Role of Critical Care Medicine Training in the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit: Survey Responses From Dual Certified Critical Care Cardiologists

Dual Training in Interventional Cardiology: The Next Frontier

Dual training in Interventional Cardiology (IC) with other cardiac subspecialties such as Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant Cardiology (AHFTC) and Critical Care Cardiology (CCC) is becoming a pathway for trainees to acquire a needed skill set to deliver comprehensive care for increasingly complex patients in the intensive care unit and catheterization laboratory settings. The makeup of these training pathways varies depending on several factors, with the resultant role of the specialist reflecting this reality. Herein, we review the merits to combined fellowship training for the Interventional Cardiologist, the ideal structure of programs to facilitate this, and how the faculty position for such a unique specialist can enhance a program.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation on chronic hemodialysis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and end-stage renal disease on chronic hemodialysis are at risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this population.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with VKAs in patients with AF on chronic hemodialysis from inception to February 2023 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Outcomes were reported using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.2.

RESULTS

We selected three RCTs including 341 patients, of whom 176 (51.6%) were randomized to DOACs. Follow-up ranged from 174 days to 3.38 years. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.69-2.60; p = 0.39), all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.72-1.27; p = 0.77), ischemic/uncertain type of stroke or transient ischemic attack (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.19-1.35; p = 0.17), or major or life-threatening bleeding (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.39-1.25; p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis of three RCTs, no significant difference was observed between DOACs and VKAs in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, ischemic/uncertain type of stroke or transient ischemic attack, or major or life-threatening bleeding in patients with AF on chronic hemodialysis.

Contrast-specific propensity scores for causal inference with multiple interventions

Existing methods that use propensity scores for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation on non-experimental data do not readily extend to the case of more than two treatment options. In this work, we develop a new propensity score-based method for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation when there are three or more treatment options, and prove that it generates unbiased estimates. We demonstrate our method on a real patient registry of patients in Singapore with diabetic dyslipidemia. On this dataset, our method generates heterogeneous treatment recommendations for patients among three options: Statins, fibrates, and non-pharmacological treatment to control patients' lipid ratios (total cholesterol divided by high-density lipoprotein level). In our numerical study, our proposed method generated more stable estimates compared to a benchmark method based on a multi-dimensional propensity score.

Training Paradigms in Critical Care Cardiology: A Scoping Review of Current Literature

Background

Over the past decade there has been increasing interest in critical care medicine (CCM) training for cardiovascular medicine (CV) physicians either in isolation (separate programs in either order [CV/CCM], integrated critical care cardiology [CCC] training) or hybrid training with interventional cardiology (IC)/heart failure/transplant (HF) with targeted CCC training.

Objective

To review the contemporary landscape of CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training.

Methods

We reviewed the literature from 2000-2022 for publications discussing training in any combination of internal medicine CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training. Information regarding training paradigms, scope of practice and training, duration, sequence, and milestones was collected.

Results

Of the 2,236 unique citations, 20 articles were included. A majority were opinion/editorial articles whereas two were surveys. The training pathways were classified into - (i) specialty training in both CV (3 years) and CCM (1-2 years) leading to dual American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) board certification, or (ii) base specialty training in CV with competencies in IC, HF or CCC leading to a non-ABIM certificate. Total fellowship duration varied between 4-7 years after a three-year internal medicine residency. While multiple articles commented on the ability to integrate the fellowship training pathways into a holistic and seamless training curriculum, few have highlighted how this may be achieved to meet competencies and standards.

Conclusions

In 20 articles describing CV/CCM, CCC, and hybrid training, there remains significant heterogeneity on the standardized training paradigms to meet training competencies and board certifications, highlighting an unmet need to define CCC competencies.

Defining Intensivists: A Retrospective Analysis of the Published Studies in the United States, 2010-2020

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine last published an intensivist definition in 1992. Subsequently, there have been many publications relating to intensivists. Our purpose is to assess how contemporary studies define intensivist physicians.

