Patrice Wendling

Transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy (TBE) provides sustained weight loss without serious adverse effects among obese patients, results of a pilot sham-controlled study suggest.

At 6-month follow-up, the patients receiving the intervention had lost 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), compared with 3.0 kg (6.6 lbs) in those randomized to a sham procedure in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .034).

Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis (9.4 kg/20.7 lbs vs. 1.9 kg/4.1 lbs; P = .0002).

Weight loss after embolotherapy was sustained over 12 months, falling 7.8 kg (17.1 lbs) from baseline in the intention-to-treat population (P = .0011) and 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs) in the per-protocol population (P = .0005).

Safety events after TBE were mild nausea or vomiting, reported Vivek Reddy, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. Five participants had minor, asymptomatic ulcers that required no additional treatment.

“In this randomized pilot trial, we established the proof of principle that transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy of the left gastric artery is safe and it promotes clinically significant weight loss,” he concluded at PCR e-Course, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions 2020.

Although bariatric surgery is highly effective, he noted that the associated morbidity and mortality limit its use to the severely obese with a body mass index (BMI) typically over 40 kg/m².

TBE is a minimally invasive approach that uses a custom occlusion balloon microcatheter and robotic manifold to inject 300- to 500-mcm beads to the left gastric artery. Preclinical and case studies suggest it promotes weight loss by reducing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone secreted from the gastric fundus, Dr. Reddy said.

The study enrolled 44 patients (aged 21-60 years) with a BMI of 35-55, excluding those with prior bariatric surgery and a history of ulcers, type 2 diabetes, chronic aspirin or nonsteroidal inflammatory use, and active Helicobacter pylori infection.

A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to TBE or a sham procedure, in which lidocaine was applied to the femoral area and propofol infused for 1 hour. The two groups were well matched, with a mean age of 45 vs. 46 years, weight of 110 kg vs. 119 kg, and BMI of 39 vs. 40, Dr. Reddy noted.

Embolotherapy was performed at a single center in Prague, and, on average, took 82.3 minutes and used 127 mL of contrast, 163 Gy/cm² radiation, and 4.2 mL of microspheres. A single vessel was injected in 80% of cases.

The intention-to-treat population comprised 19 TBE and 18 control subjects, and the per-protocol population comprised 15 TBE and 16 control subjects, after the exclusion of patients in whom embolotherapy was unsuccessful or incomplete or who withdrew consent.

All patients received endoscopy at baseline and 1 week, as well as an intensive 19-session lifestyle and dietary education intervention out to 6 months.

Patients who underwent TBE had significant improvement in hunger scores at 6 and 12 months, compared with baseline. Similarly, quality of life improved across all six domains, including significant gains in physical function, self-esteem, and overall quality of life at both time points, Dr. Reddy reported.

Dr. Reddy disclosed receiving research support from Endobar Solutions.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy (TBE) provides sustained weight loss without serious adverse effects among obese patients, results of a pilot sham-controlled study suggest.

At 6-month follow-up, the patients receiving the intervention had lost 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), compared with 3.0 kg (6.6 lbs) in those randomized to a sham procedure in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .034).

Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis (9.4 kg/20.7 lbs vs. 1.9 kg/4.1 lbs; P = .0002).

Weight loss after embolotherapy was sustained over 12 months, falling 7.8 kg (17.1 lbs) from baseline in the intention-to-treat population (P = .0011) and 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs) in the per-protocol population (P = .0005).

Safety events after TBE were mild nausea or vomiting, reported Vivek Reddy, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. Five participants had minor, asymptomatic ulcers that required no additional treatment.

“In this randomized pilot trial, we established the proof of principle that transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy of the left gastric artery is safe and it promotes clinically significant weight loss,” he concluded at PCR e-Course, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions 2020.

Although bariatric surgery is highly effective, he noted that the associated morbidity and mortality limit its use to the severely obese with a body mass index (BMI) typically over 40 kg/m².

TBE is a minimally invasive approach that uses a custom occlusion balloon microcatheter and robotic manifold to inject 300- to 500-mcm beads to the left gastric artery. Preclinical and case studies suggest it promotes weight loss by reducing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone secreted from the gastric fundus, Dr. Reddy said.

The study enrolled 44 patients (aged 21-60 years) with a BMI of 35-55, excluding those with prior bariatric surgery and a history of ulcers, type 2 diabetes, chronic aspirin or nonsteroidal inflammatory use, and active Helicobacter pylori infection.

A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to TBE or a sham procedure, in which lidocaine was applied to the femoral area and propofol infused for 1 hour. The two groups were well matched, with a mean age of 45 vs. 46 years, weight of 110 kg vs. 119 kg, and BMI of 39 vs. 40, Dr. Reddy noted.

Embolotherapy was performed at a single center in Prague, and, on average, took 82.3 minutes and used 127 mL of contrast, 163 Gy/cm² radiation, and 4.2 mL of microspheres. A single vessel was injected in 80% of cases.

The intention-to-treat population comprised 19 TBE and 18 control subjects, and the per-protocol population comprised 15 TBE and 16 control subjects, after the exclusion of patients in whom embolotherapy was unsuccessful or incomplete or who withdrew consent.

All patients received endoscopy at baseline and 1 week, as well as an intensive 19-session lifestyle and dietary education intervention out to 6 months.

Patients who underwent TBE had significant improvement in hunger scores at 6 and 12 months, compared with baseline. Similarly, quality of life improved across all six domains, including significant gains in physical function, self-esteem, and overall quality of life at both time points, Dr. Reddy reported.

Dr. Reddy disclosed receiving research support from Endobar Solutions.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy (TBE) provides sustained weight loss without serious adverse effects among obese patients, results of a pilot sham-controlled study suggest.

At 6-month follow-up, the patients receiving the intervention had lost 7.4 kg (16.3 lbs), compared with 3.0 kg (6.6 lbs) in those randomized to a sham procedure in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .034).

Results were similar in a per-protocol analysis (9.4 kg/20.7 lbs vs. 1.9 kg/4.1 lbs; P = .0002).

Weight loss after embolotherapy was sustained over 12 months, falling 7.8 kg (17.1 lbs) from baseline in the intention-to-treat population (P = .0011) and 9.3 kg (20.5 lbs) in the per-protocol population (P = .0005).

Safety events after TBE were mild nausea or vomiting, reported Vivek Reddy, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City. Five participants had minor, asymptomatic ulcers that required no additional treatment.

“In this randomized pilot trial, we established the proof of principle that transcatheter bariatric embolotherapy of the left gastric artery is safe and it promotes clinically significant weight loss,” he concluded at PCR e-Course, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions 2020.

Although bariatric surgery is highly effective, he noted that the associated morbidity and mortality limit its use to the severely obese with a body mass index (BMI) typically over 40 kg/m².

TBE is a minimally invasive approach that uses a custom occlusion balloon microcatheter and robotic manifold to inject 300- to 500-mcm beads to the left gastric artery. Preclinical and case studies suggest it promotes weight loss by reducing ghrelin, an appetite-stimulating hormone secreted from the gastric fundus, Dr. Reddy said.

The study enrolled 44 patients (aged 21-60 years) with a BMI of 35-55, excluding those with prior bariatric surgery and a history of ulcers, type 2 diabetes, chronic aspirin or nonsteroidal inflammatory use, and active Helicobacter pylori infection.

A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to TBE or a sham procedure, in which lidocaine was applied to the femoral area and propofol infused for 1 hour. The two groups were well matched, with a mean age of 45 vs. 46 years, weight of 110 kg vs. 119 kg, and BMI of 39 vs. 40, Dr. Reddy noted.

Embolotherapy was performed at a single center in Prague, and, on average, took 82.3 minutes and used 127 mL of contrast, 163 Gy/cm² radiation, and 4.2 mL of microspheres. A single vessel was injected in 80% of cases.

The intention-to-treat population comprised 19 TBE and 18 control subjects, and the per-protocol population comprised 15 TBE and 16 control subjects, after the exclusion of patients in whom embolotherapy was unsuccessful or incomplete or who withdrew consent.

All patients received endoscopy at baseline and 1 week, as well as an intensive 19-session lifestyle and dietary education intervention out to 6 months.

