Patrice Wendling

Tricuspid valve repair at the time of mitral valve surgery reduces tricuspid regurgitation progression, but at the cost of more than a fivefold increase in permanent pacemakers, results of a new Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network study show.

The results were presented during the opening late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common among patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, and there’s broad agreement to intervene when a patient has severe TR. There’s uncertainty, however, about the management of moderate or less TR during mitral valve surgery, which is reflected in current guidelines on the basis of observational data, explained coprimary investigator James Gammie, MD, codirector and surgical director of the Johns Hopkins Heart and Vascular Institute, Baltimore. As a result, rates of concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery range from 5% to 75% at various centers.

To help fill the gap, Dr. Gammie and colleagues screened 5,208 patients at 29 centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany undergoing surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation, and randomly assigned 401 patients (75% male) to mitral valve surgery alone or with tricuspid annuloplasty.

Patients had either moderate TR (37%) or less than moderate TR with a dilated tricuspid annulus of at least 40 mm or at least 21 mm/m² indexed for body surface area. Importantly, there was a uniform surgical approach using undersized (26-30 mm) rigid nonplanar annuloplasty rings to repair the tricuspid valve, he said.

The study’s primary outcome of treatment failure at 2 years was defined as the composite of death, reoperation for TR, or progression of TR from baseline by 2 grades or severe TR.

The primary endpoint occurred in 10.2% of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery alone and 3.9% who underwent concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86; P = .02).

The endpoint was driven exclusively by less TR progression in the annuloplasty group, with no TR reoperations in either group, observed Dr. Gammie. At 2 years, just 0.6% of the annuloplasty group had severe TR, compared with 5.6% of the surgery-alone group.

The rate of permanent pacemaker implantations, however, jumped from 2.5% with surgery alone to 14.1% with concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27-14.60). More than half of pacemakers were placed during the first 2 days after surgery.

There was no between-group difference in 2-year rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, readmission, quality of life, or functional status.

Less than moderate TR

In a post hoc analysis stratified by baseline TR severity, treatment failure was significantly less common with surgery plus tricuspid annuloplasty among patients with moderate TR (4.5% vs. 18.1%) but not among those with less than moderate TR and tricuspid annular dilation (3.4% vs. 6.1%).

Although the trial was not powered for the subgroup analysis, “these results call into question the idea that less than moderate TR with annular dilation should be an indication for tricuspid valve repair,” Dr. Gammie told this news organization.

“I did not repair the tricuspid valve in the setting of less than moderate TR before the trial, and my practice won’t change; but it will be based on much better evidence,” he added. “Of course, long-term data from our trial will be of great interest.”

Discussant Joseph Woo, MD, chair of surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, congratulated the authors on a “landmark trial” that addresses a highly relevant problem without a clear-cut indication.

In the 2020 AHA/American College of Cardiology heart valve disease guideline, tricuspid valve surgery is a class I recommendation when there’s severe TR (stages C and D) and left-sided valve surgery but a class IIa recommendation in patients with progressive TR (stage B) with an annular dilation of at least 40 mm.

“The interesting findings in this study include that moderate TR was only 37% of the enrolled patients, and only 97% of the patients with degenerative MR received a mitral valve repair,” Dr. Woo said. “This level of mitral valve repair is perhaps lower than what we might expect at these centers and lower, certainly, than what the AHA/ACC guidelines recommend for surgery on asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation.”

Panelist Roxanna Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York said, “What I was struck by is that we, as clinicians, believe that if you fix the mitral valve, maybe the tricuspid regurgitation will improve. And it seems like that is not what’s happening, and I think that’s a big takeaway.”

Session comoderator Joanna Chikwe, MD, head of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said, “I think we can all agree that severe tricuspid regurgitation is a disaster for patients, and I think the fact the trial is designed for an additional 5 years’ follow-up will hopefully give us some insights into the clinical impact of severe tricuspid regurgitation.”

For now, “a back of the envelope calculation suggests that, for every 20 patients with moderate tricuspid regurgitation who we repair the tricuspid valve in, we would prevent severe tricuspid valve regurgitation in 1 at the price of pacemakers in 2,” she said.

Dr. Chikwe said in an interview that “transcatheter tricuspid repair is increasingly helping these patients, but if you could avoid it with a technique that doesn’t cause incremental harm beyond, perhaps, the need for pacemakers, then this is helpful data that supports that approach.”

The pacemaker burden is not negligible, she said, but also not surprising to surgeons. “If you look at national practice of mitral-tricuspid surgery, it’s about 15% after that, and it’s simply because the conduction tissue is so close to the tricuspid annulus.”

Pacemaker implantation rates, like those for concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery, are also highly variable, and in some single-center series only around 2%, Dr. Chikwe said. “So that suggests there are technical approaches that can minimize the pacemaker rate [such as] being extremely careful to avoid suture placement around the area of the conduction tissues.”

For some the trade-off between reduced TR progression and the risk of a permanent pacemaker is worth it. “But the fact that the trial didn’t show a difference in survival, a difference in symptoms or quality of life, might suggest that patients you anticipated were high risk for surgery or didn’t have a longer projected survival aren’t going to benefit from what is quite an aggressive surgical approach,” Dr. Chikwe said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chikwe and Mario Gaudino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, also point out that the “very dynamic nature of tricuspid regurgitation and wide variability in assessing tricuspid annular dilatation are additional compelling reasons to leave lesser regurgitation alone.”

Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, Kings College and tricuspid service lead at Guys and St. Thomas NHS, London, also pointed to the need for longer-term follow-up but said increased use of imaging markers is also needed to help pinpoint TR progression in these patients. “For the moment, the results should remind imagers and clinicians to refer patients earlier.”

“As a valvular heart physician, I see more and more patients coming in with significant severe tricuspid regurgitation post–mitral valve surgery and because of the time that’s passed, there’s dysfunction of the right heart, the left heart, and it’s very hard to suggest an operation because they’re at high risk,” she said. “So we’re discussing with these patients whether to do an intervention or medical management.”

“Now, with this study, and the pending longer follow-up by the authors, I’m optimistic that the class II recommendation will be class I in order to help our patients treat tricuspid regurgitation earlier than late,” said Dr. Grapsa, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Gammie reports a consultant/stockholder relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grapsa reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Chikwe reports that as coprincipal investigator/study director of NCT 05051033 (an NHLBI-sponsored Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial), she collaborates with several of the study authors.
 

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

Tricuspid valve repair at the time of mitral valve surgery reduces tricuspid regurgitation progression, but at the cost of more than a fivefold increase in permanent pacemakers, results of a new Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network study show.

The results were presented during the opening late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common among patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, and there’s broad agreement to intervene when a patient has severe TR. There’s uncertainty, however, about the management of moderate or less TR during mitral valve surgery, which is reflected in current guidelines on the basis of observational data, explained coprimary investigator James Gammie, MD, codirector and surgical director of the Johns Hopkins Heart and Vascular Institute, Baltimore. As a result, rates of concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery range from 5% to 75% at various centers.

To help fill the gap, Dr. Gammie and colleagues screened 5,208 patients at 29 centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany undergoing surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation, and randomly assigned 401 patients (75% male) to mitral valve surgery alone or with tricuspid annuloplasty.

Patients had either moderate TR (37%) or less than moderate TR with a dilated tricuspid annulus of at least 40 mm or at least 21 mm/m² indexed for body surface area. Importantly, there was a uniform surgical approach using undersized (26-30 mm) rigid nonplanar annuloplasty rings to repair the tricuspid valve, he said.

The study’s primary outcome of treatment failure at 2 years was defined as the composite of death, reoperation for TR, or progression of TR from baseline by 2 grades or severe TR.

The primary endpoint occurred in 10.2% of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery alone and 3.9% who underwent concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86; P = .02).

The endpoint was driven exclusively by less TR progression in the annuloplasty group, with no TR reoperations in either group, observed Dr. Gammie. At 2 years, just 0.6% of the annuloplasty group had severe TR, compared with 5.6% of the surgery-alone group.

The rate of permanent pacemaker implantations, however, jumped from 2.5% with surgery alone to 14.1% with concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27-14.60). More than half of pacemakers were placed during the first 2 days after surgery.

There was no between-group difference in 2-year rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, readmission, quality of life, or functional status.

Less than moderate TR

In a post hoc analysis stratified by baseline TR severity, treatment failure was significantly less common with surgery plus tricuspid annuloplasty among patients with moderate TR (4.5% vs. 18.1%) but not among those with less than moderate TR and tricuspid annular dilation (3.4% vs. 6.1%).

Although the trial was not powered for the subgroup analysis, “these results call into question the idea that less than moderate TR with annular dilation should be an indication for tricuspid valve repair,” Dr. Gammie told this news organization.

“I did not repair the tricuspid valve in the setting of less than moderate TR before the trial, and my practice won’t change; but it will be based on much better evidence,” he added. “Of course, long-term data from our trial will be of great interest.”

Discussant Joseph Woo, MD, chair of surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, congratulated the authors on a “landmark trial” that addresses a highly relevant problem without a clear-cut indication.

In the 2020 AHA/American College of Cardiology heart valve disease guideline, tricuspid valve surgery is a class I recommendation when there’s severe TR (stages C and D) and left-sided valve surgery but a class IIa recommendation in patients with progressive TR (stage B) with an annular dilation of at least 40 mm.

“The interesting findings in this study include that moderate TR was only 37% of the enrolled patients, and only 97% of the patients with degenerative MR received a mitral valve repair,” Dr. Woo said. “This level of mitral valve repair is perhaps lower than what we might expect at these centers and lower, certainly, than what the AHA/ACC guidelines recommend for surgery on asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation.”

Panelist Roxanna Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York said, “What I was struck by is that we, as clinicians, believe that if you fix the mitral valve, maybe the tricuspid regurgitation will improve. And it seems like that is not what’s happening, and I think that’s a big takeaway.”

Session comoderator Joanna Chikwe, MD, head of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said, “I think we can all agree that severe tricuspid regurgitation is a disaster for patients, and I think the fact the trial is designed for an additional 5 years’ follow-up will hopefully give us some insights into the clinical impact of severe tricuspid regurgitation.”

For now, “a back of the envelope calculation suggests that, for every 20 patients with moderate tricuspid regurgitation who we repair the tricuspid valve in, we would prevent severe tricuspid valve regurgitation in 1 at the price of pacemakers in 2,” she said.

Dr. Chikwe said in an interview that “transcatheter tricuspid repair is increasingly helping these patients, but if you could avoid it with a technique that doesn’t cause incremental harm beyond, perhaps, the need for pacemakers, then this is helpful data that supports that approach.”

The pacemaker burden is not negligible, she said, but also not surprising to surgeons. “If you look at national practice of mitral-tricuspid surgery, it’s about 15% after that, and it’s simply because the conduction tissue is so close to the tricuspid annulus.”