DESIGN

Systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science (2010-2020) for publication titles with the terms intensivist, and critical care or intensive care physician, specialist, or consultant. We included studies focusing on adult U.S. intensivists and excluded non-data-driven reports, non-U.S. publications, and pediatric or neonatal ICU reports. We aggregated the study title intensivist nomenclatures and parsed Introduction and Method sections to discern the text used to define intensivists. Fourteen parameters were found and grouped into five definitional categories: A) No definition, B) Background training and certification, C) Works in ICU, D) Staffing, and E) Database related. Each study was re-evaluated against these parameters and grouped into three definitional classes (single, multiple, or no definition). The prevalence of each parameter is compared between groups using Fisher exact test.

SETTING

U.S. adult ICUs and databases.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 657 studies, 105 (16%) met inclusion criteria. Within the study titles, 17 phrases were used to describe an intensivist; these were categorized as intensivist in 61 titles (58%), specialty intensivist in 30 titles (29%), and ICU/critical care physician in 14 titles (13%). Thirty-one studies (30%) used a single parameter (B-E) as their definition, 63 studies (60%) used more than one parameter (B-E) as their definition, and 11 studies (10%) had no definition (A). The most common parameter "Works in ICU" (C) in 52 studies (50%) was more likely to be used in conjunction with other parameters rather than as a standalone parameter (multiple parameters vs single-parameter studies; 73% vs 17%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistency of intensivist nomenclature or definitions in contemporary adult intensivist studies in the United States.

The Changing Epidemiology of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit

Coronary care units (CCUs) were originally designed to monitor and treat peri-infarction ventricular arrhythmias but have evolved into highly specialized cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) that provide care to a patient population that is increasingly heterogeneous and complex. Paralleling broader epidemiologic trends, patients admitted to contemporary CICUs are older and have a greater burden of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities. Moreover, contemporary CICU patients have high illness severity and often present with acute noncardiac organ dysfunction. In addition to these shifting demographic patterns, there have been important epidemiologic changes in CICU technologies, multidisciplinary systems of care, and physician staffing and training.

Training Pathways in Critical Care Cardiology: Competencies and Considerations for Cardiologists

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critical care cardiology (CCC) is a rapidly developing field undergoing a renaissance of interest and growth to meet the well-documented population shift in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). With this has come the emergence of novel training paradigms that seek to combine specialties with meaningful overlap.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefit of having critical care expertise in the CICU has been clearly established; however, there is no formal or uniform CCC training pathway. Contemporary approaches seek to provide appropriate clinical and procedural experience while minimizing opportunity cost. The combination of additional cardiology subspecialties, specifically advanced heart failure or interventional cardiology, has been demonstrated. Educational tracks that integrate critical care training have generated interest but have not yet manifested. CCC training strives to meet the needs of an increasingly sick and diverse patient population while preparing trainees for fulfilling and meaningful careers. The hope is for ongoing development of novel training pathways to satisfy evolving needs.

Development of the Modern Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit and Current Management

The modern cardiothoracic intensive care unit (CTICU) developed as a result of advances in critical care, cardiology, and cardiac surgery. Patients undergoing cardiac surgery today are sicker, frailer, and have more complex cardiac and noncardiac morbidities. CTICU providers need to understand postoperative implications of different surgical procedures, complications that can occur in CTICU patients, resuscitation protocols for cardiac arrest, and diagnostic and therapeutic interventions such as transesophageal echocardiography and mechanical circulatory support. Optimum CTICU care requires a multidisciplinary team with collaboration between cardiac surgeons and critical care physicians with training and experience in the care of CTICU patients.