Patients who underwent TBE had significant improvement in hunger scores at 6 and 12 months, compared with baseline. Similarly, quality of life improved across all six domains, including significant gains in physical function, self-esteem, and overall quality of life at both time points, Dr. Reddy reported.

Dr. Reddy disclosed receiving research support from Endobar Solutions.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronary revascularization does not confer a survival advantage over initial medical therapy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) but reduces unstable angina, according to a new study-level meta-analysis.

Routine upfront revascularization is also associated with less spontaneous myocardial infarction but this is at the cost of increased procedural infarctions, reported lead investigator Sripal Bangalore, MD, of New York University.

“These relationships should be taken into consideration for shared decision-making for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease,” he said in a late-breaking trial session at PCR e-Course 2020, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR).

The results, simultaneously published in Circulation, are consistent with last year’s ISCHEMIA trial and other contemporary trials, such as COURAGE, FAME 2, and BARI 2D, that have failed to show a reduction in mortality with revascularization alone in SIHD. Guidelines continue, however, to recommend revascularization to improve survival in SIHD based on trials performed in the 1980s when medical therapy was limited, Dr. Bangalore observed.

The updated meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials, including the aforementioned, and 14,877 patients followed for a weighted mean of 4.5 years. Most trials enrolled patients who had preserved left ventricular function and low symptom burden (Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class I/II).

In the revascularization group, 87.5% of patients underwent any revascularization. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the first procedure in 71.3% and bypass surgery the first choice in 16.2%. In eight trials, stents were used in at least 50% of PCI patients; drug-eluting stents were mainly used in FAME 2, ISCHEMIA, and ISCHEMIA-CKD.

In eight trials, statins were used in at least 50% of patients. Nearly 1 in 3 patients (31.9%) treated initially with medical therapy underwent revascularization during follow-up.

Results show no reduction in mortality risk with routine revascularization in the overall analysis (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.09) or when analyzed by whether studies did or did not use stents (P for interaction = .85).

Trial sequential analysis also showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, “suggesting we have great data to show that there is lack of even a 10% reduction in death with revascularization,” Dr. Bangalore said.

Results were very similar for cardiovascular death (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.06), including when analyzed by study stent status (P for interaction = .60).

There was no significant reduction in overall MI risk with revascularization, although a borderline significant 11% decrease in MIs was found in the contemporary stent era trials (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.998).

Revascularization was associated with a 148% increase in the risk of procedural MI (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.86-3.31) but reduced risk of spontaneous MI (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85).

Unstable angina was reduced in patients undergoing revascularization (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92), driven by a 55% reduction in the contemporary stent era trials. Freedom from angina was also greater with routine revascularization but the difference was modest, Dr. Bangalore said. There was no difference between the two strategies in heart failure or stroke.

“This meta-analysis is well done but really doesn’t change what we already know,” Rasha Al-Lamee, MBBS, of Imperial College, London, said in an interview. “The most important message is that intervention in stable CAD does not change survival. We don’t need to rush to intervene: We have time to plan the best strategy for each patient and to modify our plans based on their response.”

The analysis addresses some of the issues with previous meta-analyses that have included trials that were not strictly stable CAD trials such as SWISSI-2, COMPARE-ACUTE, and DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI, she noted. “However a study like this is only as good as the trials that are included. We must remember that unblinded trials really cannot be used to accurately assess endpoints that are prone to bias such as unstable angina and freedom from angina.”

Following the presentation, dedicated discussant Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy) said, “We have seen beyond any doubt that there is no difference in mortality. For cardiovascular death, it’s pretty much the same. It’s a little bit more mixed and nuanced, the story of myocardial infarction.”

“Additional science is needed to understand the prognostic implications,” he said. “Of course we know that spontaneous myocardial infarction is bad, but I’m not so sure about periprocedural MI. Is this something that is as important as spontaneous myocardial infarction?”

The meta-analysis is the largest ever performed, but there was clinical heterogeneity in the individual studies, especially in the definition of MI, Dr. Capodanno observed. Because of the use of trial-level data rather than patient-level data, the analysis also could not account for adherence to treatment or the effect of stent type or medication dosage.

The MI issue really depends on the trial definition of MI, Dr. Al-Lamee said. “We need long-term follow-up from ISCHEMIA to understand what it means for our patients. While revascularization clearly increases procedural MI rates, it also results in lower spontaneous MI rates with no impact on overall MI or death,” she said. “We will only know if these MIs are important if we see what impact they have in the long term.”

Although the meta-analysis combined data from several decades, it’s likely that the outdated revascularization techniques in the older trials are balanced out by the outdated medical therapy in the same trials, Dr. Al-Lamee observed.

The new findings can certainly be used in patient-physician discussions, with more follow-up from ISCHEMIA to provide additional insights, she said.

“We will of course hear more about the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in the blinded ORBITA-2 trial. And I would really like to see some of the older studies of patients and perceptions of the effect of PCI repeated,” Dr. Al-Lamee said. “Now we have more data, are we informing our patients and referrers correctly of the impact of our procedures, and do they truly choose revascularization with a true awareness of what it does and does not do?”

Dr. Bangalore reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Abbott Vascular; and serving on the advisory boards of Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Meril, SMT, Pfizer, Amgen, and Reata. Dr. Al-Lamee reported speaker’s honorarium from Philips Volcano and Menarini Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Capodanno has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronary revascularization does not confer a survival advantage over initial medical therapy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) but reduces unstable angina, according to a new study-level meta-analysis.

Routine upfront revascularization is also associated with less spontaneous myocardial infarction but this is at the cost of increased procedural infarctions, reported lead investigator Sripal Bangalore, MD, of New York University.

“These relationships should be taken into consideration for shared decision-making for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease,” he said in a late-breaking trial session at PCR e-Course 2020, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR).

The results, simultaneously published in Circulation, are consistent with last year’s ISCHEMIA trial and other contemporary trials, such as COURAGE, FAME 2, and BARI 2D, that have failed to show a reduction in mortality with revascularization alone in SIHD. Guidelines continue, however, to recommend revascularization to improve survival in SIHD based on trials performed in the 1980s when medical therapy was limited, Dr. Bangalore observed.

The updated meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials, including the aforementioned, and 14,877 patients followed for a weighted mean of 4.5 years. Most trials enrolled patients who had preserved left ventricular function and low symptom burden (Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class I/II).

In the revascularization group, 87.5% of patients underwent any revascularization. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the first procedure in 71.3% and bypass surgery the first choice in 16.2%. In eight trials, stents were used in at least 50% of PCI patients; drug-eluting stents were mainly used in FAME 2, ISCHEMIA, and ISCHEMIA-CKD.

In eight trials, statins were used in at least 50% of patients. Nearly 1 in 3 patients (31.9%) treated initially with medical therapy underwent revascularization during follow-up.

Results show no reduction in mortality risk with routine revascularization in the overall analysis (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.09) or when analyzed by whether studies did or did not use stents (P for interaction = .85).

Trial sequential analysis also showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, “suggesting we have great data to show that there is lack of even a 10% reduction in death with revascularization,” Dr. Bangalore said.

Results were very similar for cardiovascular death (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.06), including when analyzed by study stent status (P for interaction = .60).

There was no significant reduction in overall MI risk with revascularization, although a borderline significant 11% decrease in MIs was found in the contemporary stent era trials (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.998).

Revascularization was associated with a 148% increase in the risk of procedural MI (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.86-3.31) but reduced risk of spontaneous MI (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85).

Unstable angina was reduced in patients undergoing revascularization (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92), driven by a 55% reduction in the contemporary stent era trials. Freedom from angina was also greater with routine revascularization but the difference was modest, Dr. Bangalore said. There was no difference between the two strategies in heart failure or stroke.

“This meta-analysis is well done but really doesn’t change what we already know,” Rasha Al-Lamee, MBBS, of Imperial College, London, said in an interview. “The most important message is that intervention in stable CAD does not change survival. We don’t need to rush to intervene: We have time to plan the best strategy for each patient and to modify our plans based on their response.”

