Journal of Intensive Care Medicine

Medical students were surveyed shortly after completing the third year of medical school. The survey was designed to identify those areas of critical care medicine students had been exposed to and expressed interest in learning more about. In addition, the surveys sought to discern the level of confidence students felt with respect to different critical illnesses and intensive care unit (ICU) therapeutic modalities. Finally, the students were asked their opinion regarding the possibility or need for critical care medicine as part of their medical school curriculum. The three most common topics of interest among medical students who had recently finished their third year in medical school were shock, hemodynamic monitoring, and mechanical ventilation. Less than 30% of the students surveyed felt “better-than-average” confidence on any one of a number of critical care topics and treatment modalities. Of the 80% of students (n = 70) who completed the survey, 91% (n = 64) felt that critical care medicine should be made a part of the medical school curriculum, 6% (n = 4) felt it should not, and 3% (n = 2) were undecided. The survey results and the finding that most of the relevant literature acknowledges the need for critical care medicine in medical school has led us to conclude that a national core clerkship or a didactic lecture series in critical care medicine should be carefully designed and implemented into the undergraduate curriculum.

We determine if use of 16-cm central venous catheters (CVC) minimizes dangerous intracardiac catheter placements. We conducted a prospective study in a large community teaching hospital. Consecutive patients (n = 127) who required a CVC via either the internal jugular (IJV) or the subclavian vein (SCV) were assessed using 16 (n = 102) or 20-cm (n = 25) catheters. The main outcome measurements were (1) intracardiac placement of central venous catheters, and (2) relationship of right- or left-sided internal jugular or subclavian vein insertions to intracardiac catheter placement. Use of a 20-cm CVC resulted in 14 of 25 (56%) intracardiac placements compared with 11 of 102 (11%) using a 16-cm catheter (p < 0.0001). All intracardiac placements with the 16-cm CVC were from right-sided approaches: IJV 7 of 38 (16%), SCV 4 of 18 (18%). Use of a 16-cm CVC to access the central circulation from either the SCV or the IJV results in a significantly greater proportion of safe catheter placements than using longer CVCs, and it should become the standard of care.

A ventricular assist device (VAD) is a heterotopic mechanical pump that augments or replaces the output of a failing ventricle. In the past decade, investigation and use of these devices has greatly improved our understanding of their potential roles and limitations. Successful univentricular and biventricular support has allowed for myocardial recovery and survival in several settings of intractable cardiogenic shock. The development of long-term VADs has allowed for successful bridging of patients to heart transplantation, and it has laid the groundwork for a permanent implantable replacement ventricle. In this review, we address indications, complications, management, and results of mechanical support in postcardiotomy, bridge to recovery, and bridge to transplantation settings. The tools to achieve ventricular support in the United States, and the VADs themselves, are described, with emphasis on unique features, indications, and limitations.

Cardiogenic shock (CGS) occurs in 3 to 20% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI), and it generally involves dysfunction of at least 40% of the total myocardial mass. Prior to the advent of balloon angioplasty and thrombolysis, in-hospital mortality was greater than 75%. This mortality rate has been consistent in reported series despite the advent of cardiac intensive care units, vasopressor, inotropic, and vasodilator therapy. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation therapy provides hemodynamic improvement, and it may provide some mortality benefit when used in conjunction with appropriate revascularization. Survival studies have shown that patency of the infarct-related artery is a strong predictor of survival. No randomized trials have been completed to examine which reperfusion therapy best treats this emergent situation. Subgroup analysis of large scale, multicenter trials, although underpowered, has shown no improvement in mortality with use of thrombolytic agents, leading many to advise use of mechanical intervention. In patients who present with acute MI with contraindications to thrombolysis, primary angioplasty is the treatment of choice. At selected centers, primary angioplasty is comparable to or better than thrombolytic therapy for patients presenting with acute MI, with or without CGS. Studies examining angioplasty in patients with CGS have shown high procedural success rates (75%) and reduced in-hospital mortality (44%), particularly in those patients with successful revascularization. Emergency bypass surgery may improve survival, but it is costly, unavailable to many, and often leads to excessive delays in therapy. If available, we believe that primary angioplasty is the treatment of choice for patients with CGS.

We report the success rate and complications of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) in patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (ICU). We performed a cohort study in the ICU of a large tertiary care, university-affiliated community hospital. All ICU patients for whom their attending physicians requested a PICC service consultation were included. Main outcome measurements included (1) the success rate for initial PICC placement, (2) the placement complication rate, and (3) the overall success and complication rate. Of the 91 consecutive attempts at PICC placement, 89 (97.8%) were successful: of the 89 successful placements, 25 (28%) required cutdown procedures. There were 20 complications of initial placement and 8 delayed complications, which occurred in 19 PICCs. Complications included recatheterization after first attempt was unsuccessful (10), catheter malposition (7), palpitations or catheter clotting (3 each), heavy bleeding or mechanical phlebitis (2 each), and arterial puncture (1). The overall success rate for completion of therapy using the PICC was 74.7%. The most frequent reasons for failure to complete therapy were catheter dislodgment in 8 patients and “infection” in 9 patients. Of these 9 patients with “infections,” 8 catheters were discontinued due to potential infection, and only 1 was removed due to confirmed infection. The confirmed infection rate was 6/10,000 patient days. The PICC appears to be a reasonable alternative to other approaches to peripheral and central venous access. The initial and overall success rates from this preliminary study justify' further evaluation of the PICC in critically ill patients.