Pacemaker implantation rates, like those for concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery, are also highly variable, and in some single-center series only around 2%, Dr. Chikwe said. “So that suggests there are technical approaches that can minimize the pacemaker rate [such as] being extremely careful to avoid suture placement around the area of the conduction tissues.”

For some the trade-off between reduced TR progression and the risk of a permanent pacemaker is worth it. “But the fact that the trial didn’t show a difference in survival, a difference in symptoms or quality of life, might suggest that patients you anticipated were high risk for surgery or didn’t have a longer projected survival aren’t going to benefit from what is quite an aggressive surgical approach,” Dr. Chikwe said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chikwe and Mario Gaudino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, also point out that the “very dynamic nature of tricuspid regurgitation and wide variability in assessing tricuspid annular dilatation are additional compelling reasons to leave lesser regurgitation alone.”

Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, Kings College and tricuspid service lead at Guys and St. Thomas NHS, London, also pointed to the need for longer-term follow-up but said increased use of imaging markers is also needed to help pinpoint TR progression in these patients. “For the moment, the results should remind imagers and clinicians to refer patients earlier.”

“As a valvular heart physician, I see more and more patients coming in with significant severe tricuspid regurgitation post–mitral valve surgery and because of the time that’s passed, there’s dysfunction of the right heart, the left heart, and it’s very hard to suggest an operation because they’re at high risk,” she said. “So we’re discussing with these patients whether to do an intervention or medical management.”

“Now, with this study, and the pending longer follow-up by the authors, I’m optimistic that the class II recommendation will be class I in order to help our patients treat tricuspid regurgitation earlier than late,” said Dr. Grapsa, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Gammie reports a consultant/stockholder relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grapsa reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Chikwe reports that as coprincipal investigator/study director of NCT 05051033 (an NHLBI-sponsored Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial), she collaborates with several of the study authors.
 

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

Tricuspid valve repair at the time of mitral valve surgery reduces tricuspid regurgitation progression, but at the cost of more than a fivefold increase in permanent pacemakers, results of a new Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network study show.

The results were presented during the opening late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common among patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, and there’s broad agreement to intervene when a patient has severe TR. There’s uncertainty, however, about the management of moderate or less TR during mitral valve surgery, which is reflected in current guidelines on the basis of observational data, explained coprimary investigator James Gammie, MD, codirector and surgical director of the Johns Hopkins Heart and Vascular Institute, Baltimore. As a result, rates of concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery range from 5% to 75% at various centers.

To help fill the gap, Dr. Gammie and colleagues screened 5,208 patients at 29 centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany undergoing surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation, and randomly assigned 401 patients (75% male) to mitral valve surgery alone or with tricuspid annuloplasty.

Patients had either moderate TR (37%) or less than moderate TR with a dilated tricuspid annulus of at least 40 mm or at least 21 mm/m² indexed for body surface area. Importantly, there was a uniform surgical approach using undersized (26-30 mm) rigid nonplanar annuloplasty rings to repair the tricuspid valve, he said.

The study’s primary outcome of treatment failure at 2 years was defined as the composite of death, reoperation for TR, or progression of TR from baseline by 2 grades or severe TR.

The primary endpoint occurred in 10.2% of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery alone and 3.9% who underwent concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86; P = .02).

The endpoint was driven exclusively by less TR progression in the annuloplasty group, with no TR reoperations in either group, observed Dr. Gammie. At 2 years, just 0.6% of the annuloplasty group had severe TR, compared with 5.6% of the surgery-alone group.

The rate of permanent pacemaker implantations, however, jumped from 2.5% with surgery alone to 14.1% with concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27-14.60). More than half of pacemakers were placed during the first 2 days after surgery.

There was no between-group difference in 2-year rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, readmission, quality of life, or functional status.

Less than moderate TR

In a post hoc analysis stratified by baseline TR severity, treatment failure was significantly less common with surgery plus tricuspid annuloplasty among patients with moderate TR (4.5% vs. 18.1%) but not among those with less than moderate TR and tricuspid annular dilation (3.4% vs. 6.1%).

Although the trial was not powered for the subgroup analysis, “these results call into question the idea that less than moderate TR with annular dilation should be an indication for tricuspid valve repair,” Dr. Gammie told this news organization.

“I did not repair the tricuspid valve in the setting of less than moderate TR before the trial, and my practice won’t change; but it will be based on much better evidence,” he added. “Of course, long-term data from our trial will be of great interest.”

Discussant Joseph Woo, MD, chair of surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, congratulated the authors on a “landmark trial” that addresses a highly relevant problem without a clear-cut indication.

In the 2020 AHA/American College of Cardiology heart valve disease guideline, tricuspid valve surgery is a class I recommendation when there’s severe TR (stages C and D) and left-sided valve surgery but a class IIa recommendation in patients with progressive TR (stage B) with an annular dilation of at least 40 mm.

“The interesting findings in this study include that moderate TR was only 37% of the enrolled patients, and only 97% of the patients with degenerative MR received a mitral valve repair,” Dr. Woo said. “This level of mitral valve repair is perhaps lower than what we might expect at these centers and lower, certainly, than what the AHA/ACC guidelines recommend for surgery on asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation.”

Panelist Roxanna Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York said, “What I was struck by is that we, as clinicians, believe that if you fix the mitral valve, maybe the tricuspid regurgitation will improve. And it seems like that is not what’s happening, and I think that’s a big takeaway.”

Session comoderator Joanna Chikwe, MD, head of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said, “I think we can all agree that severe tricuspid regurgitation is a disaster for patients, and I think the fact the trial is designed for an additional 5 years’ follow-up will hopefully give us some insights into the clinical impact of severe tricuspid regurgitation.”

For now, “a back of the envelope calculation suggests that, for every 20 patients with moderate tricuspid regurgitation who we repair the tricuspid valve in, we would prevent severe tricuspid valve regurgitation in 1 at the price of pacemakers in 2,” she said.

Dr. Chikwe said in an interview that “transcatheter tricuspid repair is increasingly helping these patients, but if you could avoid it with a technique that doesn’t cause incremental harm beyond, perhaps, the need for pacemakers, then this is helpful data that supports that approach.”

The pacemaker burden is not negligible, she said, but also not surprising to surgeons. “If you look at national practice of mitral-tricuspid surgery, it’s about 15% after that, and it’s simply because the conduction tissue is so close to the tricuspid annulus.”

Pacemaker implantation rates, like those for concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery, are also highly variable, and in some single-center series only around 2%, Dr. Chikwe said. “So that suggests there are technical approaches that can minimize the pacemaker rate [such as] being extremely careful to avoid suture placement around the area of the conduction tissues.”

For some the trade-off between reduced TR progression and the risk of a permanent pacemaker is worth it. “But the fact that the trial didn’t show a difference in survival, a difference in symptoms or quality of life, might suggest that patients you anticipated were high risk for surgery or didn’t have a longer projected survival aren’t going to benefit from what is quite an aggressive surgical approach,” Dr. Chikwe said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chikwe and Mario Gaudino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, also point out that the “very dynamic nature of tricuspid regurgitation and wide variability in assessing tricuspid annular dilatation are additional compelling reasons to leave lesser regurgitation alone.”

Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, Kings College and tricuspid service lead at Guys and St. Thomas NHS, London, also pointed to the need for longer-term follow-up but said increased use of imaging markers is also needed to help pinpoint TR progression in these patients. “For the moment, the results should remind imagers and clinicians to refer patients earlier.”

“As a valvular heart physician, I see more and more patients coming in with significant severe tricuspid regurgitation post–mitral valve surgery and because of the time that’s passed, there’s dysfunction of the right heart, the left heart, and it’s very hard to suggest an operation because they’re at high risk,” she said. “So we’re discussing with these patients whether to do an intervention or medical management.”

“Now, with this study, and the pending longer follow-up by the authors, I’m optimistic that the class II recommendation will be class I in order to help our patients treat tricuspid regurgitation earlier than late,” said Dr. Grapsa, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Gammie reports a consultant/stockholder relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grapsa reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Chikwe reports that as coprincipal investigator/study director of NCT 05051033 (an NHLBI-sponsored Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial), she collaborates with several of the study authors.
 

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

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

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

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

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

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

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

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) lesion assessment provided better clinical outcomes than visual assessment of the angiogram in the sham-controlled FAVOR III China study.

PCI success rates were about 95% with both strategies; however, QFR guidance was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, use of fewer stents, less contrast medium exposure, and fewer procedural complications.

“The simplicity and safety of QFR compared with wire-based physiologic measurements should facilitate the adoption of physiologic lesion assessment into routine clinical practice,” co–primary investigator Bo Xu, MBBS, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, said.

The results were presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held online and in Orlando, and published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Although pressure wire–based physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) more accurately identify flow-limiting lesions than standard angiography and have been shown to improve outcomes after PCI, the authors note that it’s underused in practice because of prolonged procedural time, potential pressure wire complications, and side effects from hyperemic agents.

QFR, however, is derived from 3-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics from the angiogram, so FFR can be estimated without the need for a pressure wire or hyperemic drugs.

FAVOR III China was designed statistically for superiority and enrolled 3,847 patients with stable or unstable angina or a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 72 hours before screening if they had at least one coronary lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50% to 90% and a reference vessel diameter of at least 2.5 mm. The intention-to-treat population included 3,825 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; 29.4% female).

In the QFR group, QFR was measured in all coronary arteries with a lesion but PCI performed only in lesions with a QFR of at least 0.80 or diameter stenosis greater than 90%. Two angiographic imaging runs were taken and the data transmitted to the AngioPlus system (Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) by a local network of sites for QFR calculation.

PCI in the angiography-guided group was performed on the basis of visual angiographic assessment only. A 10-minute delay was used in both groups to preserve masking.

The primary endpoint of 1-year MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 5.8% of the QFR-guided group and 8.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0004).

The curves separated within 48 hours, driven largely by fewer MIs (3.4% vs. 5.7%; P = .0008) and ischemia-driven revascularizations (2.0% vs. 3.1%; P = .0078) in the QFR-guided group, Mr. Xu said.

The major secondary endpoint of MACE excluding periprocedural MI occurred in 3.1% of QFR-guided patients and 4.8% of angiography-guided patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89; P = .0073).

The prerandomization revascularization plan was changed in 23.3% of patients with QFR and only 6.2% in the angiography group (P < .0001), mainly due to deferral of treatment of at least one vessel originally planned for PCI (19.6% vs. 5.2%; P < .0001).

“I think in the next guideline they will change the recommendation, not just to include FFR and IFR, but also to include QFR,” Giuseppe Tarantini, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Italy, said during a press briefing on the study.

“This is a milestone in our community, not only because it is easier to use compared to the other lesion-specific indexes like FFR, IFR, but also for the need to expand the use of physiology in the setting of interventional cardiology,” he added.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert A. Byrne, MBBCh, PhD, and Laurna McGovern, MBBCh, both from the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin, say the results are “relevant for cardiovascular disease researchers and clinicians and an important step forward for the field of angiography-derived flow measurements for guidance of PCI.”

They point out, however, that the control group did not receive pressure wire–guided PCI, which is the standard of care in contemporary practice and out of step with clinical practice guidelines, thus limiting external validity.

They also note that experiences to date suggest that up to 20% of patients may be unsuitable for the algorithm analysis because of coronary anatomy, presence of overlapping vessels, and insufficient image quality.

Commenting for this news organization, David E. Kandzari, MD, chief of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, said “the technology isn’t readily available in catheterization labs today. Could it be assimilated into the cath labs at one point in the near term? I think absolutely, and that would be a welcome addition to expedite the procedure itself.”

Nevertheless, he said the results “need to be externally validated too, with what is the gold standard today of FFR in a larger experience.”

Session moderator Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said FAVOR III China has “advanced our knowledge” but pointed out that the ongoing randomized FAVOR III Europe Japan study is directly comparing QFR with invasive pressure-wire assessed FFR. The estimated primary completion date for that study is Dec. 31.

The study was supported by grants from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital. Dr. Byrne reported institutional research or educational funding from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Ms. McGovern has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kandzari reported minor consulting honoraria from the interventional device industry and institutional research grant support.

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

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) lesion assessment provided better clinical outcomes than visual assessment of the angiogram in the sham-controlled FAVOR III China study.

PCI success rates were about 95% with both strategies; however, QFR guidance was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, use of fewer stents, less contrast medium exposure, and fewer procedural complications.

“The simplicity and safety of QFR compared with wire-based physiologic measurements should facilitate the adoption of physiologic lesion assessment into routine clinical practice,” co–primary investigator Bo Xu, MBBS, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, said.

The results were presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held online and in Orlando, and published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Although pressure wire–based physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) more accurately identify flow-limiting lesions than standard angiography and have been shown to improve outcomes after PCI, the authors note that it’s underused in practice because of prolonged procedural time, potential pressure wire complications, and side effects from hyperemic agents.

QFR, however, is derived from 3-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics from the angiogram, so FFR can be estimated without the need for a pressure wire or hyperemic drugs.

FAVOR III China was designed statistically for superiority and enrolled 3,847 patients with stable or unstable angina or a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 72 hours before screening if they had at least one coronary lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50% to 90% and a reference vessel diameter of at least 2.5 mm. The intention-to-treat population included 3,825 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; 29.4% female).

In the QFR group, QFR was measured in all coronary arteries with a lesion but PCI performed only in lesions with a QFR of at least 0.80 or diameter stenosis greater than 90%. Two angiographic imaging runs were taken and the data transmitted to the AngioPlus system (Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) by a local network of sites for QFR calculation.

PCI in the angiography-guided group was performed on the basis of visual angiographic assessment only. A 10-minute delay was used in both groups to preserve masking.

The primary endpoint of 1-year MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 5.8% of the QFR-guided group and 8.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0004).

The curves separated within 48 hours, driven largely by fewer MIs (3.4% vs. 5.7%; P = .0008) and ischemia-driven revascularizations (2.0% vs. 3.1%; P = .0078) in the QFR-guided group, Mr. Xu said.

The major secondary endpoint of MACE excluding periprocedural MI occurred in 3.1% of QFR-guided patients and 4.8% of angiography-guided patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89; P = .0073).

The prerandomization revascularization plan was changed in 23.3% of patients with QFR and only 6.2% in the angiography group (P < .0001), mainly due to deferral of treatment of at least one vessel originally planned for PCI (19.6% vs. 5.2%; P < .0001).

“I think in the next guideline they will change the recommendation, not just to include FFR and IFR, but also to include QFR,” Giuseppe Tarantini, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Italy, said during a press briefing on the study.

“This is a milestone in our community, not only because it is easier to use compared to the other lesion-specific indexes like FFR, IFR, but also for the need to expand the use of physiology in the setting of interventional cardiology,” he added.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert A. Byrne, MBBCh, PhD, and Laurna McGovern, MBBCh, both from the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin, say the results are “relevant for cardiovascular disease researchers and clinicians and an important step forward for the field of angiography-derived flow measurements for guidance of PCI.”

They point out, however, that the control group did not receive pressure wire–guided PCI, which is the standard of care in contemporary practice and out of step with clinical practice guidelines, thus limiting external validity.

They also note that experiences to date suggest that up to 20% of patients may be unsuitable for the algorithm analysis because of coronary anatomy, presence of overlapping vessels, and insufficient image quality.

Commenting for this news organization, David E. Kandzari, MD, chief of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, said “the technology isn’t readily available in catheterization labs today. Could it be assimilated into the cath labs at one point in the near term? I think absolutely, and that would be a welcome addition to expedite the procedure itself.”

Nevertheless, he said the results “need to be externally validated too, with what is the gold standard today of FFR in a larger experience.”

Session moderator Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said FAVOR III China has “advanced our knowledge” but pointed out that the ongoing randomized FAVOR III Europe Japan study is directly comparing QFR with invasive pressure-wire assessed FFR. The estimated primary completion date for that study is Dec. 31.

The study was supported by grants from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital. Dr. Byrne reported institutional research or educational funding from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Ms. McGovern has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kandzari reported minor consulting honoraria from the interventional device industry and institutional research grant support.

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

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) lesion assessment provided better clinical outcomes than visual assessment of the angiogram in the sham-controlled FAVOR III China study.

PCI success rates were about 95% with both strategies; however, QFR guidance was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, use of fewer stents, less contrast medium exposure, and fewer procedural complications.

“The simplicity and safety of QFR compared with wire-based physiologic measurements should facilitate the adoption of physiologic lesion assessment into routine clinical practice,” co–primary investigator Bo Xu, MBBS, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, said.

The results were presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held online and in Orlando, and published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Although pressure wire–based physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) more accurately identify flow-limiting lesions than standard angiography and have been shown to improve outcomes after PCI, the authors note that it’s underused in practice because of prolonged procedural time, potential pressure wire complications, and side effects from hyperemic agents.

QFR, however, is derived from 3-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics from the angiogram, so FFR can be estimated without the need for a pressure wire or hyperemic drugs.

FAVOR III China was designed statistically for superiority and enrolled 3,847 patients with stable or unstable angina or a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 72 hours before screening if they had at least one coronary lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50% to 90% and a reference vessel diameter of at least 2.5 mm. The intention-to-treat population included 3,825 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; 29.4% female).

In the QFR group, QFR was measured in all coronary arteries with a lesion but PCI performed only in lesions with a QFR of at least 0.80 or diameter stenosis greater than 90%. Two angiographic imaging runs were taken and the data transmitted to the AngioPlus system (Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) by a local network of sites for QFR calculation.

PCI in the angiography-guided group was performed on the basis of visual angiographic assessment only. A 10-minute delay was used in both groups to preserve masking.

The primary endpoint of 1-year MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 5.8% of the QFR-guided group and 8.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0004).

The curves separated within 48 hours, driven largely by fewer MIs (3.4% vs. 5.7%; P = .0008) and ischemia-driven revascularizations (2.0% vs. 3.1%; P = .0078) in the QFR-guided group, Mr. Xu said.

The major secondary endpoint of MACE excluding periprocedural MI occurred in 3.1% of QFR-guided patients and 4.8% of angiography-guided patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89; P = .0073).

The prerandomization revascularization plan was changed in 23.3% of patients with QFR and only 6.2% in the angiography group (P < .0001), mainly due to deferral of treatment of at least one vessel originally planned for PCI (19.6% vs. 5.2%; P < .0001).

“I think in the next guideline they will change the recommendation, not just to include FFR and IFR, but also to include QFR,” Giuseppe Tarantini, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Italy, said during a press briefing on the study.

“This is a milestone in our community, not only because it is easier to use compared to the other lesion-specific indexes like FFR, IFR, but also for the need to expand the use of physiology in the setting of interventional cardiology,” he added.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert A. Byrne, MBBCh, PhD, and Laurna McGovern, MBBCh, both from the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin, say the results are “relevant for cardiovascular disease researchers and clinicians and an important step forward for the field of angiography-derived flow measurements for guidance of PCI.”

They point out, however, that the control group did not receive pressure wire–guided PCI, which is the standard of care in contemporary practice and out of step with clinical practice guidelines, thus limiting external validity.

They also note that experiences to date suggest that up to 20% of patients may be unsuitable for the algorithm analysis because of coronary anatomy, presence of overlapping vessels, and insufficient image quality.

Commenting for this news organization, David E. Kandzari, MD, chief of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, said “the technology isn’t readily available in catheterization labs today. Could it be assimilated into the cath labs at one point in the near term? I think absolutely, and that would be a welcome addition to expedite the procedure itself.”

Nevertheless, he said the results “need to be externally validated too, with what is the gold standard today of FFR in a larger experience.”

Session moderator Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said FAVOR III China has “advanced our knowledge” but pointed out that the ongoing randomized FAVOR III Europe Japan study is directly comparing QFR with invasive pressure-wire assessed FFR. The estimated primary completion date for that study is Dec. 31.

The study was supported by grants from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital. Dr. Byrne reported institutional research or educational funding from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Ms. McGovern has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kandzari reported minor consulting honoraria from the interventional device industry and institutional research grant support.

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

Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.

Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.

A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.

Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”

He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”

Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”

For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.

Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.

Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease. 

With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.

Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.

Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:

• CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
• CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
• CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
• ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)

“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.

A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.

Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.

Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.

“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”

Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.

Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.

A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.

Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”

He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”

Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”

For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.

Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.

Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease. 

With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.

Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.

Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:

• CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
• CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
• CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
• ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)

“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.

A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.

Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.

Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.

“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”

Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) fare better with coronary angiography with and without revascularization than with medical therapy, a large nationwide study suggests.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Invasive management was associated with lower mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and need for revascularization, with a minimal increased risk of in-hospital, postprocedural acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis and major bleeding,” said lead researcher Ankur Kalra, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

Also, similar post-discharge safety outcomes were seen at 6 months, he said in an online presentation of “key abstracts” released in advance of next month’s Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021 hybrid meeting.

Advanced CKD is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in patients with NSTEMI. In CKD, however, current guidelines lack evidence on the efficacy and safety of invasive versus medical management, he noted.

A rare randomized clinical trial in this high-risk population, ISCHEMIA-CKD, recently found no benefit and an increase in stroke with initial invasive management compared with optimal medical therapy.

Session co-moderator Ziad A. Ali, MD, DPhil, St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, New York, said the current study is “incredibly clinically impactful and answers a question that’s very difficult to answer because these patients aren’t randomized in randomized controlled trials, and there’s a general avoidance, which we’ve now coined ‘renalism,’ like racism, where people don’t really want to touch these patients.”

