Transition From an Open to Closed Staffing Model in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Improves Clinical Outcomes

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.

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.

Diversifying cardiac intensive care unit models: Successful example of an operating surgeon-led unit

Objective

The intensivist-led cardiovascular intensive care unit model is the standard of care in cardiac surgery. This study examines whether a cardiovascular intensive care unit model that uses operating cardiac surgeons, cardiothoracic surgery residents, and advanced practice providers is associated with comparable outcomes.

Methods

This is a single-institution review of the first 400 cardiac surgery patients admitted to an operating surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit from 2020 to 2022. Inclusion criteria are elective status and operations managed by both cardiovascular intensive care unit models (aortic operations, valve operations, coronary operations, septal myectomy). Patients from the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit were exact matched by operation type and 1:1 propensity score matched with controls from the traditional cardiovascular intensive care unit using a logistic regression model that included age, sex, preoperative mortality risk, incision type, and use of cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. Primary outcome was total postoperative length of stay. Secondary outcomes included postoperative intensive care unit length of stay, 30-day mortality, 30-day Society of Thoracic Surgeons-defined morbidity (permanent stroke, renal failure, cardiac reoperation, prolonged intubation, deep sternal infection), packed red cell transfusions, and vasopressor use. Outcomes between the 2 groups were compared using chi-square, Fisher exact test, or 2-sample t test as appropriate.

Results

A total of 400 patients from the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit (mean age 61.2 ± 12.8 years, 131 female patients [33%], 346 patients [86.5%] with European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II <2%) and their matched controls were included. The most common operations across both units were coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 318, 39.8%) and mitral valve repair or replacement (n = 238, 29.8%). Approximately half of the operations were performed via sternotomy (n = 462, 57.8%). There were 3 (0.2%) in-hospital deaths, and 47 patients (5.9%) had a 30-day complication. The total length of stay was significantly shorter for the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit patients (6.3 vs 7.0 days, P = .028), and intensive care unit length of stay trended in the same direction (2.5 vs 2.9 days, P = .16). Intensive care unit readmission rates, 30-day mortality, and 30-day morbidity were not significantly different between cardiovascular intensive care unit models. The surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit was associated with fewer postoperative red blood cell transfusions in the cardiovascular intensive care unit (P = .002) and decreased vasopressor use (P = .001).

Conclusions

In its first 2 years, the surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit demonstrated comparable outcomes to the traditional cardiovascular intensive care unit with significant improvements in total length of stay, postoperative transfusions in the cardiovascular intensive care unit, and vasopressor use. This early success exemplifies how an operating surgeon-led cardiovascular intensive care unit can provide similar outcomes to the standard-of-care model for patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.

Cardiac intensive care unit: where we are in 2023

Cardiac intensive care has been a constantly evolving area of research and innovation since the beginning of the 21st century. The story began in 1961 with Desmond Julian's pioneering creation of a coronary intensive care unit to improve the prognosis of patients with myocardial infarction, considered the major cause of death in the world. These units have continued to progress over time, with the introduction of new therapeutic means such as fibrinolysis, invasive hemodynamic monitoring using the Swan-Ganz catheter, and mechanical circulatory assistance, with significant advances in percutaneous interventional coronary and structural procedures. Since acute cardiovascular disease is not limited to the management of acute coronary syndromes and includes other emergencies such as severe arrhythmias, acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, high-risk pulmonary embolism, severe conduction disorders, and post-implantation monitoring of percutaneous valves, as well as other non-cardiac emergencies, such as septic shock, severe respiratory failure, severe renal failure and the management of cardiac arrest after resuscitation, the conversion of coronary intensive care units into cardiac intensive care units represented an important priority. Today, the cardiac intensive care units (CICU) concept is widely adopted by most healthcare systems, whatever the country's level of development. The main aim of these units remains to improve the overall morbidity and mortality of acute cardiovascular diseases, but also to manage other non-cardiac disorders, such as sepsis and respiratory failure. This diversity of tasks and responsibilities has enabled us to classify these CICUs according to several levels, depending on a variety of parameters, principally the level of care delivered, the staff assigned, the equipment and technologies available, the type of research projects carried out, and the type of connections and networking developed. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) have detailed this organization in guidelines published initially in 2005 and updated in 2018, with the aim of harmonizing the structure, organization, and care offered by the various CICUs. In this state-of-the-art report, we review the history of the CICUs from the creation of the very first unit in 1968 to the discussion of their current perspectives, with the main objective of knowing what the CICUs will have become by 2023.

