Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry

David D. Berg, Christopher F. Barnett, Benjamin B. Kenigsberg, Alexander Papolos, Carlos L. Alviar, Vivian M. Baird-Zars, Gregory W. Barsness, Erin A. Bohula, Joseph Brennan, James A. Burke, Anthony P. Carnicelli, Sunit Preet Chaudhry, Paul C. Cremer, Lori B. Daniels, Andrew P. DeFilippis, Daniel A. Gerber, Christopher B. Granger, Steven Hollenberg, James M. Horowitz, James D. GladdenJason N. Katz, Ellen C. Keeley, Norma Keller, Michael C. Kontos, Patrick R. Lawler, Venu Menon, Thomas S. Metkus, P. Elliott Miller, Jose Nativi-Nicolau, L. Kristin Newby, Jeong Gun Park, Nicholas Phreaner, Robert O. Roswell, Steven P. Schulman, Shashank S. Sinha, R. Jeffrey Snell, Michael A. Solomon, Jeffrey J. Teuteberg, Wayne Tymchak, Sean van Diepen, David A. Morrow

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e006635
JournalCirculation. Heart failure
Volume12
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2019

Fingerprint

Physicians' Practice Patterns
Critical Care
Cardiology
Registries
Shock
Cardiogenic Shock
Equipment and Supplies
Myocardial Infarction
Organ Dysfunction Scores
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
North America
Intensive Care Units
Hemodynamics
Pharmacology

Keywords

  • critical care
  • extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
  • hemodynamics
  • myocardial infarction
  • shock

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. / Berg, David D.; Barnett, Christopher F.; Kenigsberg, Benjamin B.; Papolos, Alexander; Alviar, Carlos L.; Baird-Zars, Vivian M.; Barsness, Gregory W.; Bohula, Erin A.; Brennan, Joseph; Burke, James A.; Carnicelli, Anthony P.; Chaudhry, Sunit Preet; Cremer, Paul C.; Daniels, Lori B.; DeFilippis, Andrew P.; Gerber, Daniel A.; Granger, Christopher B.; Hollenberg, Steven; Horowitz, James M.; Gladden, James D.; Katz, Jason N.; Keeley, Ellen C.; Keller, Norma; Kontos, Michael C.; Lawler, Patrick R.; Menon, Venu; Metkus, Thomas S.; Miller, P. Elliott; Nativi-Nicolau, Jose; Newby, L. Kristin; Park, Jeong Gun; Phreaner, Nicholas; Roswell, Robert O.; Schulman, Steven P.; Sinha, Shashank S.; Snell, R. Jeffrey; Solomon, Michael A.; Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.; Tymchak, Wayne; van Diepen, Sean; Morrow, David A.