He questioned, however, how the authors reconcile the results of ISCHEMIA-CKD, a “small but meaningful randomized controlled trial,” with their findings from a large dataset. “Perhaps this is all selection bias, even though the numbers are very large.”

Dr. Kalra replied that ISCHEMIA-CKD examined stable ischemic heart disease, whereas they looked at NSTEMI. “Even though it may fall under the same rubric, I truly believe it is a different set of patients – they are at a heightened risk for future cardiovascular events and have had an acute coronary event.”

For the study, ICD-10 coding data from 2016-2018 in the Nationwide Readmission Database was used to identify NSTEMI patients with CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of 141,052 patients were available for in-hospital outcomes and 133,642 patients for post-discharge outcomes.

In-hospital and 6-month mortality – the study’s primary outcome – favored invasive management across all CKD stages and ESRD but did not achieve statistical significance for CKD stage 5. The number needed to treat (NNT) for CKD stages 3, 4, 5, and ESRD were 26, 56, 48, and 18, respectively.

Six-month MACE, including mortality, MI, stroke, and heart failure readmission, was significantly better in all groups with invasive management.

Kaplan-Meier curves for mortality showed similar benefits with an invasive strategy across CKD stages, again barring stage 5 disease. 

With regard to in-hospital safety, stroke rates were not significantly different between the two treatment strategies across all groups.

Rates of AKI requiring dialysis, however, were lower with medical versus invasive management for CKD stage 3 (0.43% vs. 0.6%; hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .016), stage 4 (1.2% vs. 2.0%; HR 1.87; P < .001), and stage 5 (3.7% vs. 4.3%; HR 1.17; P = .527). The number needed to harm (NNH) was 588 for CKD 3 and 125 for CKD 4.

Major bleeding, defined as requiring transfusion, was lower with medical management for all CKD stages but not for ESRD. The rates are as follows:

• CKD stage 3: 2.5% vs. 2.8% (HR, 1.11; P = .078; NNH = 333)
• CKD stage 4: 2.9% vs. 4.0% (HR, 1.42; P < .001; NNH = 91)
• CKD stage 5: 2.2% vs. 4.7% (HR, 2.17; P = .008; NNH = 40)
• ESRD: 3.4% vs. 3.3% (HR, 0.97; P = .709)

“The risk of AKI requiring dialysis and bleeding, as has been shown previously in other studies, was high, but the number needed to harm was also high,” observed Dr. Kalra.

A separate analysis showed no difference in rates of AKI requiring dialysis among patients with CKD stages 3 and 4 who underwent angiography without revascularization and their peers who were medically managed.

Rates of the composite safety outcome of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, or stroke readmission at 6 months were not significantly different for invasive versus medical management for CKD stage 3 (both 3.3%), stage 4 (4.5% and 4.2%), stage 5 (3.9% vs. 4.3%), and ESRD (2.3% vs. 2.1%).

Besides the inherent limitations of observational studies and potential for selection bias, Dr. Kalra pointed out that the analysis relied on coding data for exact glomerular filtration rates and lacked information on contrast use, crystalloids before the procedure, and nephrotoxic medication use before or during admission. Out-of-hospital mortality was also not available in the database.

Co-moderator Allen Jeremias, MD, also with St. Francis Hospital & Heart Center, said one of the study’s strengths was that it included all comers, unlike randomized trials that typically exclude the highest risk patients.

“So, when we do these trials it’s very difficult to find the right balance, whereas this is a real-world analysis including everybody, and I think the benefits are clearly demonstrated,” he said. “So I think I’m bullish on doing complex [percutaneous coronary intervention] PCI in this patient population.”

Dr. Kalra reports having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survey results paint a stark picture of discrimination among racial minorities in the cardiology workforce but also a strong sense of belonging.

Hiraman/Getty Images

Among respondents to the 2015 American College of Cardiology (ACC) Professional Life Survey, which is the most recent survey, over half (52.3%) of underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities (URMs) and 45.5% of Asian or Pacific Islanders reported experiencing discrimination compared with 36.4% of Whites (both P < .01).

Nevertheless, 91.2% of URMs reported being satisfied with their career, as did 90% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 89.1% of Whites.

Satisfaction with financial compensation also did not differ between groups, and most cardiologists believed their opportunities for advancement were similar to those of their peers.

One possible explanation is that the respondents may simply be people who’ve had better experiences, lead author Kevin L. Thomas, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., and colleagues told this news organization. A second hypothesis looks more to sheer determination, or grit.

“Perhaps along the sometimes circuitous pathway to being a cardiologist – which is a lot of training, a lot of standardized testing, a lot of applications – that maybe you sub-select a group of individuals who are simply more resilient based on their life experiences and things that they’ve overcome to get where they are,” he said.

Interestingly, rates of burnout were lower among URMs (22.4%) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (20.1%) than Whites (30.3%; P = .02 and P < .01, respectively). The finding is unexpected but in line with a recent report of more than 4,400 U.S. physicians finding lower odds of burnout among Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and Black physicians.

The new study, published October 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, however, affirms that women of all racial and ethnic groups face significant headwinds in the White, male-dominated cardiology workforce.

Just 13.9% of White men reported experiencing discrimination, compared with 44.6% of URM men and 36.2% of Asians/Pacific Islander men. In comparison, 69.2% of White women reported discrimination, as did 62.7% of URM women and 57% of Asian/Pacific Islander women (both P <.01).

“When you look specifically at White men versus White women, there is a large discrepancy there, and it just shows us, I think, for a lot of different groups, we still have a long way to go in terms of trying to achieve equity and to try to be inclusive in the workplace,” Dr. Thomas said.

Men were more likely to experience race- and religion-based discrimination in the workplace, whereas nearly all women reported sex discrimination, with parenting an important second. Approximately 85% of cardiologists reported being satisfied with their family lives, although unpublished data suggest URMs were less likely to be married and to have fewer children, Dr. Thomas said.

During job negotiations, URM cardiologists were less likely to prioritize salary, benefits, and work hours for their first job (13.6%, 10.9% 19.3%) than White cardiologists (20.6%, 23.3%, 31.3%; P < .02 for all).

In subsequent negotiations, URMs placed more emphasis on salary, benefits, and work hours than Whites, whereas both URMs and Asians/Pacific Islanders placed a greater importance on travel benefits, diversity, mentoring, workspace, time to promotion, academic rank, and roles with community, institutional, or national recognition, which the authors say, “might indicate a greater need to overcome systemic barriers.”

Three-fourths of all cardiologist respondents had a mentor during training, which can take many shapes, Dr. Thomas noted. “Within my own section as an electrophysiologist, which is a very subspecialized category, we have four Black electrophysiologists, and I think it was because many of us mentored each other as we came along, and it inspired us.”

URMs are more likely to experience the so-called “minority tax” of being tapped for added responsibilities in the name of inclusivity efforts, he said, and called on individuals from the dominant culture to mentor or sponsor cardiologists from other racial groups and to carve out leadership pathways for women and minorities so they “can use their gifts to benefit the profession at large,” leading clinical trials or steering committees and serving in high-profile roles.

Although the events of 2020 sharpened attention on the issue of diversity in America, Dr. Thomas and colleagues say that more work needs to be done defining the problem and that professional organizations and health systems also should systematically collect sex, racial, and ethnic identifies of members using classifications similar to the 2020 U.S. Census.

The study was based on 2,245 respondents to the 2015 Professional Life Survey, which was not specifically designed to assess racial/ethnic diversity topics and had a response rate of 21%, which limited representatives of each group.

In all, 197 were from URMs (80 Blacks, 113 Hispanics, 4 Native Americans), 564 were Asians/Pacific Islanders, 1,447 were Whites, and 37 listed multiracial/other. More than half (58%) were men, and most were adult cardiologists (83% to 85%), followed by pediatric cardiology (6% to 10%) and cardiovascular surgery (1% to 2%).

“Further research is needed to understand these findings and their significance, because ongoing efforts within ACC and other organizations to increase diversity will fail unless this is successfully addressed,” the authors conclude.

To that end, Dr. Thomas said they are looking to develop a new survey that taps other groups like the Association of Black Cardiologists and members of the LGBTQ community.

“I’m really excited about the opportunity to develop a survey that specifically has the objective of trying to understand the experiences of systematically disadvantaged, historically marginalized groups to see if we can see the same information, but maybe through a clear lens, and then be able to develop strategies to mitigate some of the challenges that we see” he said. “So we can increase the numbers and also have a workforce that is reflective of the populations that we take care of and the nation as a whole.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survey results paint a stark picture of discrimination among racial minorities in the cardiology workforce but also a strong sense of belonging.

Hiraman/Getty Images

Among respondents to the 2015 American College of Cardiology (ACC) Professional Life Survey, which is the most recent survey, over half (52.3%) of underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities (URMs) and 45.5% of Asian or Pacific Islanders reported experiencing discrimination compared with 36.4% of Whites (both P < .01).

Nevertheless, 91.2% of URMs reported being satisfied with their career, as did 90% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 89.1% of Whites.

Satisfaction with financial compensation also did not differ between groups, and most cardiologists believed their opportunities for advancement were similar to those of their peers.

One possible explanation is that the respondents may simply be people who’ve had better experiences, lead author Kevin L. Thomas, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., and colleagues told this news organization. A second hypothesis looks more to sheer determination, or grit.

“Perhaps along the sometimes circuitous pathway to being a cardiologist – which is a lot of training, a lot of standardized testing, a lot of applications – that maybe you sub-select a group of individuals who are simply more resilient based on their life experiences and things that they’ve overcome to get where they are,” he said.

Interestingly, rates of burnout were lower among URMs (22.4%) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (20.1%) than Whites (30.3%; P = .02 and P < .01, respectively). The finding is unexpected but in line with a recent report of more than 4,400 U.S. physicians finding lower odds of burnout among Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and Black physicians.

The new study, published October 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, however, affirms that women of all racial and ethnic groups face significant headwinds in the White, male-dominated cardiology workforce.

Just 13.9% of White men reported experiencing discrimination, compared with 44.6% of URM men and 36.2% of Asians/Pacific Islander men. In comparison, 69.2% of White women reported discrimination, as did 62.7% of URM women and 57% of Asian/Pacific Islander women (both P <.01).

“When you look specifically at White men versus White women, there is a large discrepancy there, and it just shows us, I think, for a lot of different groups, we still have a long way to go in terms of trying to achieve equity and to try to be inclusive in the workplace,” Dr. Thomas said.

Men were more likely to experience race- and religion-based discrimination in the workplace, whereas nearly all women reported sex discrimination, with parenting an important second. Approximately 85% of cardiologists reported being satisfied with their family lives, although unpublished data suggest URMs were less likely to be married and to have fewer children, Dr. Thomas said.

