Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Cardiac ICUs With Versus Without Shock Teams.

BACKGROUND: Single-center studies suggest that implementation of multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) teams is associated with improved CS survival. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of CS across multiple centers with versus without shock teams. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. All consecutive medical admissions to each CICU (n = 24) were captured during annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019; n = 6,872). Shock management and CICU mortality among centers with versus without shock teams were compared using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Ten of the 24 centers had shock teams. Among 1,242 CS admissions, 44% were at shock team centers. The groups were well-balanced with respect to demographics, shock etiology, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, biochemical markers of end organ dysfunction, and invasive hemodynamics. Centers with shock teams used more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs 49%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.47-2.35; P < 0.001), less overall mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (35% vs 43%; adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; P = 0.016), and more advanced types of MCS (53% vs 43% of all MCS; adjusted OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.19-2.51; P = 0.005) rather than intra-aortic balloon pumps. The presence of a shock team was independently associated with lower CICU mortality (23% vs 29%; adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94; P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter observational study, centers with shock teams were more likely to obtain invasive hemodynamics, use advanced types of MCS, and have lower risk-adjusted mortality. A standardized multidisciplinary shock team approach may improve outcomes in CS.

Comparative Analysis of Radial Versus Femoral Diagnostic Cardiac Catheterization Procedures in a Cardiology Training Program.

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the differences in the procedural variables between transradial and transfemoral access for coronary angiography, with cardiology fellows as the primary operators. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 163 radial and 180 femoral access diagnostic cardiac catheterization procedures, and involved cardiology fellowship trainees as primary operators. RESULTS: The radial approach was associated with significantly higher fluoroscopy time (8.0 ± 6.97 min vs 4.25 ± 3.01 min; P<.001), dose area product (10775 ± 6724 µGy/m² vs 7952 ± 4236 µGy/m²; P<.001), procedure time (38.31 ± 12.25 min vs 27 ± 17.56 min; P<.001), procedure start to vascular access time (8.24 ± 6.31 min vs 5.31 ± 4.59 min; P<.001), and vascular access to procedure end time (30 ± 15.34 min vs 21.2 ± 9.57 min; P<.001). These differences persisted after adjusting for patients with bypass grafts and additional imaging (P<.001). The contrast amount was not significantly different between the two groups (P=.12). Procedure start to vascular access time improved significantly with fellowship training year in both the radial (9.57 ± 6.96 min vs 8.23 ± 6.08 min vs 5.57 ± 4.82 min) and femoral groups (6.17 ± 5.07 min vs 5.47 ± 4.75 min vs 4.01 ± 3.31 min). Fluoroscopy time showed significant difference in only the femoral access group (P=.01). Dose area product did not improve with training in either access group. CONCLUSION: Radial procedures were associated with higher radiation dose and longer procedure time. Despite decrease in total procedural time for radial cases with the level of training, total radiation dose did not decrease.