The analysis addresses some of the issues with previous meta-analyses that have included trials that were not strictly stable CAD trials such as SWISSI-2, COMPARE-ACUTE, and DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI, she noted. “However a study like this is only as good as the trials that are included. We must remember that unblinded trials really cannot be used to accurately assess endpoints that are prone to bias such as unstable angina and freedom from angina.”

Following the presentation, dedicated discussant Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy) said, “We have seen beyond any doubt that there is no difference in mortality. For cardiovascular death, it’s pretty much the same. It’s a little bit more mixed and nuanced, the story of myocardial infarction.”

“Additional science is needed to understand the prognostic implications,” he said. “Of course we know that spontaneous myocardial infarction is bad, but I’m not so sure about periprocedural MI. Is this something that is as important as spontaneous myocardial infarction?”

The meta-analysis is the largest ever performed, but there was clinical heterogeneity in the individual studies, especially in the definition of MI, Dr. Capodanno observed. Because of the use of trial-level data rather than patient-level data, the analysis also could not account for adherence to treatment or the effect of stent type or medication dosage.

The MI issue really depends on the trial definition of MI, Dr. Al-Lamee said. “We need long-term follow-up from ISCHEMIA to understand what it means for our patients. While revascularization clearly increases procedural MI rates, it also results in lower spontaneous MI rates with no impact on overall MI or death,” she said. “We will only know if these MIs are important if we see what impact they have in the long term.”

Although the meta-analysis combined data from several decades, it’s likely that the outdated revascularization techniques in the older trials are balanced out by the outdated medical therapy in the same trials, Dr. Al-Lamee observed.

The new findings can certainly be used in patient-physician discussions, with more follow-up from ISCHEMIA to provide additional insights, she said.

“We will of course hear more about the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in the blinded ORBITA-2 trial. And I would really like to see some of the older studies of patients and perceptions of the effect of PCI repeated,” Dr. Al-Lamee said. “Now we have more data, are we informing our patients and referrers correctly of the impact of our procedures, and do they truly choose revascularization with a true awareness of what it does and does not do?”

Dr. Bangalore reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Abbott Vascular; and serving on the advisory boards of Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Meril, SMT, Pfizer, Amgen, and Reata. Dr. Al-Lamee reported speaker’s honorarium from Philips Volcano and Menarini Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Capodanno has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronary revascularization does not confer a survival advantage over initial medical therapy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) but reduces unstable angina, according to a new study-level meta-analysis.

Routine upfront revascularization is also associated with less spontaneous myocardial infarction but this is at the cost of increased procedural infarctions, reported lead investigator Sripal Bangalore, MD, of New York University.

“These relationships should be taken into consideration for shared decision-making for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease,” he said in a late-breaking trial session at PCR e-Course 2020, the virtual meeting of the Congress of European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EuroPCR).

The results, simultaneously published in Circulation, are consistent with last year’s ISCHEMIA trial and other contemporary trials, such as COURAGE, FAME 2, and BARI 2D, that have failed to show a reduction in mortality with revascularization alone in SIHD. Guidelines continue, however, to recommend revascularization to improve survival in SIHD based on trials performed in the 1980s when medical therapy was limited, Dr. Bangalore observed.

The updated meta-analysis included 14 randomized controlled trials, including the aforementioned, and 14,877 patients followed for a weighted mean of 4.5 years. Most trials enrolled patients who had preserved left ventricular function and low symptom burden (Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class I/II).

In the revascularization group, 87.5% of patients underwent any revascularization. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was the first procedure in 71.3% and bypass surgery the first choice in 16.2%. In eight trials, stents were used in at least 50% of PCI patients; drug-eluting stents were mainly used in FAME 2, ISCHEMIA, and ISCHEMIA-CKD.

In eight trials, statins were used in at least 50% of patients. Nearly 1 in 3 patients (31.9%) treated initially with medical therapy underwent revascularization during follow-up.

Results show no reduction in mortality risk with routine revascularization in the overall analysis (relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.09) or when analyzed by whether studies did or did not use stents (P for interaction = .85).

Trial sequential analysis also showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, “suggesting we have great data to show that there is lack of even a 10% reduction in death with revascularization,” Dr. Bangalore said.

Results were very similar for cardiovascular death (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80-1.06), including when analyzed by study stent status (P for interaction = .60).

There was no significant reduction in overall MI risk with revascularization, although a borderline significant 11% decrease in MIs was found in the contemporary stent era trials (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.998).

Revascularization was associated with a 148% increase in the risk of procedural MI (RR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.86-3.31) but reduced risk of spontaneous MI (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.85).

Unstable angina was reduced in patients undergoing revascularization (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.92), driven by a 55% reduction in the contemporary stent era trials. Freedom from angina was also greater with routine revascularization but the difference was modest, Dr. Bangalore said. There was no difference between the two strategies in heart failure or stroke.

“This meta-analysis is well done but really doesn’t change what we already know,” Rasha Al-Lamee, MBBS, of Imperial College, London, said in an interview. “The most important message is that intervention in stable CAD does not change survival. We don’t need to rush to intervene: We have time to plan the best strategy for each patient and to modify our plans based on their response.”

The analysis addresses some of the issues with previous meta-analyses that have included trials that were not strictly stable CAD trials such as SWISSI-2, COMPARE-ACUTE, and DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI, she noted. “However a study like this is only as good as the trials that are included. We must remember that unblinded trials really cannot be used to accurately assess endpoints that are prone to bias such as unstable angina and freedom from angina.”

Following the presentation, dedicated discussant Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, of the University of Catania (Italy) said, “We have seen beyond any doubt that there is no difference in mortality. For cardiovascular death, it’s pretty much the same. It’s a little bit more mixed and nuanced, the story of myocardial infarction.”

“Additional science is needed to understand the prognostic implications,” he said. “Of course we know that spontaneous myocardial infarction is bad, but I’m not so sure about periprocedural MI. Is this something that is as important as spontaneous myocardial infarction?”

The meta-analysis is the largest ever performed, but there was clinical heterogeneity in the individual studies, especially in the definition of MI, Dr. Capodanno observed. Because of the use of trial-level data rather than patient-level data, the analysis also could not account for adherence to treatment or the effect of stent type or medication dosage.

The MI issue really depends on the trial definition of MI, Dr. Al-Lamee said. “We need long-term follow-up from ISCHEMIA to understand what it means for our patients. While revascularization clearly increases procedural MI rates, it also results in lower spontaneous MI rates with no impact on overall MI or death,” she said. “We will only know if these MIs are important if we see what impact they have in the long term.”

Although the meta-analysis combined data from several decades, it’s likely that the outdated revascularization techniques in the older trials are balanced out by the outdated medical therapy in the same trials, Dr. Al-Lamee observed.

The new findings can certainly be used in patient-physician discussions, with more follow-up from ISCHEMIA to provide additional insights, she said.

“We will of course hear more about the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in the blinded ORBITA-2 trial. And I would really like to see some of the older studies of patients and perceptions of the effect of PCI repeated,” Dr. Al-Lamee said. “Now we have more data, are we informing our patients and referrers correctly of the impact of our procedures, and do they truly choose revascularization with a true awareness of what it does and does not do?”

Dr. Bangalore reported grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Abbott Vascular; and serving on the advisory boards of Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Meril, SMT, Pfizer, Amgen, and Reata. Dr. Al-Lamee reported speaker’s honorarium from Philips Volcano and Menarini Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Capodanno has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the rigor of COVID-19 research comes under increasing scrutiny, a deep dive into contemporary trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions finds intricate ties with industry and the art of spin on full display.

After examining 216 randomized, controlled trials published in the past decade, researchers found that more than half (53.2%) were commercially funded. In 18.3% of these trials, the sponsor was involved with the trial conduct and reporting.

Commercially sponsored trials were significantly more likely to report results that favored the experimental therapy than trials without commercial sponsorship (64.3% vs. 48.5%; P = .02).

The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in trial characteristics (exponent of regression coefficient beta, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.18; P = .03), the authors reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“To make this clear, this is not an attack on industry-sponsored trials,” study author and cardiac surgeon Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York–Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. “Because industry has more money, they have the best trialists, the best research organization. So they generally do a pretty good trial; they’re larger, they have a higher Fragility Index, which means they’re more solid.

“And, most importantly, more than half of the trials were sponsored by industry,” he said. “So without industry, there wouldn’t be half the research in that 10-year period we explored.”