During job negotiations, URM cardiologists were less likely to prioritize salary, benefits, and work hours for their first job (13.6%, 10.9% 19.3%) than White cardiologists (20.6%, 23.3%, 31.3%; P < .02 for all).

In subsequent negotiations, URMs placed more emphasis on salary, benefits, and work hours than Whites, whereas both URMs and Asians/Pacific Islanders placed a greater importance on travel benefits, diversity, mentoring, workspace, time to promotion, academic rank, and roles with community, institutional, or national recognition, which the authors say, “might indicate a greater need to overcome systemic barriers.”

Three-fourths of all cardiologist respondents had a mentor during training, which can take many shapes, Dr. Thomas noted. “Within my own section as an electrophysiologist, which is a very subspecialized category, we have four Black electrophysiologists, and I think it was because many of us mentored each other as we came along, and it inspired us.”

URMs are more likely to experience the so-called “minority tax” of being tapped for added responsibilities in the name of inclusivity efforts, he said, and called on individuals from the dominant culture to mentor or sponsor cardiologists from other racial groups and to carve out leadership pathways for women and minorities so they “can use their gifts to benefit the profession at large,” leading clinical trials or steering committees and serving in high-profile roles.

Although the events of 2020 sharpened attention on the issue of diversity in America, Dr. Thomas and colleagues say that more work needs to be done defining the problem and that professional organizations and health systems also should systematically collect sex, racial, and ethnic identifies of members using classifications similar to the 2020 U.S. Census.

The study was based on 2,245 respondents to the 2015 Professional Life Survey, which was not specifically designed to assess racial/ethnic diversity topics and had a response rate of 21%, which limited representatives of each group.

In all, 197 were from URMs (80 Blacks, 113 Hispanics, 4 Native Americans), 564 were Asians/Pacific Islanders, 1,447 were Whites, and 37 listed multiracial/other. More than half (58%) were men, and most were adult cardiologists (83% to 85%), followed by pediatric cardiology (6% to 10%) and cardiovascular surgery (1% to 2%).

“Further research is needed to understand these findings and their significance, because ongoing efforts within ACC and other organizations to increase diversity will fail unless this is successfully addressed,” the authors conclude.

To that end, Dr. Thomas said they are looking to develop a new survey that taps other groups like the Association of Black Cardiologists and members of the LGBTQ community.

“I’m really excited about the opportunity to develop a survey that specifically has the objective of trying to understand the experiences of systematically disadvantaged, historically marginalized groups to see if we can see the same information, but maybe through a clear lens, and then be able to develop strategies to mitigate some of the challenges that we see” he said. “So we can increase the numbers and also have a workforce that is reflective of the populations that we take care of and the nation as a whole.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survey results paint a stark picture of discrimination among racial minorities in the cardiology workforce but also a strong sense of belonging.

Hiraman/Getty Images

Among respondents to the 2015 American College of Cardiology (ACC) Professional Life Survey, which is the most recent survey, over half (52.3%) of underrepresented racial and ethnic minorities (URMs) and 45.5% of Asian or Pacific Islanders reported experiencing discrimination compared with 36.4% of Whites (both P < .01).

Nevertheless, 91.2% of URMs reported being satisfied with their career, as did 90% of Asians or Pacific Islanders and 89.1% of Whites.

Satisfaction with financial compensation also did not differ between groups, and most cardiologists believed their opportunities for advancement were similar to those of their peers.

One possible explanation is that the respondents may simply be people who’ve had better experiences, lead author Kevin L. Thomas, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., and colleagues told this news organization. A second hypothesis looks more to sheer determination, or grit.

“Perhaps along the sometimes circuitous pathway to being a cardiologist – which is a lot of training, a lot of standardized testing, a lot of applications – that maybe you sub-select a group of individuals who are simply more resilient based on their life experiences and things that they’ve overcome to get where they are,” he said.

Interestingly, rates of burnout were lower among URMs (22.4%) and Asians/Pacific Islanders (20.1%) than Whites (30.3%; P = .02 and P < .01, respectively). The finding is unexpected but in line with a recent report of more than 4,400 U.S. physicians finding lower odds of burnout among Asian, Hispanic/Latinx, and Black physicians.

The new study, published October 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, however, affirms that women of all racial and ethnic groups face significant headwinds in the White, male-dominated cardiology workforce.

Just 13.9% of White men reported experiencing discrimination, compared with 44.6% of URM men and 36.2% of Asians/Pacific Islander men. In comparison, 69.2% of White women reported discrimination, as did 62.7% of URM women and 57% of Asian/Pacific Islander women (both P <.01).

“When you look specifically at White men versus White women, there is a large discrepancy there, and it just shows us, I think, for a lot of different groups, we still have a long way to go in terms of trying to achieve equity and to try to be inclusive in the workplace,” Dr. Thomas said.

Men were more likely to experience race- and religion-based discrimination in the workplace, whereas nearly all women reported sex discrimination, with parenting an important second. Approximately 85% of cardiologists reported being satisfied with their family lives, although unpublished data suggest URMs were less likely to be married and to have fewer children, Dr. Thomas said.

During job negotiations, URM cardiologists were less likely to prioritize salary, benefits, and work hours for their first job (13.6%, 10.9% 19.3%) than White cardiologists (20.6%, 23.3%, 31.3%; P < .02 for all).

In subsequent negotiations, URMs placed more emphasis on salary, benefits, and work hours than Whites, whereas both URMs and Asians/Pacific Islanders placed a greater importance on travel benefits, diversity, mentoring, workspace, time to promotion, academic rank, and roles with community, institutional, or national recognition, which the authors say, “might indicate a greater need to overcome systemic barriers.”

Three-fourths of all cardiologist respondents had a mentor during training, which can take many shapes, Dr. Thomas noted. “Within my own section as an electrophysiologist, which is a very subspecialized category, we have four Black electrophysiologists, and I think it was because many of us mentored each other as we came along, and it inspired us.”

URMs are more likely to experience the so-called “minority tax” of being tapped for added responsibilities in the name of inclusivity efforts, he said, and called on individuals from the dominant culture to mentor or sponsor cardiologists from other racial groups and to carve out leadership pathways for women and minorities so they “can use their gifts to benefit the profession at large,” leading clinical trials or steering committees and serving in high-profile roles.

Although the events of 2020 sharpened attention on the issue of diversity in America, Dr. Thomas and colleagues say that more work needs to be done defining the problem and that professional organizations and health systems also should systematically collect sex, racial, and ethnic identifies of members using classifications similar to the 2020 U.S. Census.

The study was based on 2,245 respondents to the 2015 Professional Life Survey, which was not specifically designed to assess racial/ethnic diversity topics and had a response rate of 21%, which limited representatives of each group.

In all, 197 were from URMs (80 Blacks, 113 Hispanics, 4 Native Americans), 564 were Asians/Pacific Islanders, 1,447 were Whites, and 37 listed multiracial/other. More than half (58%) were men, and most were adult cardiologists (83% to 85%), followed by pediatric cardiology (6% to 10%) and cardiovascular surgery (1% to 2%).

“Further research is needed to understand these findings and their significance, because ongoing efforts within ACC and other organizations to increase diversity will fail unless this is successfully addressed,” the authors conclude.

To that end, Dr. Thomas said they are looking to develop a new survey that taps other groups like the Association of Black Cardiologists and members of the LGBTQ community.

“I’m really excited about the opportunity to develop a survey that specifically has the objective of trying to understand the experiences of systematically disadvantaged, historically marginalized groups to see if we can see the same information, but maybe through a clear lens, and then be able to develop strategies to mitigate some of the challenges that we see” he said. “So we can increase the numbers and also have a workforce that is reflective of the populations that we take care of and the nation as a whole.”

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

Lupin Pharmaceuticals is recalling all batches of irbesartan tablets USP 75 mg, 150 mg, and 300 mg and irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) tablets USP 150 mg/12.5 mg and 300 mg/12.5 mg because of the potential presence of the N-nitrosoirbesartan impurity.

“As part of Lupin’s ongoing assessment, analysis revealed that certain tested active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) batches (but not finished product batches) were above the specification limit for the impurity, N-nitrosoirbesartan,” the company said in a news release posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website. It notes that the impurity is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Lupin discontinued the marketing of irbesartan and irbesartan/HCTZ tablets on Jan. 7, 2021. It says it “has received no reports of illness that appear to relate to this issue” and is issuing the recall out of “an abundance of caution.”

The company, however, goes on to note that from Oct. 8, 2018 (the earliest date of shipment from the manufacturing site of any of the affected batches) to September 30 of this year, Lupin received four reports of illness from irbesartan and 0 reports from irbesartan/HCTZ.

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker indicated for treatment of hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes, elevated serum creatinine, and proteinuria.

Irbesartan/HCTZ tablets include irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, a thiazide diuretic, indicated for hypertension in patients not adequately controlled with monotherapy or as an initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve blood pressure goals.

Lupin is notifying wholesalers, distributors, and retail outlets to immediately discontinue sales of the affected product lots and return them to the company. Specific lot numbers can be found here.

The company is advising patients to continue taking their medication and to contact their pharmacist, physician, or health care professional for advice regarding an alternative treatment.

Patients and physicians are also advised to report any adverse events or side effects related to the affected products to MedWatch, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program.

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

New risk equations can help determine the need for a first coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan in young adults to identify those most at risk for premature atherosclerosis, researchers say.

“To our knowledge this is the first time to derive a clinical risk equation for the initial conversion from CAC 0, which can be used actually to guide the timing of CAC testing in young adults,” Omar Dzaye, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview.

CAC is an independent predictor of adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but routine screening is not recommended in low-risk groups. U.S. guidelines say CAC testing may be considered (class IIa) for risk stratification in adults 40 to 75 years at intermediate risk (estimated 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5% to 20%) when the decision to start preventive therapies is unclear.

The new sex-specific risk equations were derived from 22,346 adults 30 to 50 years of age who underwent CAC testing between 1991 and 2010 for ASCVD risk prediction at four high-volume centers in the CAC Consortium. The average age was 43.5 years, 25% were women, and 12.3% were non-White.

The participants were free of clinical ASCVD or CV symptoms at the time of scanning but had underlying traditional ASCVD risk factors (dyslipidemia in 49.6%, hypertension in 20.0%, active smokers 11.0%, and diabetes in 4.0%), an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk (2.6%), and/or a significant family history of CHD (49.3%).

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 92.7% of participants had a low 10-year ASCVD risk below 5%, but 34.4% had CAC scores above 0 (median, 20 Agatston units).

Assuming a 25% testing yield (number needed to scan equals four to detect one CAC score above 0), the optimal age for a first scan in young men without risk factors was 42.3 years, and for women it was 57.6 years.