In: Circulation. Heart failure, Vol. 12, No. 11, 01.11.2019, p. e006635.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Berg, DD, Barnett, CF, Kenigsberg, BB, Papolos, A, Alviar, CL, Baird-Zars, VM, Barsness, GW, Bohula, EA, Brennan, J, Burke, JA, Carnicelli, AP, Chaudhry, SP, Cremer, PC, Daniels, LB, DeFilippis, AP, Gerber, DA, Granger, CB, Hollenberg, S, Horowitz, JM, Gladden, JD, Katz, JN, Keeley, EC, Keller, N, Kontos, MC, Lawler, PR, Menon, V, Metkus, TS, Miller, PE, Nativi-Nicolau, J, Newby, LK, Park, JG, Phreaner, N, Roswell, RO, Schulman, SP, Sinha, SS, Snell, RJ, Solomon, MA, Teuteberg, JJ, Tymchak, W, van Diepen, S & Morrow, DA 2019, 'Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry', Circulation. Heart failure, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. e006635. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006635
Berg, David D. ; Barnett, Christopher F. ; Kenigsberg, Benjamin B. ; Papolos, Alexander ; Alviar, Carlos L. ; Baird-Zars, Vivian M. ; Barsness, Gregory W. ; Bohula, Erin A. ; Brennan, Joseph ; Burke, James A. ; Carnicelli, Anthony P. ; Chaudhry, Sunit Preet ; Cremer, Paul C. ; Daniels, Lori B. ; DeFilippis, Andrew P. ; Gerber, Daniel A. ; Granger, Christopher B. ; Hollenberg, Steven ; Horowitz, James M. ; Gladden, James D. ; Katz, Jason N. ; Keeley, Ellen C. ; Keller, Norma ; Kontos, Michael C. ; Lawler, Patrick R. ; Menon, Venu ; Metkus, Thomas S. ; Miller, P. Elliott ; Nativi-Nicolau, Jose ; Newby, L. Kristin ; Park, Jeong Gun ; Phreaner, Nicholas ; Roswell, Robert O. ; Schulman, Steven P. ; Sinha, Shashank S. ; Snell, R. Jeffrey ; Solomon, Michael A. ; Teuteberg, Jeffrey J. ; Tymchak, Wayne ; van Diepen, Sean ; Morrow, David A. / Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry. In: Circulation. Heart failure. 2019 ; Vol. 12, No. 11. pp. e006635.
@article{108112794eb54728ad111848fb278a72,
title = "Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "critical care, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, hemodynamics, myocardial infarction, shock",
author = "Berg, {David D.} and Barnett, {Christopher F.} and Kenigsberg, {Benjamin B.} and Alexander Papolos and Alviar, {Carlos L.} and Baird-Zars, {Vivian M.} and Barsness, {Gregory W.} and Bohula, {Erin A.} and Joseph Brennan and Burke, {James A.} and Carnicelli, {Anthony P.} and Chaudhry, {Sunit Preet} and Cremer, {Paul C.} and Daniels, {Lori B.} and DeFilippis, {Andrew P.} and Gerber, {Daniel A.} and Granger, {Christopher B.} and Steven Hollenberg and Horowitz, {James M.} and Gladden, {James D.} and Katz, {Jason N.} and Keeley, {Ellen C.} and Norma Keller and Kontos, {Michael C.} and Lawler, {Patrick R.} and Venu Menon and Metkus, {Thomas S.} and Miller, {P. Elliott} and Jose Nativi-Nicolau and Newby, {L. Kristin} and Park, {Jeong Gun} and Nicholas Phreaner and Roswell, {Robert O.} and Schulman, {Steven P.} and Sinha, {Shashank S.} and Snell, {R. Jeffrey} and Solomon, {Michael A.} and Teuteberg, {Jeffrey J.} and Wayne Tymchak and {van Diepen}, Sean and Morrow, {David A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006635",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "e006635",
journal = "Circulation: Heart Failure",
issn = "1941-3297",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical Practice Patterns in Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support for Shock in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN) Registry

AU - Berg, David D.

AU - Barnett, Christopher F.

AU - Kenigsberg, Benjamin B.

AU - Papolos, Alexander

AU - Alviar, Carlos L.

AU - Baird-Zars, Vivian M.

AU - Barsness, Gregory W.

AU - Bohula, Erin A.

AU - Brennan, Joseph

AU - Burke, James A.

AU - Carnicelli, Anthony P.

AU - Chaudhry, Sunit Preet

AU - Cremer, Paul C.

AU - Daniels, Lori B.

AU - DeFilippis, Andrew P.

AU - Gerber, Daniel A.

AU - Granger, Christopher B.

AU - Hollenberg, Steven

AU - Horowitz, James M.

AU - Gladden, James D.

AU - Katz, Jason N.

AU - Keeley, Ellen C.

AU - Keller, Norma

AU - Kontos, Michael C.

AU - Lawler, Patrick R.

AU - Menon, Venu

AU - Metkus, Thomas S.

AU - Miller, P. Elliott

AU - Nativi-Nicolau, Jose

AU - Newby, L. Kristin

AU - Park, Jeong Gun

AU - Phreaner, Nicholas

AU - Roswell, Robert O.

AU - Schulman, Steven P.

AU - Sinha, Shashank S.

AU - Snell, R. Jeffrey

AU - Solomon, Michael A.

AU - Teuteberg, Jeffrey J.

AU - Tymchak, Wayne

AU - van Diepen, Sean

AU - Morrow, David A.

PY - 2019/11/1

Y1 - 2019/11/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - critical care

KW - extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

KW - hemodynamics

KW - myocardial infarction

KW - shock

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074742120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074742120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006635

DO - 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006635

M3 - Article

C2 - 31707801

AN - SCOPUS:85074742120

VL - 12

SP - e006635

JO - Circulation: Heart Failure

JF - Circulation: Heart Failure

SN - 1941-3297

IS - 11

ER -