Previous research in cardiology and in other fields has shown that trials supported by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings. The explanations often focus on bias and differential quality in how the trials were designed and reported.

In the present analysis, however, the authors found no difference between trials with and without industry funding in terms of estimated treatment effect, length of follow-up, use of composite or clinically significant outcomes, or outcome modification, compared with the published protocol.

Part of the explanation may be that industry-sponsored trials more often used a noninferiority design (26.1% vs. 14.9%) and had a higher loss of patients to follow-up (median of sample, 1.0% vs. 0.1%), Dr. Gaudino said. “But I think more, in general, it’s not so much a difference in the measurable characteristics of the trial. It’s the selection of the sites that participate, the patient population that is targeted that makes the trial very likely to get the result that industry would like to see.”

“Just think of the differences in the transcatheter MitraClip results between MITRA-FR and COAPT – basically they were related to the fact they enrolled different patients,” he said.
 

Significant spin

The analysis included 216 coronary, vascular, and structural interventional cardiology and vascular and cardiac surgical randomized, controlled trials published from January 2008 to May 31, 2019. Most were multicenter trials (78.7%); 58% originated from Europe, 12% from North America, and 10.6% from Asia.

One in six trials (16.2%) were not prospectively registered before the start of enrollment, and at least one major discrepancy existed between the registered and published primary outcome in 38% of registered trials.

“If you don’t register the trial then you can make all the changes you want to the protocol up until the moment you publish,” Dr. Gaudino observed. “There really is no rational justification for not registering a trial.”

Overall, the trials were not particularly robust, he noted. In 62 trials in which the Fragility Index was measured, only a median of five patients experiencing a different outcome in a commercially sponsored trial would change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. For noncommercially sponsored trials, that number was 4.5 and in four trials; the change in condition of only one patient was needed to switch the statistical significance.

“This finding is concerning given the substantial role that [randomized, controlled trials] results play in federal device approvals, payer criteria, and clinical consensus guidelines,” the authors wrote.

The authors also looked for interpretation bias in the trials. In the 84 trials with nonsignificant differences in the primary outcomes, 65.5% contained spin, such as focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes or interpreting nonsignificant primary outcomes as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness. Spin was present in 80.6% of the trials with commercial sponsorship and in 54.2% without (P = .02) – a finding that remained significant after trial differences were controlled for (beta, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.05-20.54; P = .04).
 

A pivot point

“It’s just another paper showing there are issues with conflicts of interest in industry trials. I’m not particularly surprised,” said David Moher, PhD, MSc, director of the Centre for Journalology, based at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“It’s sort of high time people from all sides sat down together and tried to resolve how to actually move forward with industry wanting to do trials,” he said. “They are hugely important in drug development. How can these trials be done where the impact of industry and, for that matter, academia is minimized?”

Dr. Gaudino suggested the “ideal situation” would be to have industry put its funding into an existing funding organization, such as the National Institutes of Health or a newly created independent organization – a concept that has been floated before without much forward movement.

“We may be at a pivot point,” Dr. Moher said. “It’s quite clear that COVID has indicated some serious problems with how trials are done, how they’re disseminated, the notion of open science. I think this could be an opportunity. Whether there is so much noise, whether anybody will be able to take any of these initiative forward, I don’t know.”

No matter how trial funding is revised, patients must be brought to the table, he said.

“What frustrates me quite a bit is this almost parental view of all of this – the scientists know best, industry knows best,” Dr. Moher said. “We actually need the most important groups: patients and the public. They need to have an enormous amount of say in how this actually is formed.”

Commenting further, Dr. Moher said that “industry and academia can only do trials when they have patients willing to participate, and yet in the discussions you and I are having, what do patients think about spin in trials? I would imagine they would be horrified that they are going into studies – in a sense in many cases risking their lives – and yet people are spinning the results.”

Dr. Gaudino and Dr. Moher reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As the rigor of COVID-19 research comes under increasing scrutiny, a deep dive into contemporary trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions finds intricate ties with industry and the art of spin on full display.

After examining 216 randomized, controlled trials published in the past decade, researchers found that more than half (53.2%) were commercially funded. In 18.3% of these trials, the sponsor was involved with the trial conduct and reporting.

Commercially sponsored trials were significantly more likely to report results that favored the experimental therapy than trials without commercial sponsorship (64.3% vs. 48.5%; P = .02).

The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in trial characteristics (exponent of regression coefficient beta, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.18; P = .03), the authors reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“To make this clear, this is not an attack on industry-sponsored trials,” study author and cardiac surgeon Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York–Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. “Because industry has more money, they have the best trialists, the best research organization. So they generally do a pretty good trial; they’re larger, they have a higher Fragility Index, which means they’re more solid.

“And, most importantly, more than half of the trials were sponsored by industry,” he said. “So without industry, there wouldn’t be half the research in that 10-year period we explored.”

Previous research in cardiology and in other fields has shown that trials supported by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings. The explanations often focus on bias and differential quality in how the trials were designed and reported.

In the present analysis, however, the authors found no difference between trials with and without industry funding in terms of estimated treatment effect, length of follow-up, use of composite or clinically significant outcomes, or outcome modification, compared with the published protocol.

Part of the explanation may be that industry-sponsored trials more often used a noninferiority design (26.1% vs. 14.9%) and had a higher loss of patients to follow-up (median of sample, 1.0% vs. 0.1%), Dr. Gaudino said. “But I think more, in general, it’s not so much a difference in the measurable characteristics of the trial. It’s the selection of the sites that participate, the patient population that is targeted that makes the trial very likely to get the result that industry would like to see.”

“Just think of the differences in the transcatheter MitraClip results between MITRA-FR and COAPT – basically they were related to the fact they enrolled different patients,” he said.
 

Significant spin

The analysis included 216 coronary, vascular, and structural interventional cardiology and vascular and cardiac surgical randomized, controlled trials published from January 2008 to May 31, 2019. Most were multicenter trials (78.7%); 58% originated from Europe, 12% from North America, and 10.6% from Asia.

One in six trials (16.2%) were not prospectively registered before the start of enrollment, and at least one major discrepancy existed between the registered and published primary outcome in 38% of registered trials.

“If you don’t register the trial then you can make all the changes you want to the protocol up until the moment you publish,” Dr. Gaudino observed. “There really is no rational justification for not registering a trial.”

Overall, the trials were not particularly robust, he noted. In 62 trials in which the Fragility Index was measured, only a median of five patients experiencing a different outcome in a commercially sponsored trial would change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. For noncommercially sponsored trials, that number was 4.5 and in four trials; the change in condition of only one patient was needed to switch the statistical significance.

“This finding is concerning given the substantial role that [randomized, controlled trials] results play in federal device approvals, payer criteria, and clinical consensus guidelines,” the authors wrote.

The authors also looked for interpretation bias in the trials. In the 84 trials with nonsignificant differences in the primary outcomes, 65.5% contained spin, such as focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes or interpreting nonsignificant primary outcomes as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness. Spin was present in 80.6% of the trials with commercial sponsorship and in 54.2% without (P = .02) – a finding that remained significant after trial differences were controlled for (beta, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.05-20.54; P = .04).
 

A pivot point

“It’s just another paper showing there are issues with conflicts of interest in industry trials. I’m not particularly surprised,” said David Moher, PhD, MSc, director of the Centre for Journalology, based at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“It’s sort of high time people from all sides sat down together and tried to resolve how to actually move forward with industry wanting to do trials,” he said. “They are hugely important in drug development. How can these trials be done where the impact of industry and, for that matter, academia is minimized?”

Dr. Gaudino suggested the “ideal situation” would be to have industry put its funding into an existing funding organization, such as the National Institutes of Health or a newly created independent organization – a concept that has been floated before without much forward movement.

“We may be at a pivot point,” Dr. Moher said. “It’s quite clear that COVID has indicated some serious problems with how trials are done, how they’re disseminated, the notion of open science. I think this could be an opportunity. Whether there is so much noise, whether anybody will be able to take any of these initiative forward, I don’t know.”

No matter how trial funding is revised, patients must be brought to the table, he said.

