffness relative to the final menstrual period (FMP) and whether these changes differ between black and white midlife women. Approach and Results: We evaluated 339 participants from the SWAN (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation) Heart Ancillary study (Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation). Women had ≤2 carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) exams over a mean±SD of 2.3±0.5 years of follow-up. Annual percentage changes in cfPWV were estimated in 3 time segments relative to FMP and compared using piecewise linear mixed-effects models. At baseline, women were 51.1±2.8 years of age and 36% black. Annual percentage change (95% CI) in cfPWV varied by time segments: 0.9% (−0.6% to 2.3%) for >1 year before FMP, 7.5% (4.1% to 11.1%) within 1 year of FMP, and −1.0% (−2.8% to 0.8%) for >1 year after FMP. Annual percentage change in cfPWV within 1 year of FMP was significantly greater than the other 2 time segments; P P for interaction, 0.04. Conclusions: The interval within 1 year of FMP is a critical period for women when vascular functional alterations occur. These findings underscore the importance of more intensive lifestyle modifications in women transitioning through menopause.

Echocardiography by intensivists in critically ill patients is divided into two different applications: focused echocardiography and advanced echocardiography. Neither application is equivalent to full echocardiography performed by certified full-time echocardiographic technicians and interpreted by cardiologists, and training requirements differ among different echocardiographic studies and in different disciplines. Full studies assess cardiac structure and function by combining two-dimensional, M-mode, Doppler and strain imaging in different views. The authors discourage the use of the term “bedside echocardiography” as imprecise and potentially misleading: the comprehensiveness of an echocardiographic study should be dictated by the clinical issues and urgency, not the location at which the study is performed. This chapter highlights evidence-based applications of echocardiography. Comprehensive discussion of technique is beyond the scope of this chapter, but can be found in textbooks. Like every diagnostic modality, focused echocardiography and advanced echocardiography have fundamental strengths and weaknesses better understanding of their advantages and limitations promotes successful application of echocardiography and minimizes misinterpretation of data. Despite the challenges of imaging in the intensive care unit, evidence supporting the use of echocardiography in the diagnosis and management of critically ill patients with life-threatening hemodynamic instability is robust. Image acquisition requires effort and dedication but can reward that effort with improved patient management.

Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA, Immediate Past Chair [‡‡][1] Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Kim K. Birtcher, PharmD, MS, AACC Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA Ralph G. Brindis, MD

Objective:To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012.”Design:A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. Methods: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Results: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%–50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%–100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. Conclusions: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Background The outcome of cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction has not appreciably changed in the last 30 years despite the development of various percutaneous mechanical circulatory support options. It is clear that there are varying degrees of cardiogenic shock but there is no robust classification scheme to categorize this disease state. Methods A multidisciplinary group of experts convened by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions was assembled to derive a proposed classification schema for cardiogenic shock. Representatives from cardiology (interventional, advanced heart failure, noninvasive), emergency medicine, critical care, and cardiac nursing all collaborated to develop the proposed schema. Results A system describing stages of cardiogenic shock from A to E was developed. Stage A is "at risk" for cardiogenic shock, stage B is "beginning" shock, stage C is "classic" cardiogenic shock, stage D is "deteriorating", and E is "extremis". The difference between stages B and C is the presence of hypoperfusion which is present in stages C and higher. Stage D implies that the initial set of interventions chosen have not restored stability and adequate perfusion despite at least 30 minutes of observation and stage E is the patient in extremis, highly unstable, often with cardiovascular collapse. Conclusion This proposed classification system is simple, clinically applicable across the care spectrum from pre-hospital providers to intensive care staff but will require future validation studies to assess its utility and potential prognostic implications.

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 pressure90 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 ( P0.01 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 P0.01). 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 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 P P 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.