The Intersection Between Heart Failure and Critical Care Cardiology: An International Perspective on Structure, Staffing, and Design Considerations

The overall patient population in contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) has only increased with respect to patient acuity, complexity, and illness severity. The current population has more cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, a higher prevalence of multiorgan injury, and consumes more critical care resources than previously. Patients with heart failure (HF) now occupy a large portion of contemporary tertiary or quaternary care CICU beds around the world. In this review, we discuss the core issues that relate to the care of critically ill patients with HF, including global perspectives on the organization, designation, and collaboration of CICUs regionally and across institutions, as well as unique models for provisioning care for patients with HF within a health care setting. The latter includes a discussion of traditional and emerging models, specialized HF units, the makeup and implementation of multidisciplinary team-based decision-making, and cardiac critical care admission and triage practices. This article illustrates the ways in which critically ill patients with HF have helped to shape contemporary CICUs throughout the world and explores how these very patients will similarly help to inform the future maturation of these specialized critical care units. Finally, we will critically examine broad, contemporary, international models of HF and cardiac critical care delivery in North America, Europe, South America, and Asia, and conclude with opportunities for the further investigation and generation of evidence for care delivery.

Cardiovascular Critical Care Training: A Collaboration between Intensivists and Cardiologists

With growing patient complexity, the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) of today has evolved substantially from the coronary care unit (CCU) of decades ago. The growing burden of noncardiac critical illness and highly specialized acute cardiovascular disease requires a degree of expertise beyond that afforded through a general cardiology training program. Therefore, the American Heart Association (AHA) has proposed a CICU staffing model to include dedicated cardiac intensivists; in the present day, "dual-trained" physicians are extremely sparse. Guidance on designing critical care fellowships for cardiologists is limited but will require collaboration between cardiologists and medical intensivists. Here, we review the evolution of the CICU, describe training pathways, and offer guidance on creating a cardiology critical care training program.

Impact of admitting department on the management of acute coronary syndrome after an out of hospital cardiac arrest

AIM

This study aimed to analyze the influence of the hospital admitting department on adherence to the Guidelines of European Society of Cardiology for management of acute coronary syndromes in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of coronary etiology.

METHODS

We studied retrospective-prospective register of 102 consecutive patients with OHCA as a manifestation of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Patients were admitted to the coronary care unit (CCU) 52, general intensive care unit (GICU) 21, or GICU after initial Cath lab treatment (CAG-GICU) 29. This study compared the differences in the management of ACS in patients with OHCA of coronary etiology based on the admitting department in a tertiary care institution.

RESULTS

Twelve of the 21 (57.1%) patients admitted to the GICU were evaluated as having ACS on-site where they experienced OHCA. In the CCU group, 50 out of 52 (96.2%) and 28 of 29 (100%) patients in the CAG-GICU group (P<0.001). Coronary angiography was performed in 10 of 21 patients (48%) admitted to the GICU. It was performed in 49 out of 52 (94%) CCU patients and, in the CAG-GICU group, 28 out of 29 patients. The mean time to CAG differed significantly across groups (that is, GICU 200.7 min., CCU 71.2 min., and CAG-GICU 7.5 min. (P<0.001)). Aspirin was used in 48% of GICU, 96% of CCU, and 79% of CAG-GICU patients (P<0.001), while in the pre-hospital phase, aspirin was used in 9.5% of GICU, 71.2% of CCU, and 50% of CAG-GICU patients (P<0.001). P2Y12 inhibitor prescriptions were lower in patients admitted to the GICU (33% vs. 89% CCU and 57% CAG-GICU, P<0.001). The department's choice significantly affected the time to initiation of antithrombotics, which was the longest in the GICU.

CONCLUSION

The choice of admission department for patients with OHCA caused by ACS was found to affect the extent to which the recommended treatments were used. An examination of OHCA patients by a cardiologist upon admission to the hospital increased the likelihood of an early diagnosis of ACS as the cause of OHCA.

Outcomes of Patients With Primary Cardiac Diagnoses Admitted to Cardiac vs Noncardiac Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND

Demographics in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have evolved, with increased prevalence of noncardiac critical illnesses.

OBJECTIVES

This study compares outcomes of patients with primary cardiac diagnoses admitted to CICUs vs those of patients with primary cardiac diagnoses admitted to noncardiac ICUs.