“What frustrates me quite a bit is this almost parental view of all of this – the scientists know best, industry knows best,” Dr. Moher said. “We actually need the most important groups: patients and the public. They need to have an enormous amount of say in how this actually is formed.”

Commenting further, Dr. Moher said that “industry and academia can only do trials when they have patients willing to participate, and yet in the discussions you and I are having, what do patients think about spin in trials? I would imagine they would be horrified that they are going into studies – in a sense in many cases risking their lives – and yet people are spinning the results.”

Dr. Gaudino and Dr. Moher reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As the rigor of COVID-19 research comes under increasing scrutiny, a deep dive into contemporary trials of invasive cardiovascular interventions finds intricate ties with industry and the art of spin on full display.

After examining 216 randomized, controlled trials published in the past decade, researchers found that more than half (53.2%) were commercially funded. In 18.3% of these trials, the sponsor was involved with the trial conduct and reporting.

Commercially sponsored trials were significantly more likely to report results that favored the experimental therapy than trials without commercial sponsorship (64.3% vs. 48.5%; P = .02).

The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for differences in trial characteristics (exponent of regression coefficient beta, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-7.18; P = .03), the authors reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“To make this clear, this is not an attack on industry-sponsored trials,” study author and cardiac surgeon Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York–Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. “Because industry has more money, they have the best trialists, the best research organization. So they generally do a pretty good trial; they’re larger, they have a higher Fragility Index, which means they’re more solid.

“And, most importantly, more than half of the trials were sponsored by industry,” he said. “So without industry, there wouldn’t be half the research in that 10-year period we explored.”

Previous research in cardiology and in other fields has shown that trials supported by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings. The explanations often focus on bias and differential quality in how the trials were designed and reported.

In the present analysis, however, the authors found no difference between trials with and without industry funding in terms of estimated treatment effect, length of follow-up, use of composite or clinically significant outcomes, or outcome modification, compared with the published protocol.

Part of the explanation may be that industry-sponsored trials more often used a noninferiority design (26.1% vs. 14.9%) and had a higher loss of patients to follow-up (median of sample, 1.0% vs. 0.1%), Dr. Gaudino said. “But I think more, in general, it’s not so much a difference in the measurable characteristics of the trial. It’s the selection of the sites that participate, the patient population that is targeted that makes the trial very likely to get the result that industry would like to see.”

“Just think of the differences in the transcatheter MitraClip results between MITRA-FR and COAPT – basically they were related to the fact they enrolled different patients,” he said.
 

Significant spin

The analysis included 216 coronary, vascular, and structural interventional cardiology and vascular and cardiac surgical randomized, controlled trials published from January 2008 to May 31, 2019. Most were multicenter trials (78.7%); 58% originated from Europe, 12% from North America, and 10.6% from Asia.

One in six trials (16.2%) were not prospectively registered before the start of enrollment, and at least one major discrepancy existed between the registered and published primary outcome in 38% of registered trials.

“If you don’t register the trial then you can make all the changes you want to the protocol up until the moment you publish,” Dr. Gaudino observed. “There really is no rational justification for not registering a trial.”

Overall, the trials were not particularly robust, he noted. In 62 trials in which the Fragility Index was measured, only a median of five patients experiencing a different outcome in a commercially sponsored trial would change statistically significant results to nonsignificant. For noncommercially sponsored trials, that number was 4.5 and in four trials; the change in condition of only one patient was needed to switch the statistical significance.

“This finding is concerning given the substantial role that [randomized, controlled trials] results play in federal device approvals, payer criteria, and clinical consensus guidelines,” the authors wrote.

The authors also looked for interpretation bias in the trials. In the 84 trials with nonsignificant differences in the primary outcomes, 65.5% contained spin, such as focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes or interpreting nonsignificant primary outcomes as showing treatment equivalence or comparable effectiveness. Spin was present in 80.6% of the trials with commercial sponsorship and in 54.2% without (P = .02) – a finding that remained significant after trial differences were controlled for (beta, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.05-20.54; P = .04).
 

A pivot point

“It’s just another paper showing there are issues with conflicts of interest in industry trials. I’m not particularly surprised,” said David Moher, PhD, MSc, director of the Centre for Journalology, based at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

“It’s sort of high time people from all sides sat down together and tried to resolve how to actually move forward with industry wanting to do trials,” he said. “They are hugely important in drug development. How can these trials be done where the impact of industry and, for that matter, academia is minimized?”

Dr. Gaudino suggested the “ideal situation” would be to have industry put its funding into an existing funding organization, such as the National Institutes of Health or a newly created independent organization – a concept that has been floated before without much forward movement.

“We may be at a pivot point,” Dr. Moher said. “It’s quite clear that COVID has indicated some serious problems with how trials are done, how they’re disseminated, the notion of open science. I think this could be an opportunity. Whether there is so much noise, whether anybody will be able to take any of these initiative forward, I don’t know.”

No matter how trial funding is revised, patients must be brought to the table, he said.

“What frustrates me quite a bit is this almost parental view of all of this – the scientists know best, industry knows best,” Dr. Moher said. “We actually need the most important groups: patients and the public. They need to have an enormous amount of say in how this actually is formed.”

Commenting further, Dr. Moher said that “industry and academia can only do trials when they have patients willing to participate, and yet in the discussions you and I are having, what do patients think about spin in trials? I would imagine they would be horrified that they are going into studies – in a sense in many cases risking their lives – and yet people are spinning the results.”

Dr. Gaudino and Dr. Moher reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an emergency use authorization for use of the Impella RP heart pump system in COVID-19 patients with right heart failure or decompensation, Abiomed announced June 1.

“Based on extrapolation of data from the approved indication and reported clinical experience, FDA has concluded that the Impella RP may be effective at providing temporary right ventricular support for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by COVID-19 complications, including PE [pulmonary embolism],” the letter noted.

It cited, for example, use of the temporary heart pump in a 59-year-old woman suffering from COVID-19 who went into right ventricular failure and became hypotensive after an acute PE was removed. After placement of the device, the patient experienced a “dramatic and immediate” improvement in arterial pressure and the device was removed on the fifth day, according to Amir Kaki, MD, and Ted Schreiber, MD, of Ascension St. John Hospital, Detroit, whose review of the case has been posted online.

“Acute pulmonary embolism is clearly being recognized as a life-threatening manifestation of COVID-19. Impella RP is an important tool to help cardiologists save lives during this pandemic,” Dr. Kaki said in the letter. “As we have demonstrated in our series of patients, early recognition of right ventricular dysfunction and early placement of the Impella RP for patients who are hypotensive can be lifesaving.”

Other data cited in support of the Impella RP emergency use authorization (EUA) include a 2019 series of hemodynamically unstable patients with PE in Japan and a 2017 case report of a 47-year-old man with right ventricular failure, profound shock, and a massive PE.

The FDA granted premarket approval of the Impella RP system in 2017 to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m² who develop acute right heart failure or decompensation following left ventricular assist device implantation, MI, heart transplant, or open-heart surgery.

The EUA indication for the Impella RP system is to provide temporary right ventricular support for up to 14 days in critical care patients with a body surface area of at least 1.5 m2 for the treatment of acute right heart failure or decompensation caused by complications related to COVID-19, including PE.

The Impella RP is authorized only for emergency use under the EUA and only for the duration of the circumstances justifying use of EUAs, the letter noted.

Last year, concerns were raised about off-indication use after interim results from a postapproval study suggested a higher risk for death than seen in premarket studies treated with the temporary heart pump.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of systemic anticoagulation may improve the chance of survival in patients hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, a large study from the epicenter of the U.S. outbreak suggests.

Among nearly 3,000 patients with COVID-19 admitted to New York City’s Mount Sinai Health System beginning in mid-March, median survival increased from 14 days to 21 days with the addition of anticoagulation.

The results were particularly striking among sicker patients who required mechanical ventilation, in whom in-hospital mortality fell from 62.7% to 29.1% and median survival jumped from 9 days to 21 days.

Interestingly, the association with anticoagulation and improved survival remained even after adjusting for mechanical ventilation, the authors reported May 6 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s important for the community to know, first of all, how this should be approached and, second, it’s really opening a door to a new reality,” senior corresponding author Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, director of Mount Sinai’s Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and JACC editor-in-chief.