Young adults with one or more risk factors, however, would convert to CAC above 0 at least 3.3 years earlier on average. Diabetes had the strongest influence on the probability of conversion, with men and women predicted to develop incident CAC a respective 5.5 years and 7.3 years earlier on average.

The findings build on previous observations by the team showing that diabetes confers a 40% reduction in the so-called “warranty period” of a CAC score of 0, Dr. Dzaye noted. The National Lipid Association 2020 statement on CAC scoring also suggests it’s reasonable to obtain a CAC scan in people with diabetes aged 30 to 39 years.

“The predicted utility of CAC for ASCVD outcomes is similar in type 1 and type 2 diabetes; however, individuals with type 1 diabetes may actually develop CAC as young as 17 years of age,” he said. “Therefore, definitely, CAC studies in this population are required.”

In contrast, hypertension, dyslipidemia, active smoking, and a family history of CHD were individually associated with the development of CAC 3.3 to 4.3 years earlier. In general, the time to premature CAC was longer for women than for men with a given risk-factor profile.

The predicted age for a first CAC was 37.5 years for men and 48.9 years for women with an intermediate risk-factor profile (for example, smoking plus hypertension) and 33.8 years and 44.7 years, respectively, for those with a high-risk profile (for example, diabetes plus dyslipidemia).

Asked whether the risk equations can be used to guide CAC scanning in clinical practice, Dr. Dzaye said, “we very much believe that this can be used because for the process we published the internal validation, and we also did an external validation that is not published at the moment in [the] MESA [trial].”

He pointed out that study participants did not have a second CAC scan for true modeling of longitudinal CAC and do not represent the general population but, rather, a general cardiology referral population enriched with ASCVD risk factors. Future studies are needed that incorporate a more diverse population, multiple CAC scans, and genetic risk factors.

“This is helpful from a descriptive, epidemiologic point of view and helps us understand the approximate prevalence of coronary calcium greater than 0 in younger men and women, but I’m not convinced that it will or should change clinical practice,” cardiologist Philip Greenland, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Greenland, who coauthored a review on CAC testing earlier this month, said CAC is the strongest tool we have to improve risk prediction beyond standard risk scores but does involve radiation exposure and some added costs. CAC testing is especially useful as a tiebreaker in older intermediate-risk patients who may be on the fence about starting primary prevention medications but could fall short among “younger, low-risk patients where, as they show here, the proportion of people who have a positive test is well below half.”

“So that means you’re going to have a very large number of people who are CAC 0, which is what we would expect in relatively younger people, but I wouldn’t be happy to try to explain that to a patient: ‘We’re not seeing coronary atherosclerosis right now, but we still want to treat your risk factors.’ That’s kind of a dissonant message,” Dr. Greenland said.

An accompanying editorial suggests “the study has filled an important clinical gap, providing highly actionable data that could help guide clinical decision making for ASCVD prevention.”

Nevertheless, Tasneem Naqvi, MD, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Tamar Polonsky, MD, University of Chicago, question the generalizability of the results and point out that CAC screening at the authors’ recommended ages “could still miss a substantial number of young women with incident MI.”

Exposure to ionizing radiation with CAC is lower than that used in screening mammography for breast cancer but, they agree, should be considered, particularly in young women.

“Alternatively, ultrasonography avoids radiation altogether and can detect plaque earlier than the development of CAC,” write Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Polonsky. Further, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for CV risk give ultrasound assessment of carotid artery and femoral plaque a class IIa recommendation and CAC a class IIb recommendation.

Commenting for this news organization, Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, said the class IIb recommendation “never really made any sense because the data with coronary calcium is so much stronger than it is with carotid ultrasound.”

“Sometimes smart scientists and researchers differ, but in my strong opinion, the European Society of Cardiology in 2019 did not give it the right classification, while the group I was part of, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology [2019 guideline], got it right and emphasized that this is the most cost-effective and useful way to improve risk assessment.”

Dr. Blumenthal, who was not part of the study, noted that U.S. guidelines say CAC measurement is not intended as a screening test for everyone but may be used selectively as a decision aid.

“This study adds to the information about how to use that type of testing. So, I personally think it will be a highly referenced article in the next set of guidelines that the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other organizations have.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dzaye, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Naqvi, and Dr. Polonsky report having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New risk equations can help determine the need for a first coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan in young adults to identify those most at risk for premature atherosclerosis, researchers say.

“To our knowledge this is the first time to derive a clinical risk equation for the initial conversion from CAC 0, which can be used actually to guide the timing of CAC testing in young adults,” Omar Dzaye, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview.

CAC is an independent predictor of adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but routine screening is not recommended in low-risk groups. U.S. guidelines say CAC testing may be considered (class IIa) for risk stratification in adults 40 to 75 years at intermediate risk (estimated 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5% to 20%) when the decision to start preventive therapies is unclear.

The new sex-specific risk equations were derived from 22,346 adults 30 to 50 years of age who underwent CAC testing between 1991 and 2010 for ASCVD risk prediction at four high-volume centers in the CAC Consortium. The average age was 43.5 years, 25% were women, and 12.3% were non-White.

The participants were free of clinical ASCVD or CV symptoms at the time of scanning but had underlying traditional ASCVD risk factors (dyslipidemia in 49.6%, hypertension in 20.0%, active smokers 11.0%, and diabetes in 4.0%), an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk (2.6%), and/or a significant family history of CHD (49.3%).

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 92.7% of participants had a low 10-year ASCVD risk below 5%, but 34.4% had CAC scores above 0 (median, 20 Agatston units).

Assuming a 25% testing yield (number needed to scan equals four to detect one CAC score above 0), the optimal age for a first scan in young men without risk factors was 42.3 years, and for women it was 57.6 years.

Young adults with one or more risk factors, however, would convert to CAC above 0 at least 3.3 years earlier on average. Diabetes had the strongest influence on the probability of conversion, with men and women predicted to develop incident CAC a respective 5.5 years and 7.3 years earlier on average.

The findings build on previous observations by the team showing that diabetes confers a 40% reduction in the so-called “warranty period” of a CAC score of 0, Dr. Dzaye noted. The National Lipid Association 2020 statement on CAC scoring also suggests it’s reasonable to obtain a CAC scan in people with diabetes aged 30 to 39 years.

“The predicted utility of CAC for ASCVD outcomes is similar in type 1 and type 2 diabetes; however, individuals with type 1 diabetes may actually develop CAC as young as 17 years of age,” he said. “Therefore, definitely, CAC studies in this population are required.”

In contrast, hypertension, dyslipidemia, active smoking, and a family history of CHD were individually associated with the development of CAC 3.3 to 4.3 years earlier. In general, the time to premature CAC was longer for women than for men with a given risk-factor profile.

The predicted age for a first CAC was 37.5 years for men and 48.9 years for women with an intermediate risk-factor profile (for example, smoking plus hypertension) and 33.8 years and 44.7 years, respectively, for those with a high-risk profile (for example, diabetes plus dyslipidemia).

Asked whether the risk equations can be used to guide CAC scanning in clinical practice, Dr. Dzaye said, “we very much believe that this can be used because for the process we published the internal validation, and we also did an external validation that is not published at the moment in [the] MESA [trial].”

He pointed out that study participants did not have a second CAC scan for true modeling of longitudinal CAC and do not represent the general population but, rather, a general cardiology referral population enriched with ASCVD risk factors. Future studies are needed that incorporate a more diverse population, multiple CAC scans, and genetic risk factors.

“This is helpful from a descriptive, epidemiologic point of view and helps us understand the approximate prevalence of coronary calcium greater than 0 in younger men and women, but I’m not convinced that it will or should change clinical practice,” cardiologist Philip Greenland, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Greenland, who coauthored a review on CAC testing earlier this month, said CAC is the strongest tool we have to improve risk prediction beyond standard risk scores but does involve radiation exposure and some added costs. CAC testing is especially useful as a tiebreaker in older intermediate-risk patients who may be on the fence about starting primary prevention medications but could fall short among “younger, low-risk patients where, as they show here, the proportion of people who have a positive test is well below half.”

“So that means you’re going to have a very large number of people who are CAC 0, which is what we would expect in relatively younger people, but I wouldn’t be happy to try to explain that to a patient: ‘We’re not seeing coronary atherosclerosis right now, but we still want to treat your risk factors.’ That’s kind of a dissonant message,” Dr. Greenland said.

An accompanying editorial suggests “the study has filled an important clinical gap, providing highly actionable data that could help guide clinical decision making for ASCVD prevention.”

Nevertheless, Tasneem Naqvi, MD, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Tamar Polonsky, MD, University of Chicago, question the generalizability of the results and point out that CAC screening at the authors’ recommended ages “could still miss a substantial number of young women with incident MI.”

Exposure to ionizing radiation with CAC is lower than that used in screening mammography for breast cancer but, they agree, should be considered, particularly in young women.

“Alternatively, ultrasonography avoids radiation altogether and can detect plaque earlier than the development of CAC,” write Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Polonsky. Further, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for CV risk give ultrasound assessment of carotid artery and femoral plaque a class IIa recommendation and CAC a class IIb recommendation.

Commenting for this news organization, Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, said the class IIb recommendation “never really made any sense because the data with coronary calcium is so much stronger than it is with carotid ultrasound.”

“Sometimes smart scientists and researchers differ, but in my strong opinion, the European Society of Cardiology in 2019 did not give it the right classification, while the group I was part of, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology [2019 guideline], got it right and emphasized that this is the most cost-effective and useful way to improve risk assessment.”

Dr. Blumenthal, who was not part of the study, noted that U.S. guidelines say CAC measurement is not intended as a screening test for everyone but may be used selectively as a decision aid.

“This study adds to the information about how to use that type of testing. So, I personally think it will be a highly referenced article in the next set of guidelines that the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other organizations have.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dzaye, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Naqvi, and Dr. Polonsky report having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New risk equations can help determine the need for a first coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan in young adults to identify those most at risk for premature atherosclerosis, researchers say.

“To our knowledge this is the first time to derive a clinical risk equation for the initial conversion from CAC 0, which can be used actually to guide the timing of CAC testing in young adults,” Omar Dzaye, MD, MPH, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, said in an interview.

CAC is an independent predictor of adverse atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but routine screening is not recommended in low-risk groups. U.S. guidelines say CAC testing may be considered (class IIa) for risk stratification in adults 40 to 75 years at intermediate risk (estimated 10-year ASCVD risk 7.5% to 20%) when the decision to start preventive therapies is unclear.

The new sex-specific risk equations were derived from 22,346 adults 30 to 50 years of age who underwent CAC testing between 1991 and 2010 for ASCVD risk prediction at four high-volume centers in the CAC Consortium. The average age was 43.5 years, 25% were women, and 12.3% were non-White.