METHODS

The Cerner Health Facts Database was queried to identify adults with primary cardiac diagnoses admitted to ICUs within 48 hours of presentation between 2009 and 2014. Only hospitals with multiple ICUs including a CICU were studied. Information on ICU staffing was not available. A univariate analysis of ICU type (model 1) and multivariate analyses incorporating patient- and hospital-level variables (model 2) and concurrent, noncardiac, ICU-level diagnoses (model 3) were utilized to assess the impact of ICU type on inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

Of 16,163 encounters across 14 hospitals, 8,499 (52.6%) were admitted to CICUs and 7,664 (47.4%) to noncardiac ICUs. Univariate analysis (model 1) demonstrated increased mortality in noncardiac ICUs compared to CICUs (odds ratio [OR]: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.32-1.64; P < 0.0001). This risk dissipated (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.91-1.18; P = 0.56) after controlling for patient- and hospital-level variables (model 2). Inclusion of concurrent, noncardiac, ICU-level diagnoses (model 3) lead to a reversal with decreased mortality in noncardiac ICUs (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76-0.98; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In this historical cohort study evaluating CICU outcomes prior to the evolution of proposed staffing and care model modernization, survival of cardiac patients with concurrent, noncardiac critical illnesses may have been better with the expertise available in general system ICUs. These results may support contemporary efforts to increase the capacity to manage noncardiac critical illnesses in CICUs.

The shock team: a multidisciplinary approach to early patient phenotyping and appropriate care escalation in cardiogenic shock

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a highly morbid condition with mortality remaining greater than 30% despite improved pathophysiologic understanding and access to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In response, shock teams modeled on successful multidisciplinary care structures for other diseases are being implemented nationwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

Primary data supporting a benefit of shock team implementation on patient outcomes are relatively limited and entirely observational. Four single-center before-and-after studies and one multicenter registry study have demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with CS, potentially driven by increased pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) utilization and earlier (and more appropriate) initiation of MCS. Shock teams are also supported by a growing body of literature recognizing the independent benefit of the interventions they seek to implement, including patient phenotyping with PAC use and an algorithmic approach to CS care. Though debated, MCS is also highly likely to improve CS outcomes when applied appropriately, which further supports a multidisciplinary shock team approach to patient and device selection.

SUMMARY

Shock teams likely improve patient outcomes by facilitating early patient phenotyping and appropriate intervention. Institutions should strongly consider adopting a multidisciplinary shock team approach to CS care, though additional data supporting these interventions are needed.

Full-Time Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Staffing by Heart Failure Specialists and its Association with Mortality Rates

BACKGROUND

Cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) serve medically complex patients with multiorgan dysfunction. Whether a CICU that is staffed full time by heart failure (HF) specialists is associated with decreased mortality is unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective review of consecutive CICU admissions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016, was performed. In January 2014, the CICU changed from an open unit staffed by any cardiologist to a closed unit managed by HF specialists. Patients' baseline characteristics were determined, and a multivariate regression analysis was performed to ascertain mortality rates in the CICU. Baseline severity of illness was higher in the closed/HF specialist CICU model (P< 0.001). Death occurred in 101 of 1185 patients admitted to the CICU (8.5%) in the open-unit model and in 139 of 2163 patients (6.4%) admitted to the closed/HF specialist model (absolute risk reduction 2.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-4.0%; P = 0.01). The transition from an open to a closed/HF specialist model was associated with a lower overall CICU mortality rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.93). Prespecified interaction with a mechanical circulatory support device and unit model showed that treatment with such a device was associated with lower mortality rates in the closed/HF specialist model of a CICU (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.18-0.78; P for interaction <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Transition to a closed unit model staffed by a dedicated HF specialist is associated with lower CICU mortality rates.