“I can tell you any family of mine who will have this disease absolutely will be on antithrombotic therapy and, actually, so are all of the patients at Mount Sinai now,” he said in an interview. COVID-19 is thought to promote thrombosis but the exact role of anticoagulation in the management of COVID-19 and optimal regimen are unknown.

In late March, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis recommended that all hospitalized COVID-19 patients, even those not in the ICU, should receive prophylactic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), unless they have contraindications.

Last month, international consensus-based recommendations were published for the diagnosis and management of thrombotic disease in patients with COVID-19.

In early March, however, data were scare and only a minimal number of patients were receiving anticoagulants at Mount Sinai.

“But after a few weeks, we reached an intuitive feeling that anticoagulation was of benefit and, at the same time, the literature was beginning to say clots were important in this disease,” Dr. Fuster said. “So we took a very straightforward approach and set up a policy in our institution that all COVID-19 patients should be on antithrombotic therapy. It was a decision made without data, but it was a feeling.”

For the present study, the researchers examined mortality and bleeding among 2,773 patients hospitalized at Mount Sinai with confirmed COVID-19 between March 14 and April 11.

Of these, 786 (28%) received systemic anticoagulation including subcutaneous heparin, LMWH, fractionated heparin, and the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban and dabigatran, for a median of 3 days (range, 2-7 days). Tissue plasminogen activator was also used in some ICU cases.

Major bleeding was defined as hemoglobin less than 7 g/dL and any red blood cell transfusion; at least two units of red blood cell transfusion within 48 hours; or a diagnosis code for major bleeding, notably including intracranial hemorrhage.

Patients treated with anticoagulation were more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation (29.8% vs. 8.1%) and to have significantly increased prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, lactate dehydrogenase, ferritin, C-reactive protein, and d-dimer values. In-hospital mortality was 22.5% with anticoagulation and 22.8% without anticoagulation (median survival, 14 days vs. 21 days).

In multivariate analysis, longer anticoagulation duration was associated with a 14% lower adjusted risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 0.86 per day; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-0.89; P < .001).

The model adjusted for several potential confounders such as age, ethnicity, body mass index, and prehospital anticoagulation use. To adjust for differential length of stay and anticoagulation initiation, anticoagulation duration was used as a covariate and intubation was treated as a time-dependent variable.

Bleeding events were similar in patients treated with and without anticoagulation (3% vs. 1.9%; P = .2) but were more common among the 375 intubated patients than among nonintubated patients (7.5% vs. 1.35%; P value not given). “The most important thing was there was no increase in bleeding,” said Dr. Fuster.

Additional support for a possible survival benefit was published April 27 and included 449 patients with severe COVID-19 treated with heparin (mostly LMWH) for at least 7 days in Hunan, China. Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between heparin users and nonusers (30.3% vs. 29.7%) but was significantly lower among heparin users who had a Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy score of at least 4 (40% vs. 64.2%; P = .02) or d-dimer greater than sixfold the upper limit of normal (32.8% vs. 52.4%; P = .01).

In multivariate analysis, d-dimer, prothrombin time, and age were positively correlated with 28-day mortality, and platelet count was negatively correlated with 28-day mortality.

Victor F. Tapson, MD, who directs the pulmonary embolism response team at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and was not involved with the study, said, “The Chinese data were not enough for me to anticoagulate patients therapeutically” but the Mount Sinai data strengthen the case.

“They’re wise to call this a ‘suggestion of improved outcomes,’ but it’s pretty compelling that those patients who were on anticoagulation had improved survival after adjusting for mechanical ventilation,” he said in an interview. “These are sicker patients and sicker patients may get anticoagulated more, but they may bleed more. The bleed risks were a little different but they didn’t seem too concerning.”

“I think this helps move us forward some that we should consider anticoagulating with therapeutic anticoagulation certain patients that meet certain criteria,” Dr. Tapson said. “An easy example is a patient who comes to the hospital, has active cancer and is on a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant], and comes up with COVID.”

At the same time, some clinicians want to increase prophylactic anticoagulation “using enoxaparin 40 mg once a day and maybe go to twice a day – not quite therapeutic doses but increased prophylaxis,” he observed. Anticoagulation was given at “relatively low doses” in the Mount Sinai study but that is evolving in light of the reassuring bleeding data, Dr. Fuster said. They now have three enoxaparin regimens and, for example, give patients who don’t require intensive care enoxaparin 30 mg twice a day, up from 40 mg a day initially.

Patients are also stratified by factors such as renal failure and obesity, creating an intermediate group between those not initially needing intensive care and ICU cases.

In the coming weeks, the researchers will evaluate anticoagulation regimens and a broader array of outcomes among 5,000 patients, two-thirds of whom received anticoagulation after Mount Sinai enacted its anticoagulation policy. “We’re now going to look at the difference between all these [regimens],” Dr. Fuster said. “My personal feeling and, for feasibility issues, I hope the winner is subcutaneous heparin.”

Three randomized trials are also planned. “Three questions we really want to ask are: what to give in the hospital, what to give those who go home after the hospital, and what to give those who are not hospitalized,” he said.

The work was supported by U54 TR001433-05, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Fuster has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tapson reported consulting and clinical trial work for BMS, Janssen, Daiichi Medical, ECOS/BTG, Inari, and Penumbra.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 case levels plateau in some regions, 16 North American cardiovascular societies have released a framework for reintroducing cardiovascular services disrupted by the pandemic.

The consensus document outlines a phased approach to restarting invasive cardiovascular (CV) procedures and diagnostic tests that aims to reduce patient and health care provider exposure to the coronavirus and still provide essential care. It also emphasizes some of the ethical considerations in patient selection and the need for a collaborative approach.

“The key message in our document is we need a new unprecedented collaboration with public health officials so that we can carefully monitor the situation and we’re aware of what’s happening with the penetrance of the pandemic in the community, but they’re aware of the morbidity and mortality that’s occurring on our ever-growing waiting list,” lead author David A. Wood, MD, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recommendations were jointly published May 4 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology , the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and are endorsed by, among others, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

The guidance comes as hospitals are facing revenue shortfalls because of canceled elective procedures and resource-intensive COVID-19 cases, prompting some healthcare systems to furlough, lay off, or even fire staff.

“It’s obvious that volumes are down between 40% and 60%,” said Wood, director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Vancouver General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada. “Part of that is that some areas have restricted case volumes totally appropriately and it’s partly because patients are very afraid of coming to the hospital and, unfortunately, are having bad events at home. And some are dying.”

The new report features a detailed table outlining three different response levels: reintroduction of some services (level 2); reintroduction of most services (level 1); and regular services (level 0). It covers a range of services from transthoracic echocardiography and exercise testing with imaging to care for acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

“We’ve learned that we can very quickly turn off the tap and go to doing only 10% of our normal volumes, whether that’s surgery, cath lab, EP, diagnostic tests,” Wood said. “It’s much more difficult to thoughtfully turn the tap part way back on or restart the engine … you don’t just go from 0 to 100 [mph]. You go from 0 to 30 to 60 then maybe to 80 [mph].”

The document also includes eight guiding principles such as:
 

• The expectation that response levels will be different between regions, and even within a given region.
• A “transparent collaborative plan” for COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) must be in place before restarting cases.
• A less invasive test or alternate imaging modality should be considered, if both tests have similar efficacy.
• In general, a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter length of stay is preferable, if both strategies have similar efficacy and safety.

Although previous reports on cath lab considerations during the pandemic or restarting elective surgeries peg various actions to specific thresholds or time intervals, the language here is noticeably and intentionally broad.

Instead of stating when cardiovascular services should resume, for example, the experts say it’s appropriate to put the guidance document into place if there’s a “sustained reduction” in the rate of new COVID-19 admissions and deaths in the relevant geographic region for a “prespecified time interval.”

As for when or how frequently patients and healthcare providers should be tested for COVID-19, the document encourages “routine screening of all patients prior to any cardiovascular procedure or test.”

Overly prescriptive language in previous documents wasn’t felt to be that helpful, whereas language like “selective” cases and “some” or “most” cardiovascular procedures gives clinicians, health systems, and policy makers flexibility when moving between response levels, Wood explained.