The participants were free of clinical ASCVD or CV symptoms at the time of scanning but had underlying traditional ASCVD risk factors (dyslipidemia in 49.6%, hypertension in 20.0%, active smokers 11.0%, and diabetes in 4.0%), an intermediate 10-year ASCVD risk (2.6%), and/or a significant family history of CHD (49.3%).

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 92.7% of participants had a low 10-year ASCVD risk below 5%, but 34.4% had CAC scores above 0 (median, 20 Agatston units).

Assuming a 25% testing yield (number needed to scan equals four to detect one CAC score above 0), the optimal age for a first scan in young men without risk factors was 42.3 years, and for women it was 57.6 years.

Young adults with one or more risk factors, however, would convert to CAC above 0 at least 3.3 years earlier on average. Diabetes had the strongest influence on the probability of conversion, with men and women predicted to develop incident CAC a respective 5.5 years and 7.3 years earlier on average.

The findings build on previous observations by the team showing that diabetes confers a 40% reduction in the so-called “warranty period” of a CAC score of 0, Dr. Dzaye noted. The National Lipid Association 2020 statement on CAC scoring also suggests it’s reasonable to obtain a CAC scan in people with diabetes aged 30 to 39 years.

“The predicted utility of CAC for ASCVD outcomes is similar in type 1 and type 2 diabetes; however, individuals with type 1 diabetes may actually develop CAC as young as 17 years of age,” he said. “Therefore, definitely, CAC studies in this population are required.”

In contrast, hypertension, dyslipidemia, active smoking, and a family history of CHD were individually associated with the development of CAC 3.3 to 4.3 years earlier. In general, the time to premature CAC was longer for women than for men with a given risk-factor profile.

The predicted age for a first CAC was 37.5 years for men and 48.9 years for women with an intermediate risk-factor profile (for example, smoking plus hypertension) and 33.8 years and 44.7 years, respectively, for those with a high-risk profile (for example, diabetes plus dyslipidemia).

Asked whether the risk equations can be used to guide CAC scanning in clinical practice, Dr. Dzaye said, “we very much believe that this can be used because for the process we published the internal validation, and we also did an external validation that is not published at the moment in [the] MESA [trial].”

He pointed out that study participants did not have a second CAC scan for true modeling of longitudinal CAC and do not represent the general population but, rather, a general cardiology referral population enriched with ASCVD risk factors. Future studies are needed that incorporate a more diverse population, multiple CAC scans, and genetic risk factors.

“This is helpful from a descriptive, epidemiologic point of view and helps us understand the approximate prevalence of coronary calcium greater than 0 in younger men and women, but I’m not convinced that it will or should change clinical practice,” cardiologist Philip Greenland, MD, a professor of preventive medicine and professor of medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago, said in an interview.

Dr. Greenland, who coauthored a review on CAC testing earlier this month, said CAC is the strongest tool we have to improve risk prediction beyond standard risk scores but does involve radiation exposure and some added costs. CAC testing is especially useful as a tiebreaker in older intermediate-risk patients who may be on the fence about starting primary prevention medications but could fall short among “younger, low-risk patients where, as they show here, the proportion of people who have a positive test is well below half.”

“So that means you’re going to have a very large number of people who are CAC 0, which is what we would expect in relatively younger people, but I wouldn’t be happy to try to explain that to a patient: ‘We’re not seeing coronary atherosclerosis right now, but we still want to treat your risk factors.’ That’s kind of a dissonant message,” Dr. Greenland said.

An accompanying editorial suggests “the study has filled an important clinical gap, providing highly actionable data that could help guide clinical decision making for ASCVD prevention.”

Nevertheless, Tasneem Naqvi, MD, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, and Tamar Polonsky, MD, University of Chicago, question the generalizability of the results and point out that CAC screening at the authors’ recommended ages “could still miss a substantial number of young women with incident MI.”

Exposure to ionizing radiation with CAC is lower than that used in screening mammography for breast cancer but, they agree, should be considered, particularly in young women.

“Alternatively, ultrasonography avoids radiation altogether and can detect plaque earlier than the development of CAC,” write Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Polonsky. Further, the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for CV risk give ultrasound assessment of carotid artery and femoral plaque a class IIa recommendation and CAC a class IIb recommendation.

Commenting for this news organization, Roger Blumenthal, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, said the class IIb recommendation “never really made any sense because the data with coronary calcium is so much stronger than it is with carotid ultrasound.”

“Sometimes smart scientists and researchers differ, but in my strong opinion, the European Society of Cardiology in 2019 did not give it the right classification, while the group I was part of, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology [2019 guideline], got it right and emphasized that this is the most cost-effective and useful way to improve risk assessment.”

Dr. Blumenthal, who was not part of the study, noted that U.S. guidelines say CAC measurement is not intended as a screening test for everyone but may be used selectively as a decision aid.

“This study adds to the information about how to use that type of testing. So, I personally think it will be a highly referenced article in the next set of guidelines that the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and other organizations have.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Dzaye, Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Naqvi, and Dr. Polonsky report having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The rapid transition to and reliance on telehealth to manage patients with heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic does not appear to impact clinical outcomes, according to real-world data.

HF outpatients managed with telehealth visits did not show a significantly higher adjusted risk for subsequent ED visits, hospital admissions, intensive care use, or death at 30 and 90 days, the investigators reported in JACC: Heart Failure.

“Telehealth is safe and effective in probably some of our highest-risk patients who traditionally have needed hands-on, in-person assessment and evaluation – those patients who have heart failure – so we shouldn’t be afraid to use it all the time, not when needed as a minimum,” senior author Brett W. Sperry, MD, said in an interview.

Heart failure is a perfect case example to examine telehealth because the chronic condition not only requires continual assessment and medication adjustments, but HF patients are also particularly vulnerable to complications related to COVID-19 infection, he noted. A small, single-center report on telehealth early in Italy’s outbreak showed fewer HF hospitalizations and similar mortality, compared with in-person visits in 2019 but, overall, few data exist.

The current analysis took a wider sweep, comparing HF patients seen from March 15 to June 15, 2020 with those seen during the same time period in 2018 and 2019 at 16 cardiology clinics in Saint Luke’s Health System, which serves the Kansas City metro area and surrounding suburbs in Missouri and Kansas.

Among 8,263 unique patients and 15,421 visits identified, telehealth was not used in 2018 or 2019 but accounted for 88.5% of visits during the study period in 2020, 70% of which were by telephone and 30% of which were by video.

“We had zero telehealth before March 2020 and basically built an entire telehealth apparatus in a week or 2,” explained Dr. Sperry. “Initially it was a lot of telephone visits while we were getting the video stuff figured out, which is reflected in the paper, and then went to mostly video visits.”

Despite the pandemic, however, more outpatients were seen in 2020 than in 2018 and 2019 (4,063 vs. 3675 and 3,619 patients, respectively). This likely reflects the shift of personnel and resources from hospital duties to outpatient virtual visits, which were strongly recommended by the Heart Failure Society of America and other professional societies to manage patients during the pandemic, he said.

Unadjusted analyses demonstrated fewer ED visits and hospital admissions and more ICU admissions and all-cause mortality in 2020 than in previous years.

A propensity-matched analysis involving 4541 pairs of patients, however, showed admissions to the ED or hospital were lower after the telehealth visits than after in-person visits at 30 days (6.8% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and 90 days (17.9% vs. 23.3%; P < .001).

Among hospitalized patients, there was no difference between telehealth and in-patient visits in ICU admissions at 30 or 90 days. Mortality was also similar at 30 days (0.8% vs. 0.7%; P = .465) and 90 days (2.9% vs. 2.4%; P = .133).

Dr. Sperry said the pendulum has swung since 2020 and that the team is back to seeing most people in person, with about 15% of his clinic visits that day done via video. Standardized quality of life assessments prior to outpatient visits can help triage patients to telehealth in-patient visits, but in-person visits will still be needed for cases with greater acuity, older patients, and those with limited or no access to quality telephone videos or the internet.

“It isn’t for everyone,” Dr. Sperry said. “You’re going to need some kind of hybrid model with both in-person and video visits available and be able to offer both for patients and be able to titrate that as the pandemic changes in the future.”

Ankit Bhatia, MD, an advanced HF cardiologist at Christ Hospital in Cincinnati, who was not part of the study, said in an interview the use of telehealth in 85% of patients may be higher than the norm at most centers but that the study provides much-needed data.

“I’m really appreciative of a study like this because we were all in such a rush last year to get patients seen that very few people thought how could we design a study to really ensure we’re treating our patients within an equipoise with prior practices,” he said.

“The fact that they were able to do that [85%] and demonstrate in a propensity-matched analysis that outcomes were similar really just shows that telehealth is a strategy that we can use well in patients with heart failure to extend our ability to take care of them,” said Dr. Bhatia, a member of the American College of Cardiology Health Care Innovation Council.

Even beyond the pandemic, he said, the trend in health care is for patients to want health care delivered closer to home and for health care systems to become more patient centric. “This accelerated that but what I think this study showed me was that it’s okay to have this be part of my care model and I’m not sacrificing on my patient care if I choose to intersperse telehealth with inpatient visits.”

Besides the inherent limitations of retrospective studies, the authors noted that diagnoses in the study were based on ICD-10 codes and that subsequent ED visits or hospitalizations outside the single system may have been underreported. A further limitation is that they could not identify the cause of death or reasons for hospital encounters.

“Further data are needed to confirm the relative safety of a telehealth strategy in the HF population over a more sustained period of time, although we hypothesize that greater risks would be observed early after telehealth visits, where patients’ acuity might be misjudged,” they wrote.

Dr. Sperry is a consultant to Pfizer and Alnylam. Coauthor John A. Spertus is the principal investigator of grants from National Institutes of Health, Abbott Vascular, and the American College of Cardiology Foundation; is a consultant to Janssen, Novartis, Amgen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Merck; serves on the scientific advisory board of United Healthcare and the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; owns the copyright to the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Seattle Angina Questionnaire, and Peripheral Artery Questionnaire; and has an equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors and Dr. Bhatia reported no relevant conflicts.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is informing health care providers of potential differences in procedural outcomes between men and women undergoing transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

The agency said it is evaluating a real-world study, published in JAMA Cardiology, of 49,357 patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry that suggested women might be at greater risk than men for procedural outcomes, including major adverse events after device implant.

“The FDA recognizes the limitations of these data, including that the study was not randomized, only included one LAAO device (the first-generation Watchman device), and did not include longer-term outcomes beyond in-hospital events. However, the analysis provides results from a large registry of patients treated with LAAO implants in the U.S.,” the agency said in its letter to health care providers Sept. 27.

As reported last month, the study by Darden et al showed a significantly higher rate of adverse procedural events in women than in men, including any adverse events (6.3% vs. 3.9%; P < .001), any major adverse events (4.1% vs. 2.0%; P < .001), and hospital stay longer than 1 day (16.0% vs. 11.6%; P < .001). Procedure-associated death was 0.3% in women and 0.1% in men.