The Evolution and Future of Intensive Care Management in the Era of Telecritical Care and Artificial Intelligence

Critical care practice has been embodied in the healthcare system since the institutionalization of intensive care units (ICUs) in the late '50s. Over time, this sector has experienced many changes and improvements in providing immediate and dedicated healthcare as patients requiring intensive care are often frail and critically ill with high mortality and morbidity rates. These changes were aided by innovations in diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring technologies, as well as the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and organizational structures within the ICU. In this review, we examine these changes in intensive care management over the past 40 years and their impact on the quality of care available to patients. Moreover, the current state of intensive care management is characterized by a multidisciplinary approach and the use of innovative technologies and research databases. Advancements such as telecritical care and artificial intelligence are being increasingly explored, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, to reduce the length of hospitalization and ICU mortality. With these advancements in intensive care and ever-changing patient needs, critical care experts, hospital managers, and policymakers must also explore appropriate organizational structures and future enhancements within the ICU.

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.

Patient Outcomes and Unit Composition With Transition to a High-Intensity ICU Staffing Model: A Before-and-After Study

Provider staffing models for ICUs are generally based on pragmatic necessities and historical norms at individual institutions. A better understanding of the role that provider staffing models play in determining patient outcomes and optimizing use of ICU resources is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the impact of transitioning from a low- to high-intensity intensivist staffing model on patient outcomes and unit composition.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a prospective observational before-and-after study of adult ICU patients admitted to a single community hospital ICU before (October 2016-May 2017) and after (June 2017-November 2017) the transition to a high-intensity ICU staffing model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and unit composition characteristics including type (e.g., medical, surgical) and purpose (ICU-specific intervention vs close monitoring only) of admission.

RESULTS

For the primary outcome, 1,219 subjects were included (779 low-intensity, 440 high-intensity). In multivariable analysis, the transition to a high-intensity staffing model was not associated with a decrease in 30-day (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.34; p = 0.62) or in-hospital (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.38; p = 0.60) mortality, nor ICU LOS. However, the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU without an ICU-specific need did decrease under the high-intensity staffing model (27.2% low-intensity to 17.5% high-intensity; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Multivariable analysis showed no association between transition to a high-intensity ICU staffing model and mortality or LOS outcomes; however, the proportion of patients admitted without an ICU-specific need decreased under the high-intensity model. Further research is needed to determine whether a high-intensity staffing model may lead to more efficient ICU bed usage.

Characteristics, therapies, and outcomes of In-Hospital vs Out-of-Hospital cardiac arrest in patients presenting to cardiac intensive care units: From the critical care Cardiology trials network (CCCTN)

BACKGROUND

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common reason for admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), though the relative burden of morbidity, mortality, and resource use between admissions with in-hospital (IH) and out-of-hospital (OH) CA is unknown. We compared characteristics, care patterns, and outcomes of admissions to contemporary CICUs after IHCA or OHCA.

METHODS

The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in the US and Canada. Participating centers contributed data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2021. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions by IHCA vs OHCA.

RESULTS

We analyzed 2,075 admissions across 29 centers (50.3% IHCA, 49.7% OHCA). Admissions with IHCA were older (median 66 vs 62 years), more commonly had coronary disease (38.3% vs 29.7%), atrial fibrillation (26.7% vs 15.6%), and heart failure (36.3% vs 22.1%), and were less commonly comatose on CICU arrival (34.2% vs 71.7%), p < 0.001 for all. IHCA admissions had lower lactate (median 4.3 vs 5.9) but greater utilization of invasive hemodynamics (34.3% vs 23.6%), mechanical circulatory support (28.4% vs 16.8%), and renal replacement therapy (15.5% vs 9.4%); p < 0.001 for all. Comatose IHCA patients underwent targeted temperature management less frequently than OHCA patients (63.3% vs 84.9%, p < 0.001). IHCA admissions had lower unadjusted CICU (30.8% vs 39.0%, p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (36.1% vs 44.1%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite a greater burden of comorbidities, CICU admissions after IHCA have lower lactate, greater invasive therapy utilization, and lower crude mortality than admissions after OHCA.