“Different regions might be at different levels based on principles of public health as far as the penetrance of the pandemic in that community, as well as how can you actually do the physical distancing in your hospital or ambulatory clinic. Because, I tell you, that is the Achilles heel,” he said. “Our run rates are going to be determined by testing, the availability of PPE, but also how we’re going to use our existing infrastructure and maintain physical distancing.”

That may mean using telehealth for initial visits, having clinics open earlier in the morning or on weekends, or doing partial volumes for surgery or in the cath lab so patients can be staggered and recover at different times and in different areas of the hospital. “These are very granular, specific infrastructure things that we’ve never really had to consider before,” Wood observed.

The document also had to be flexible and nimble enough to respond to a potential rebound of COVID-19 cases, which in newly released models are projected to rise sharply to 200,000 cases a day and be accompanied by some 3,000 deaths each day by June 1.

“This is my own personal opinion but I think it’s foolish to think that we are going to be able to come back to 100% of the cases we were doing before, even with testing, PPE, and all of that until we have a vaccine,” he said.

Similar to decisions made in preparation for the initial COVID-19 surge, the consensus document outlines the need for ethical considerations when turning the tap back on. This means prioritizing procedures and tests that are likely to benefit more people and to a greater degree, and ensuring that patients are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their ethnicity, perceived social worth, or ability to pay, said coauthor and ACC President Athena Poppas, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

“It’s an ethical tenet that exists in a lot of places but it’s usually not overtly called out,” Poppas told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “It’s not rationing care; I think people jump to that but it’s actually the opposite of rationing care. It’s about being thoughtful about prioritizing patients.”

“There’s a variety of data that should help in the prioritization, not only how much hospital resources are utilized, that’s on one side, but there’s also the patient risk of delaying or doing a procedure, and then the societal risk,” she said.

Susheel Kodali, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who recently published recommendations on restructuring structural heart disease practice during the pandemic, said the document is timely as centers, including his own, are trying to restart some outpatient visits, as early as next week.

“They made a point about talking about cohesive partnerships with regional public health officials and I think that’s great. The question is how does that happen,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “In New York, we’re not allowed to do elective cases but what’s considered elective is not so clearly defined. An AS [aortic stenosis] patient that had a syncopal episode 2 weeks ago, is that considered elective or is that semi-urgent? I think that’s one of the challenges and that’s where these partnerships would be useful.”

Other challenges include the need for regional partnerships to better align hospitals, which in the New York area means half a dozen large healthcare systems, and to coordinate care between hospital departments – all of which will be scheduling imaging and OR time for their own backlog of hernia, knee, or hip surgeries.

Finally, there’s the need for a lot of conversation with the patient and their family about returning to a hospital amid a deadly pandemic.

“I had a patient today and the daughter was very concerned about bringing her in,” Kodali said. “She’s in class IV heart failure but her [daughter’s] big concern was: who is she going to be exposed to when she gets the echo? What kind of protection is there for her? Is the tech wearing a mask?

“It’s not just the health care providers that have to have the comfort, but it’s the patients and their families who have to feel comfortable bringing their loved ones here for treatment,” he said. “Because everyone is concerned about the environment.”

Wood reports receiving unrestricted grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Poppas reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Kodali reports consultant (honoraria) from Admedus, Meril Life Sciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular; SAB (equity) from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and Admedus; and institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 case levels plateau in some regions, 16 North American cardiovascular societies have released a framework for reintroducing cardiovascular services disrupted by the pandemic.

The consensus document outlines a phased approach to restarting invasive cardiovascular (CV) procedures and diagnostic tests that aims to reduce patient and health care provider exposure to the coronavirus and still provide essential care. It also emphasizes some of the ethical considerations in patient selection and the need for a collaborative approach.

“The key message in our document is we need a new unprecedented collaboration with public health officials so that we can carefully monitor the situation and we’re aware of what’s happening with the penetrance of the pandemic in the community, but they’re aware of the morbidity and mortality that’s occurring on our ever-growing waiting list,” lead author David A. Wood, MD, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recommendations were jointly published May 4 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology , the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and are endorsed by, among others, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

The guidance comes as hospitals are facing revenue shortfalls because of canceled elective procedures and resource-intensive COVID-19 cases, prompting some healthcare systems to furlough, lay off, or even fire staff.

“It’s obvious that volumes are down between 40% and 60%,” said Wood, director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Vancouver General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada. “Part of that is that some areas have restricted case volumes totally appropriately and it’s partly because patients are very afraid of coming to the hospital and, unfortunately, are having bad events at home. And some are dying.”

The new report features a detailed table outlining three different response levels: reintroduction of some services (level 2); reintroduction of most services (level 1); and regular services (level 0). It covers a range of services from transthoracic echocardiography and exercise testing with imaging to care for acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

“We’ve learned that we can very quickly turn off the tap and go to doing only 10% of our normal volumes, whether that’s surgery, cath lab, EP, diagnostic tests,” Wood said. “It’s much more difficult to thoughtfully turn the tap part way back on or restart the engine … you don’t just go from 0 to 100 [mph]. You go from 0 to 30 to 60 then maybe to 80 [mph].”

The document also includes eight guiding principles such as:
 

• The expectation that response levels will be different between regions, and even within a given region.
• A “transparent collaborative plan” for COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) must be in place before restarting cases.
• A less invasive test or alternate imaging modality should be considered, if both tests have similar efficacy.
• In general, a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter length of stay is preferable, if both strategies have similar efficacy and safety.

Although previous reports on cath lab considerations during the pandemic or restarting elective surgeries peg various actions to specific thresholds or time intervals, the language here is noticeably and intentionally broad.

Instead of stating when cardiovascular services should resume, for example, the experts say it’s appropriate to put the guidance document into place if there’s a “sustained reduction” in the rate of new COVID-19 admissions and deaths in the relevant geographic region for a “prespecified time interval.”

As for when or how frequently patients and healthcare providers should be tested for COVID-19, the document encourages “routine screening of all patients prior to any cardiovascular procedure or test.”

Overly prescriptive language in previous documents wasn’t felt to be that helpful, whereas language like “selective” cases and “some” or “most” cardiovascular procedures gives clinicians, health systems, and policy makers flexibility when moving between response levels, Wood explained.

“Different regions might be at different levels based on principles of public health as far as the penetrance of the pandemic in that community, as well as how can you actually do the physical distancing in your hospital or ambulatory clinic. Because, I tell you, that is the Achilles heel,” he said. “Our run rates are going to be determined by testing, the availability of PPE, but also how we’re going to use our existing infrastructure and maintain physical distancing.”

That may mean using telehealth for initial visits, having clinics open earlier in the morning or on weekends, or doing partial volumes for surgery or in the cath lab so patients can be staggered and recover at different times and in different areas of the hospital. “These are very granular, specific infrastructure things that we’ve never really had to consider before,” Wood observed.

The document also had to be flexible and nimble enough to respond to a potential rebound of COVID-19 cases, which in newly released models are projected to rise sharply to 200,000 cases a day and be accompanied by some 3,000 deaths each day by June 1.

“This is my own personal opinion but I think it’s foolish to think that we are going to be able to come back to 100% of the cases we were doing before, even with testing, PPE, and all of that until we have a vaccine,” he said.

Similar to decisions made in preparation for the initial COVID-19 surge, the consensus document outlines the need for ethical considerations when turning the tap back on. This means prioritizing procedures and tests that are likely to benefit more people and to a greater degree, and ensuring that patients are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their ethnicity, perceived social worth, or ability to pay, said coauthor and ACC President Athena Poppas, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

“It’s an ethical tenet that exists in a lot of places but it’s usually not overtly called out,” Poppas told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “It’s not rationing care; I think people jump to that but it’s actually the opposite of rationing care. It’s about being thoughtful about prioritizing patients.”

“There’s a variety of data that should help in the prioritization, not only how much hospital resources are utilized, that’s on one side, but there’s also the patient risk of delaying or doing a procedure, and then the societal risk,” she said.

Susheel Kodali, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who recently published recommendations on restructuring structural heart disease practice during the pandemic, said the document is timely as centers, including his own, are trying to restart some outpatient visits, as early as next week.