Quality of Heart Failure Care in the Intensive Care Unit

Patients with heart failure (HF) who are seen in an intensive care unit (ICU) manifest the highest-risk, most complex and most resource-intensive disease states. These patients account for a large relative proportion of days spent in an ICU. The paradigms by which critical care is provided to patients with HF are being reconsidered, including consideration of various multidisciplinary ICU staffing models and the development of acute-response teams. Traditional HF quality initiatives have centered on the peri- and postdischarge period in attempts to improve adherence to guideline-directed therapies and reduce readmissions. There is a compelling rationale for expanding high-quality efforts in treating patients with HF who are receiving critical care so we can improve outcomes, reduce preventable harm, improve teamwork and resource use, and achieve high health-system performance. Our goal is to answer the following question: For a patient with HF in the ICU, what is required for the provision of high-quality care? Herein, we first review the epidemiology of HF syndromes in the ICU and identify relevant critical care and quality stakeholders in HF. We next discuss the tenets of high-quality care for patients with HF in the ICU that will optimize critical care outcomes, such as ICU staffing models and evidence-based management of cardiac and noncardiac disease. We discuss strategies to mitigate preventable harm, improve ICU culture and conduct outcomes review, and we conclude with our summative vision of high-quality of ICU care for patients with HF; our vision includes clinical excellence, teamwork and ICU culture.

Incidence, predictors and prognosis of respiratory support in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The incidences of invasive mechanical ventilation and non-invasive ventilation among patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and associated prognosis are not well characterized.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with admission diagnosis of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction using the US National Inpatient Sample database between 2002-2014. The exposure variable was invasive mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilation within 24 h of admission, compared to no respiratory support. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We determined the association between respiratory support and mortality using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 4,152,421 non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction hospitalizations were identified, among whom 1.3% required non-invasive ventilation and 1.9% required invasive mechanical ventilation. Non-invasive ventilation use increased over time (0.4% in 2002 to 2.4% in 2014, p<0.001) while there was no definite trend in invasive mechanical ventilation use. Revascularization was lower for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction hospitalizations including invasive mechanical ventilation (23.9%) and non-invasive ventilation (14.5%) compared to 36.5% of those without respiratory support (p<0.001). In-hospital mortality was 3.1% for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction without respiratory support compared to 9.2% with non-invasive ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.74-1.98) and 37.2% with invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted hazard ratio 3.03, 95% confidence interval 2.88-3.19). Mortality for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-non-invasive ventilation is improving over time while mortality for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction-invasive mechanical ventilation is increasing over time.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical respiratory support in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction is used in an important minority of cases, is increasing and is independently associated with mortality. Studies of the optimal management of acute coronary syndrome complicated by respiratory failure are needed to improve outcomes.

Current status and needs for changes in critical care training: the voice of the young cardiologists

AIMS

The implementation of the 2013 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Core Curriculum guidelines for acute cardiovascular care (acc) training among European countries is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the current status of acc training among cardiology trainees and young cardiologists (<40 years) from ESC countries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The survey (March-July 2019) asked about details of cardiology training, self-confidence in acc technical and non-technical skills, access to training opportunities, and needs for further training in the field. Overall 614 young doctors, 31 (26-43) years old, 55% males were surveyed. Place and duration of acc training differed between countries and between centres in the same country. Although the majority of the respondents (91%) had completed their acc training, the average self-confidence to perform invasive procedures and to manage acc clinical scenarios was low-44% (27.3-70.4). The opportunities for simulation-based learning were scarce-18% (5.8-51.3), as it was previous leadership training (32%) and knowledge about key teamwork principles was poor (48%). The need for further acc training was high-81% (61.9-94.3). Male gender, higher level of training centres, professional qualifications of respondents, longer duration of acc/intensive care training, debriefings, and previous leadership training as well as knowledge about teamwork were related to higher self-confidence in all investigated aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

The current cardiology training program is burdened by deficits in acc technical/non-technical skills, substantial variability in programs across ESC countries, and a clear gender-related disparity in outcomes. The forthcoming ESC Core Curriculum for General Cardiology is expected to address these deficiencies.

Facilitating supportive care in cardiac intensive care units

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of patients who die in the hospital in the Western world is high, and 20-30% of them are admitted to an ICU in the last month of life, including those in cardiac ICUs (CICUs) where invasive procedures are performed and mortality is high. Palliative consultation is provided in only a few cases. The ethical and decisional aspects associated with the advanced stages of illness are very rarely discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The epidemiological and clinical landscape of CICUs has changed in the last decade; the incidence of acute coronary syndromes has decreased, whereas noncardiovascular diseases, comorbidities, the patients' age and clinical and therapeutic complexity have increased. The use of advanced and invasive treatments, such as mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support and renal replacement therapies, has increased. This evolution increases the possibility of developing a life-threatening clinical event.