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.

Clinical impact of physician staffing transition in intensive care units: a retrospective observational study

Background

Intensivists play an essential role in improving the outcomes of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The transition of ICU physician staffing from low-intensity ICUs (elective intensivist or no intensivist consultation) to high-intensity ICUs (mandatory intensivist consultation or a closed ICU) improves clinical outcomes. However, whether a transition from high-intensity to low-intensity ICU staffing affects ICU outcomes and quality of care remains unknown.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted to examine the impact of high- versus low-intensity staffing models on all-cause mortality in a suburban secondary community hospital with 400 general beds and 8 ICU beds. The ICU was switched from a high-intensity staffing model (high-former period) to low-intensity staffing in July 2019 (low-mid period) and then back to high-intensity staffing in March 2020 (high-latter period). Patients admitted from the emergency department, general ward, or operating room after emergency surgery were enrolled in these three periods and compared, balancing the predicted mortality and covariates of the patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality analyzed using hazard ratios (HRs) from Cox proportional hazards regression. An interrupted time-series analysis (ITSA) was also conducted to evaluate the effects of events (level change) and time.

Results

There were 962 eligible admissions, of which 251, 213, and 498 occurred in the high-former, low-mid, and high-latter periods, respectively. In the matched group (n = 600), the all-cause mortality rate comparing the high-former period with the low-mid period showed an HR of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56, 1.39; p = 0.58] and that comparing the high-latter period with the low-mid period showed an HR of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.54, 1.30; p = 0.43]. The result for comparison between the three periods was p = 0.80. ITSA showed level changes of 4.05% [95% CI, -13.1, 21.2; p = 0.63] when ICU staffing changed from the high-former to the low-mid period and 1.35% [95% CI, -13.8, 16.5; p = 0.86] when ICU staffing changed from the low-mid to the high-latter period.

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality among the three ICU staffing periods. This study suggests that low-intensity ICU staffing might not worsen clinical outcomes in the ICU in a medium-sized community hospital. Multiple factors, including the presence of an intensivist, other medical staff, and practical guidelines, influence the prognosis of critically ill patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01905-0.

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.

Staffing models in the cardiac intensive care unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved into a high-intensity unit that cares for critically ill patients. Despite this transformation, changes to the staffing model and organizational structure in these specialized units have only recently begun to meet these challenges. We describe the most recent evidence which will inform future CICU staffing models.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the United States, the majority of CICUs are open as opposed to closed units, yet recent data suggests that transition to a closed staffing model is associated with a decrease in mortality. These reductions in mortality in closed CICUs are most pronounced in the most critically ill populations, such as patients with mechanical circulatory support, cardiac arrest, and respiratory failure. In addition, one study has shown that transition to a cardiac intensivist staffed CICU was associated with a reduction in mortality. Finally, multidisciplinary and protocolized teams imbedded within the CICU, specifically 'shock teams,' have recently been developed and may reduce mortality in this particularly sick patient population.

SUMMARY

Although the preponderance of data suggests improved outcomes with a closed, intensivist staffed CICU model, future multicenter studies are needed to better define the ideal staffing models for the contemporary CICU.

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.

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.

Transition From an Open to Closed Staffing Model in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Improves Clinical Outcomes

Background Several studies have shown improved outcomes in closed compared with open medical and surgical intensive care units. However, very little is known about the ideal organizational structure in the modern cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed consecutive unique admissions (n=3996) to our tertiary care CICU from September 2013 to October 2017. The aim of our study was to assess for differences in clinical outcomes between an open compared with a closed CICU. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We identified 2226 patients in the open unit and 1770 in the closed CICU. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality in the open compared with closed unit was 9.6% and 8.9%, respectively (P=0.42). After multivariable adjustment, admission to the closed unit was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90, P=0.007) and CICU mortality (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.94, P=0.02). In subgroup analysis, admissions for cardiac arrest (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88, P=0.02) and respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.82, P=0.01) were also associated with a lower in-hospital mortality in the closed unit. We did not find a difference in CICU length of stay or total hospital charges (P>0.05). Conclusions We found an association between lower in-hospital and CICU mortality after the transition to a closed CICU. These results may help guide the ongoing redesign in other tertiary care CICUs.