“They made a point about talking about cohesive partnerships with regional public health officials and I think that’s great. The question is how does that happen,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “In New York, we’re not allowed to do elective cases but what’s considered elective is not so clearly defined. An AS [aortic stenosis] patient that had a syncopal episode 2 weeks ago, is that considered elective or is that semi-urgent? I think that’s one of the challenges and that’s where these partnerships would be useful.”

Other challenges include the need for regional partnerships to better align hospitals, which in the New York area means half a dozen large healthcare systems, and to coordinate care between hospital departments – all of which will be scheduling imaging and OR time for their own backlog of hernia, knee, or hip surgeries.

Finally, there’s the need for a lot of conversation with the patient and their family about returning to a hospital amid a deadly pandemic.

“I had a patient today and the daughter was very concerned about bringing her in,” Kodali said. “She’s in class IV heart failure but her [daughter’s] big concern was: who is she going to be exposed to when she gets the echo? What kind of protection is there for her? Is the tech wearing a mask?

“It’s not just the health care providers that have to have the comfort, but it’s the patients and their families who have to feel comfortable bringing their loved ones here for treatment,” he said. “Because everyone is concerned about the environment.”

Wood reports receiving unrestricted grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Poppas reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Kodali reports consultant (honoraria) from Admedus, Meril Life Sciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular; SAB (equity) from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and Admedus; and institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As COVID-19 case levels plateau in some regions, 16 North American cardiovascular societies have released a framework for reintroducing cardiovascular services disrupted by the pandemic.

The consensus document outlines a phased approach to restarting invasive cardiovascular (CV) procedures and diagnostic tests that aims to reduce patient and health care provider exposure to the coronavirus and still provide essential care. It also emphasizes some of the ethical considerations in patient selection and the need for a collaborative approach.

“The key message in our document is we need a new unprecedented collaboration with public health officials so that we can carefully monitor the situation and we’re aware of what’s happening with the penetrance of the pandemic in the community, but they’re aware of the morbidity and mortality that’s occurring on our ever-growing waiting list,” lead author David A. Wood, MD, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recommendations were jointly published May 4 in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology , the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, and are endorsed by, among others, the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology (ACC), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

The guidance comes as hospitals are facing revenue shortfalls because of canceled elective procedures and resource-intensive COVID-19 cases, prompting some healthcare systems to furlough, lay off, or even fire staff.

“It’s obvious that volumes are down between 40% and 60%,” said Wood, director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Vancouver General Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of British Columbia, Canada. “Part of that is that some areas have restricted case volumes totally appropriately and it’s partly because patients are very afraid of coming to the hospital and, unfortunately, are having bad events at home. And some are dying.”

The new report features a detailed table outlining three different response levels: reintroduction of some services (level 2); reintroduction of most services (level 1); and regular services (level 0). It covers a range of services from transthoracic echocardiography and exercise testing with imaging to care for acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

“We’ve learned that we can very quickly turn off the tap and go to doing only 10% of our normal volumes, whether that’s surgery, cath lab, EP, diagnostic tests,” Wood said. “It’s much more difficult to thoughtfully turn the tap part way back on or restart the engine … you don’t just go from 0 to 100 [mph]. You go from 0 to 30 to 60 then maybe to 80 [mph].”

The document also includes eight guiding principles such as:
 

• The expectation that response levels will be different between regions, and even within a given region.
• A “transparent collaborative plan” for COVID-19 testing and personal protective equipment (PPE) must be in place before restarting cases.
• A less invasive test or alternate imaging modality should be considered, if both tests have similar efficacy.
• In general, a minimally invasive procedure with a shorter length of stay is preferable, if both strategies have similar efficacy and safety.

Although previous reports on cath lab considerations during the pandemic or restarting elective surgeries peg various actions to specific thresholds or time intervals, the language here is noticeably and intentionally broad.

Instead of stating when cardiovascular services should resume, for example, the experts say it’s appropriate to put the guidance document into place if there’s a “sustained reduction” in the rate of new COVID-19 admissions and deaths in the relevant geographic region for a “prespecified time interval.”

As for when or how frequently patients and healthcare providers should be tested for COVID-19, the document encourages “routine screening of all patients prior to any cardiovascular procedure or test.”

Overly prescriptive language in previous documents wasn’t felt to be that helpful, whereas language like “selective” cases and “some” or “most” cardiovascular procedures gives clinicians, health systems, and policy makers flexibility when moving between response levels, Wood explained.

“Different regions might be at different levels based on principles of public health as far as the penetrance of the pandemic in that community, as well as how can you actually do the physical distancing in your hospital or ambulatory clinic. Because, I tell you, that is the Achilles heel,” he said. “Our run rates are going to be determined by testing, the availability of PPE, but also how we’re going to use our existing infrastructure and maintain physical distancing.”

That may mean using telehealth for initial visits, having clinics open earlier in the morning or on weekends, or doing partial volumes for surgery or in the cath lab so patients can be staggered and recover at different times and in different areas of the hospital. “These are very granular, specific infrastructure things that we’ve never really had to consider before,” Wood observed.

The document also had to be flexible and nimble enough to respond to a potential rebound of COVID-19 cases, which in newly released models are projected to rise sharply to 200,000 cases a day and be accompanied by some 3,000 deaths each day by June 1.

“This is my own personal opinion but I think it’s foolish to think that we are going to be able to come back to 100% of the cases we were doing before, even with testing, PPE, and all of that until we have a vaccine,” he said.

Similar to decisions made in preparation for the initial COVID-19 surge, the consensus document outlines the need for ethical considerations when turning the tap back on. This means prioritizing procedures and tests that are likely to benefit more people and to a greater degree, and ensuring that patients are treated fairly and consistently, regardless of their ethnicity, perceived social worth, or ability to pay, said coauthor and ACC President Athena Poppas, MD, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island.

“It’s an ethical tenet that exists in a lot of places but it’s usually not overtly called out,” Poppas told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “It’s not rationing care; I think people jump to that but it’s actually the opposite of rationing care. It’s about being thoughtful about prioritizing patients.”

“There’s a variety of data that should help in the prioritization, not only how much hospital resources are utilized, that’s on one side, but there’s also the patient risk of delaying or doing a procedure, and then the societal risk,” she said.

Susheel Kodali, MD, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who recently published recommendations on restructuring structural heart disease practice during the pandemic, said the document is timely as centers, including his own, are trying to restart some outpatient visits, as early as next week.

“They made a point about talking about cohesive partnerships with regional public health officials and I think that’s great. The question is how does that happen,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “In New York, we’re not allowed to do elective cases but what’s considered elective is not so clearly defined. An AS [aortic stenosis] patient that had a syncopal episode 2 weeks ago, is that considered elective or is that semi-urgent? I think that’s one of the challenges and that’s where these partnerships would be useful.”

Other challenges include the need for regional partnerships to better align hospitals, which in the New York area means half a dozen large healthcare systems, and to coordinate care between hospital departments – all of which will be scheduling imaging and OR time for their own backlog of hernia, knee, or hip surgeries.

Finally, there’s the need for a lot of conversation with the patient and their family about returning to a hospital amid a deadly pandemic.

“I had a patient today and the daughter was very concerned about bringing her in,” Kodali said. “She’s in class IV heart failure but her [daughter’s] big concern was: who is she going to be exposed to when she gets the echo? What kind of protection is there for her? Is the tech wearing a mask?

“It’s not just the health care providers that have to have the comfort, but it’s the patients and their families who have to feel comfortable bringing their loved ones here for treatment,” he said. “Because everyone is concerned about the environment.”

Wood reports receiving unrestricted grant support from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott Vascular and serving as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Poppas reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Kodali reports consultant (honoraria) from Admedus, Meril Life Sciences, JenaValve, and Abbott Vascular; SAB (equity) from Dura Biotech, MicroInterventional Devices, Thubrikar Aortic Valve, Supira, and Admedus; and institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.

During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.

The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.

Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).

Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.

The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.

A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.

As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.

Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.

At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.

The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.

During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.

The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.

Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).

Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.

The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.

A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.

As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.

Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.

At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.

The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.

During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.

The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.

Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).

Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.

The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.

A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.

As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.

Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.

At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.

The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.