SUMMARY

This review aimed to analyze the main epidemiological, clinical, ethical and training aspects that can facilitate the introduction of supportive/palliative care programs in the CICU to improve symptom management during the advanced/terminal stages of illness, and address such issues as advance care planning, withdrawing/withholding life-sustaining treatments, deactivation of implantable defibrillators and palliative sedation.

Advanced Respiratory Support in the Contemporary Cardiac ICU

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

The medical complexity and critical care needs of patients admitted to cardiac ICUs are increasing, and prospective studies examining the underlying cardiac and noncardiac diagnoses, the management strategies, and the prognosis of cardiac ICU patients with respiratory failure are needed.

Role of Critical Care Medicine Training in the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit: Survey Responses From Dual Certified Critical Care Cardiologists

Background Cardiovascular intensive care units ( CICUs ) have evolved from coronary care wards into distinct units for critically ill patients with primary cardiac diseases, often suffering from illnesses that cross multiple disciplines. Mounting evidence has demonstrated improved survival with the incorporation of dedicated CICU providers with expertise in critical care medicine ( CCM ). This is the first study to systematically survey dual certified physicians in order to assess the relevance of CCM training to contemporary CICU care. Methods and Results Utilizing American Board of Internal Medicine data through 2014, 397 eligible physicians had obtained initial certification in both cardiovascular disease and CCM . A survey to delineate the role of critical care training in the CICU was provided to these physicians. Among those surveyed, 120 physicians (30%) responded. Dual certified physicians reported frequent use of their CCM skills in the CICU , highlighting ventilator management, multiorgan dysfunction management, end-of-life care, and airway management. The majority (85%) cited these skills as the reason CCM training should be prioritized by future CICU providers. Few (17%) agreed that general cardiology fellowship alone is currently sufficient to care for patients in the modern CICU . Furthermore, there was a consensus that there is an unmet need for cardiologists trained in CCM (70%) and that CICU s should adopt a level system similar to trauma centers (61%). Conclusions Citing specific skills acquired during CCM training, dual certified critical care cardiologists reported that their additional critical care experience was necessary in their practice to effectively deliver care in the modern CICU .

Cardiac intensive care in Portugal: The time for change

In recent years, the number of patients requiring acute cardiac care has increased, with progressively more complex cardiovascular conditions, often complicated by acute or chronic non-cardiovascular comorbidities, which affects the management and prognosis of these patients. Coronary care units have evolved into cardiac intensive care units, which provide highly specialized health care for the critical heart patient. In view of the limited human and technical resources in this area, we consider that there is an urgent need for an in-depth analysis of the organizational model for acute cardiac care, including the definition of the level of care, the composition and training of the team, and the creation of referral networks. It is also crucial to establish protocols and to adopt safe clinical practices to improve levels of quality and safety in the treatment of patients. Considering that acute cardiac care involves conditions with very different severity and prognosis, it is essential to define the level of care to be provided for each type of acute cardiovascular condition in terms of the team, available techniques and infrastructure. This will lead to improvements in the quality of care and patient prognosis, and will also enable more efficient allocation of resources.

COVID-19 and Disruptive Modifications to Cardiac Critical Care Delivery: JACC Review Topic of the Week

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a major unanticipated stress on the workforce, organizational structure, systems of care, and critical resource supplies. To ensure provider safety, to maximize efficiency, and to optimize patient outcomes, health systems need to be agile. Critical care cardiologists may be uniquely positioned to treat the numerous respiratory and cardiovascular complications of the SARS-CoV-2 and support clinicians without critical care training who may be suddenly asked to care for critically ill patients. This review draws upon the experiences of colleagues from heavily impacted regions of the United States and Europe, as well as lessons learned from military mass casualty medicine. This review offers pragmatic suggestions on how to implement scalable models for critical care delivery, cultivate educational tools for team training, and embrace technologies (e.g., telemedicine) to enable effective collaboration despite social distancing imperatives.