The agency noted that the number of patients in the LAAO Registry analysis was much larger than the number of patients in the premarket studies of the Watchman device that supported its approval and in the premarket studies for the other approved LAAO devices.

LAAO devices are indicated to reduce the risk for thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are not good candidates for long-term anticoagulation. LAAO devices currently marketed in the United States are Boston Scientific’s Watchman and Watchman FLX devices and Abbott Medical’s Amplatzer Amulet device.

“Currently, the FDA believes the benefits continue to outweigh the risks for approved LAAO devices when used in accordance with their instructions for use,” the letter states.

The FDA will work with device manufacturers to evaluate the potential issue, including a review of available premarket and postapproval study data and other available real-world, postmarket datasets, the letter notes.

The agency will also work with device manufacturers, investigators, and the LAAO Registry to try to identify the causes of procedural outcome differences between women and men.

In the letter, the FDA recommends health care providers continue monitoring patients who have been treated with LAAO devices in accordance with the current standard of care. They should also discuss the risks and benefits of all available options for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation as part of shared clinical decision-making.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events experienced by patients with LAAO devices should also be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is informing health care providers of potential differences in procedural outcomes between men and women undergoing transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

The agency said it is evaluating a real-world study, published in JAMA Cardiology, of 49,357 patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry that suggested women might be at greater risk than men for procedural outcomes, including major adverse events after device implant.

“The FDA recognizes the limitations of these data, including that the study was not randomized, only included one LAAO device (the first-generation Watchman device), and did not include longer-term outcomes beyond in-hospital events. However, the analysis provides results from a large registry of patients treated with LAAO implants in the U.S.,” the agency said in its letter to health care providers Sept. 27.

As reported last month, the study by Darden et al showed a significantly higher rate of adverse procedural events in women than in men, including any adverse events (6.3% vs. 3.9%; P < .001), any major adverse events (4.1% vs. 2.0%; P < .001), and hospital stay longer than 1 day (16.0% vs. 11.6%; P < .001). Procedure-associated death was 0.3% in women and 0.1% in men.

The agency noted that the number of patients in the LAAO Registry analysis was much larger than the number of patients in the premarket studies of the Watchman device that supported its approval and in the premarket studies for the other approved LAAO devices.

LAAO devices are indicated to reduce the risk for thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are not good candidates for long-term anticoagulation. LAAO devices currently marketed in the United States are Boston Scientific’s Watchman and Watchman FLX devices and Abbott Medical’s Amplatzer Amulet device.

“Currently, the FDA believes the benefits continue to outweigh the risks for approved LAAO devices when used in accordance with their instructions for use,” the letter states.

The FDA will work with device manufacturers to evaluate the potential issue, including a review of available premarket and postapproval study data and other available real-world, postmarket datasets, the letter notes.

The agency will also work with device manufacturers, investigators, and the LAAO Registry to try to identify the causes of procedural outcome differences between women and men.

In the letter, the FDA recommends health care providers continue monitoring patients who have been treated with LAAO devices in accordance with the current standard of care. They should also discuss the risks and benefits of all available options for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation as part of shared clinical decision-making.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events experienced by patients with LAAO devices should also be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is informing health care providers of potential differences in procedural outcomes between men and women undergoing transcatheter left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO).

The agency said it is evaluating a real-world study, published in JAMA Cardiology, of 49,357 patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry that suggested women might be at greater risk than men for procedural outcomes, including major adverse events after device implant.

“The FDA recognizes the limitations of these data, including that the study was not randomized, only included one LAAO device (the first-generation Watchman device), and did not include longer-term outcomes beyond in-hospital events. However, the analysis provides results from a large registry of patients treated with LAAO implants in the U.S.,” the agency said in its letter to health care providers Sept. 27.

As reported last month, the study by Darden et al showed a significantly higher rate of adverse procedural events in women than in men, including any adverse events (6.3% vs. 3.9%; P < .001), any major adverse events (4.1% vs. 2.0%; P < .001), and hospital stay longer than 1 day (16.0% vs. 11.6%; P < .001). Procedure-associated death was 0.3% in women and 0.1% in men.

The agency noted that the number of patients in the LAAO Registry analysis was much larger than the number of patients in the premarket studies of the Watchman device that supported its approval and in the premarket studies for the other approved LAAO devices.

LAAO devices are indicated to reduce the risk for thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are not good candidates for long-term anticoagulation. LAAO devices currently marketed in the United States are Boston Scientific’s Watchman and Watchman FLX devices and Abbott Medical’s Amplatzer Amulet device.

“Currently, the FDA believes the benefits continue to outweigh the risks for approved LAAO devices when used in accordance with their instructions for use,” the letter states.

The FDA will work with device manufacturers to evaluate the potential issue, including a review of available premarket and postapproval study data and other available real-world, postmarket datasets, the letter notes.

The agency will also work with device manufacturers, investigators, and the LAAO Registry to try to identify the causes of procedural outcome differences between women and men.

In the letter, the FDA recommends health care providers continue monitoring patients who have been treated with LAAO devices in accordance with the current standard of care. They should also discuss the risks and benefits of all available options for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation as part of shared clinical decision-making.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events experienced by patients with LAAO devices should also be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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

A large multicenter study provides further evidence supporting the rationale for multidisciplinary teams for cardiogenic shock, one of the most lethal diseases in cardiovascular medicine.

The analysis of 24 critical care ICUs in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network showed that the presence of a shock team was independently associated with a 28% lower risk for CICU mortality (23% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 0.72; P = .016).

Patients treated by a shock team also had significantly shorter CICU stays and less need for mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, as reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“It’s observational, but the association that we’re seeing here, just because of our sample size, is the strongest that’s been published yet,” lead author Alexander Papolos, MD, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, said in an interview.

Although a causal relationship cannot be drawn, the authors suggest several factors that could explain the findings, including a shock team’s ability to rapidly diagnose and treat cardiogenic shock before multiorgan dysfunction occurs.

Centers with shock teams also used significantly more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs. 49%; adjusted OR, 1.86; P < .001) and placed them earlier (0.3 vs. 0.66 days; P = .019).

Pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) use has declined after earlier trials like ESCAPE showed little or no benefit in other acutely ill patient groups, but positive results have been reported recently in cardiogenic shock, where a PAC is needed to determine the severity of the lesion and the phenotype, Dr. Papolos observed.

A 2018 study showed PAC use was tied to increased survival among patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) supported with the Impella (Abiomed) device. Additionally, a 2021 study by the Cardiogenic Shock Working Group demonstrated a dose-dependent survival response based on the completeness of hemodynamic assessment by PAC prior to initiating mechanical circulatory support (MCS).

A third factor might be that a structured, team-based evaluation can facilitate timely and optimal MCS device selection, deployment, and management, suggested Dr. Papolos.

Centers with shock teams used more advanced types of MCS – defined as Impella, TandemHeart (LivaNova), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and temporary or durable surgical ventricular assist devices – than those without a shock team (53% vs. 43%; adjusted OR, 1.73; P = .005) and did so more often as the initial device (42% vs. 28%; P = .002).

Overall MCS use was lower at shock team centers (35% vs. 43%), driven by less frequent use of intra-aortic balloon pumps (58% vs. 72%).

“The standard, basic MCS has always been the balloon pump because it’s something that’s easy to put in at the cath lab or at the bedside,” Dr. Papolos said. “So, if you take away having all of the information and having the right people at the table to discuss what the best level of support is, then you’re going to end up with balloon pumps, and that’s what we saw here.”

The study involved 6,872 consecutive medical admissions at 24 level 1 CICU centers during an annual 2-month period from 2017 to 2019. Of these, 1,242 admissions were for cardiogenic shock and 546 (44%) were treated at one of 10 centers with a shock team.

Shock team centers had higher-acuity patients than centers without a shock team (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4 vs. 3) but a similar proportion of patients with AMI-CS (27% vs. 28%).

Among all admissions, CICU mortality was not significantly different between centers with and without a shock team.

For cardiogenic shock patients treated at centers with and without a shock team, the median CICU stay was 4.0 and 5.1 days, respectively, mechanical ventilation was used in 41% and 52%, respectively, and new renal replacement therapy in 11% and 19%, respectively (P < .001 for all).

Shock team centers used significantly more PACs for AMI-CS and non–AMI-CS admissions; advanced MCS therapy was also greater in the AMI-CS subgroup.

Lower CICU mortality at shock team centers persisted among patients with non-AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.67; P = .017) and AMI-CS (adjusted OR, 0.79; P = .344).

“This analysis supports that all AHA level 1 cardiac ICUs should strongly consider having a shock team,” Dr. Papolos said.

Evidence from single centers and the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative has shown improved survival with a cardiogenic shock algorithm, but this is the first report specifically comparing no shock teams with shock teams, Perwaiz Meraj, MD, Northwell Health, Manhansett, N.Y., told this news organization.

“People may say that it’s just another paper that’s saying, ‘shock teams, shock teams, rah, rah, rah,’ but it’s important for all of us to really take a close look under the covers and see how are we best managing these patients, what teams are we putting together, and to create systems of care, where if you’re at a center that really doesn’t have the capabilities of doing this, then you should partner up with a center that does,” he said.

Notably, the 10 shock teams were present only in medium or large urban, academic medical centers with more than 500 beds. Although they followed individual protocols, survey results show service-line representation, structure, and operations were similar across centers.

They all had a centralized way to activate the shock team, the service was 24/7, and members came from areas such as critical care cardiology (100%), cardiac surgery (100%), interventional cardiology (90%), advanced heart failure (80%), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service (70%).

Limitations of the study include the possibility of residual confounding, the fact that the registry did not capture patients with cardiogenic shock managed outside the CICU or the time of onset of cardiogenic shock, and data were limited on inotropic strategies, sedation practices, and ventilator management, the authors wrote.

“Although many critics will continue to discuss the lack of randomized controlled trials in cardiogenic shock, this paper supports the process previously outlined of a multidisciplinary team-based approach improving survival,” Dr. Meraj and William W. O’Neill, MD, director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease and Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and the force behind the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

They point out that the report doesn’t address the escalation of care based on invasive hemodynamics in the CICU and the protocols to prevent acute vascular/limb complications (ALI) that can arise from the use of MCS.

“Many procedural techniques and novel CICU models exist to mitigate the risk of ALI in CS patients with MCS,” they wrote. “Finally, escalation of care and support is vital to the continued success of any shock team and center.”

One coauthor has served as a consultant to Abbott. Another has served as a consultant to the Abiomed critical care advisory board. All other authors reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Meraj has received research and grant funding from Abiomed, Medtronic, CSI, and Boston Scientific. Dr. O’Neill has received consulting/speaker honoraria from Abiomed, Boston Scientific, and Abbott.

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