Dataset Information

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Observational data suggest that the subset of patients with heart failure related CS (HF-CS) now predominate critical care admissions for CS. There are no dedicated HF-CS randomised control trials completed to date which reliably inform clinical practice or clinical guidelines. We sought to identify aspects of HF-CS care where both consensus and uncertainty may exist to guide clinical practice and future clinical trial design, with a specific focus on HF-CS due to acute decompensated chronic HF.

Methods

A 16-person multi-disciplinary panel comprising of international experts was assembled. A modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising of 34 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9 (1-3 as inappropriate, 4-6 as uncertain and as 7-9 appropriate).

Results

Of the 34 statements, 20 were rated as appropriate and 14 were rated as inappropriate. Uncertainty existed across all three domains: the initial assessment and management of HF-CS; escalation to temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support (tMCS); and weaning from tMCS in HF-CS. Significant disagreement between experts (deemed present when the disagreement index exceeded 1) was only identified when deliberating the utility of thoracic ultrasound in the immediate management of HF-CS.

Conclusion

This study has highlighted several areas of practice where large-scale prospective registries and clinical trials in the HF-CS population are urgently needed to reliably inform clinical practice and the synthesis of future societal HF-CS guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Williams S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10988801 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.

Williams Stefan S Kalakoutas Antonis A Olusanya Segun S Schrage Benedict B Tavazzi Guido G Carnicelli Anthony P AP Montero Santiago S Vandenbriele Christophe C Luk Adriana A Lim Hoong Sern HS Bhagra Sai S Ott Sascha C SC Farrero Marta M Samsky Marc D MD Kennedy Jamie L W JLW Sen Sounok S Agrawal Richa R Rampersad Penelope P Coniglio Amanda A Pappalardo Federico F Barnett Christopher C Proudfoot Alastair G AG

Critical care (London, England) 20240402 1

<h4>Background</h4>Observational data suggest that the subset of patients with heart failure related CS (HF-CS) now predominate critical care admissions for CS. There are no dedicated HF-CS randomised control trials completed to date which reliably inform clinical practice or clinical guidelines. We sought to identify aspects of HF-CS care where both consensus and uncertainty may exist to guide clinical practice and future clinical trial design, with a specific focus on HF-CS due to acute decomp ...[more]

PMID: 38566212

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBurn inhalation injury (BII) is a major cause of burn-related mortality and morbidity. Despite published practice guidelines, no consensus exists for the best strategies regarding diagnosis and management of BII. A modified DELPHI study using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method (RAM) systematically analysed the opinions of an expert panel. Expert opinion was combined with available evidence to determine what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate judgement in the diagnosis and management of BII.MethodsA 15-person multidisciplinary panel comprised anaesthetists, intensivists and plastic surgeons involved in the clinical management of major burn patients adopted a modified Delphi approach using the RAM method. They rated the appropriateness of statements describing diagnostic and management options for BII on a Likert scale. A modified final survey comprising 140 statements was completed, subdivided into history and physical examination (20), investigations (39), airway management (5), systemic toxicity (23), invasive mechanical ventilation (29) and pharmacotherapy (24). Median appropriateness ratings and the disagreement index (DI) were calculated to classify statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate.ResultsOf 140 statements, 74 were rated as appropriate, 40 as uncertain and 26 as inappropriate. Initial intubation with ≥ 8.0 mm endotracheal tubes, lung protective ventilatory strategies, initial bronchoscopic lavage, serial bronchoscopic lavage for severe BII, nebulised heparin and salbutamol administration for moderate-severe BII and N-acetylcysteine for moderate BII were rated appropriate. Non-protective ventilatory strategies, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, high-frequency percussive ventilation, prophylactic systemic antibiotics and corticosteroids were rated inappropriate. Experts disagreed (DI ≥ 1) on six statements, classified uncertain: the use of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy to guide fluid requirements (DI = 1.52), intubation with endotracheal tubes of internal diameter < 8.0 mm (DI = 1.19), use of airway pressure release ventilation modality (DI = 1.19) and nebulised 5000IU heparin, N-acetylcysteine and salbutamol for mild BII (DI = 1.52, 1.70, 1.36, respectively).ConclusionsBurns experts mostly agreed on appropriate and inappropriate diagnostic and management criteria of BII as in published guidance. Uncertainty exists as to the optimal diagnosis and management of differing grades of severity of BII. Future research should investigate the accuracy of bronchoscopic grading of BII, the value of bronchial lavage in differing severity groups and the effectiveness of nebulised therapies in different severities of BII.

Project description:AimsThe present analysis from the multicentre prospective Altshock-2 registry aims to better define clinical features, in-hospital course, and management of cardiogenic shock complicating acutely decompensated heart failure (ADHF-CS) as compared with that complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS).Methods and resultsAll patients with AMI-CS or ADHF-CS enrolled in the Altshock-2 registry between March 2020 and February 2022 were selected. The primary objective was the characterization of ADHF-CS patients as compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital length of stay and mortality were secondary endpoints. One-hundred-ninety of the 238 CS patients enrolled in the aforementioned period were considered for the present analysis: 101 AMI-CS (80% ST-elevated myocardial infarction and 20% non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction) and 89 ADHF-CS. As compared with AMI-CS, ADHF-CS patients were younger [63 (IQR 59-76) vs. 67 (IQR 54-73) years, P = 0.01], but presented with higher creatinine [1.6 (IQR 1.0-2.6) vs. 1.2 (IQR 1.0-1.4) mg/dL, P < 0.001], bilirubin [1.3 (IQR 0.9-2.3) vs. 0.6 (IQR 0.4-1.1) mg/dL, P = 0.01], and central venous pressure values [14 mmHg (IQR 8-12) vs. 10 mmHg (IQR 7-14),P = 0.01]. Norepinephrine was the most common catecholamine used in AMI-CS (79.3%), whereas epinephrine was used more commonly in ADHF-CS (65.5%); 75.8% vs. 46.6% received a temporary mechanical support in AMI-CS and ADHF-CS, respectively (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay was longer in the latter [28 (IQR 13-48) vs. 17 (IQR 9-29) days, P = 0.001]. Heart replacement therapies were more frequently used in the ADHF-CS group (heart transplantation 13.5% vs. 0% and left ventricular assist device 11% vs. 2%, P < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). In-hospital mortality was 41.1% (38.6% AMI-CS vs. 43.8% ADHF-CS, P = 0.5).ConclusionsADHF-CS is characterized by a higher prevalence of end-organ and biventricular dysfunction at presentation, a longer hospital length of stay, and higher need of heart replacement therapies when compared with AMI-CS. In-hospital mortality was similar between the two aetiologies. Our data warrant development of new management protocols focused on CS aetiology.

Dataset Information

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock: an international RAND appropriateness panel.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets