MDedge Cardiology

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – In patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and a usable saphenous vein segment, a surgical procedure leads to better outcomes than an endovascular approach, according results of the multinational randomized BEST-CLI trial.

In that study, conducted with two cohorts, the advantage of surgery was limited to the group with an available saphenous vein, but in this group the advantage over an endovascular approach was substantial, according to Alik Farber, MD, chief of vascular and endovascular surgery at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

“Bypass with adequate saphenous vein should be offered as a first-line treatment option for suitable candidates with CLTI as part of fully informed, shared decision-making,” Dr. Farber stated in presenting the results at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The study pursued two hypotheses, which is why CLTI patients were divided into two cohorts. For cohort 1, which was limited to CLTI patients with an available saphenous vein, it was predicted that surgery would be better than an endovascular approach. For cohort 2, which enrolled patients who needed an alternative conduit, the hypothesis was that endovascular procedures would prove superior.

The study confirmed the first hypothesis, but there was no difference between the two approaches for the composite primary outcome of major adverse limb events (MALE) in the second cohort.
 

Saphenous vein availability determined cohort

Candidates for the BEST-CLI (Best Endovascular versus Best Surgical Therapy in Patients with CLTI) trial had to have CLTI producing severe ischemia and to be judged by both surgeons and cardiovascular specialists to be candidates for both types of interventions. Eligible patients were then enrolled in cohort 1 if the saphenous vein was considered the best conduit on imaging. If not, they were enrolled in cohort 2.

Patients were randomized to undergo surgical or endovascular repair only after the cohort was assigned. The primary composite MALE endpoint consisted of an adjudicated first major reintervention, such as new bypass or thrombectomy, an above-the-ankle amputation, or death from any cause.

In cohort 1, the primary composite MALE endpoint was reached in 42.6% of those in surgical arm and 57.4% in the endovascular arm, translating into a 32% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio, 0.68; P < .001) in favor of surgery at the end of a median of 2.7 years of follow-up.

The main advantage was the difference in reinterventions. The lower rate in the surgical group (9.2% vs. 23.5%), translated into a 65% relative risk reduction for this endpoint (HR, 035; P < .001).

The reduction in above-ankle amputations in the surgical group (10.4% vs. 14.9%) was also significant (HR, 0.73; P = .04), but the reduction in all-cause mortality (33.0% vs. 37.6%) was not (HR, 0.98; P = .81).

BEST-CLI involved 150 sites in North America, Europe, and New Zealand. Cohort 1, which randomized 1,434 patients, was the larger of the two. In the second cohort, only 396 patients were randomized, which Dr. Farber said “might have been underpowered.”

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with presentation of the results at the meeting.

After a median follow-up of 1.6 years in cohort 2, the slightly lower proportion of patients who reached the composite MALE endpoint in the surgical group relative to the endovascular group (42.8% vs. 47.7%) did not translate into a significant advantage (HR, 0.79; P = .12).

For the individual components, the lower rate of reinterventions in the surgical arm (14.4% vs. 25.6%) did reach statistical significance (HR, 0.47; P = .002), but both amputation (14.9% vs. 14.1%) and all-cause death (26.3% vs. 24.1%) were numerically but not significantly higher in the surgical group.

The primary safety endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). This was not significantly different in either cohort. There were also no major differences between groups in the risk of perioperative complications.

Level 1 evidence provided for intervention choice

Overall, BEST-CLI showed that both surgical and endovascular revascularizations are effective and safe, according to Dr. Farber. As a result, he suggested that both can be considered even if a saphenous vein is available when specific patient characteristics make one more attractive than another.

Yet, in a general population with an available saphenous vein, these data provide “level 1 evidence” that a surgical approach should be the dominant choice, he added.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

A quality of life (QOL) substudy of BEST-CLI did not challenge this conclusion. Rather, the main finding was that restoring circulation by either approach has a major favorable impact on patient well-being, according to Matthew Menard, MD, codirector of endovascular surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

In this substudy, presented separately from the primary BEST-CLI results, that analysis confirmed that baseline QOL was extremely poor, whether measured with a disease specific instrument such as VascuQol, or generic instruments, such as SF-12.

Surgical or endovascular treatment produced clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in every QOL measure employed, according to Dr. Menard, and this was true in either cohort.
 

Results not necessarily relevant to all

These data are likely relevant to the patients evaluated, but “it is important to consider who made it into this trial,” according to Naomi M. Hamburg, MD, section chief of vascular biology at Boston University.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Not least, patients had to be candidates for either surgical or endovascular repair to get into the study, omitting those patients not deemed by the investigators to be suited for either.

In addition, Dr. Hamburg pointed out that there was a low enrollment of Blacks (20%) and women (28%), two groups for whom CTLI is a common condition.

Lastly, Dr Hamburg questioned whether specific types of anatomy might be better suited to one procedure relative to another, a variable not considered in this study. Reassured by Dr. Farber that this will be explored in subsequent analyses of BEST-CLI data, Dr. Hamburg expressed interest in learning the results.

Dr. Hamburg was among those who spoke about the growing urgency to optimize strategies for early diagnosis and treatment of CTLI. She plugged the PAD National Action Plan as one of the efforts to thwart the coming wave of CTLI expected from the steep climb in the prevalence of diabetes in the United States.

Dr. Farber reported a financial relationship with Sanifit Therapeutics. The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but received additional support from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Menard reported a financial relationship with Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hamburg reported financial relationships with Acceleron Pharma, Merck, NovoNordisk, and Sanifit.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – None of six commercial dietary supplements widely promoted and taken for lowering LDL cholesterol did the job any better than placebo in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.

In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.

The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.

The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.

“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.

Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.

“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.

They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.

Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
 

How to message the results

The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.

But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”

The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”

At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.

“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.

“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”

But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”

In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”

SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
 

High adherence

Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.

They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.

The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).

Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.

Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.

Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.

None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.

There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”

Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.

Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – None of six commercial dietary supplements widely promoted and taken for lowering LDL cholesterol did the job any better than placebo in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.

In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.

The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.

The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.

“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.

Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.

“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.

They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.

Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
 

How to message the results

The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.

But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”

The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”

At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.

“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.

“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”

But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”

In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”

SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
 

High adherence

Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.

They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.

The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).

Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.

Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.

Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.

None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.

There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”

Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.

Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – None of six commercial dietary supplements widely promoted and taken for lowering LDL cholesterol did the job any better than placebo in a randomized trial of adults without cardiovascular disease but at increased cardiovascular risk.

In contrast, those who took the low dose of a high-potency statin in the eight-arm comparative study showed a significant 38% drop in LDL cholesterol levels over 28 days, a performance that blew away the six supplements containing fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, or red yeast rice.

The supplements showed little or no effect on any measured lipid biomarkers, which also included total cholesterol and triglycerides, or C-reactive protein (CRP), which reflects systemic inflammation.

The findings undercut the widespread heart-health marketing claims for such supplements and could potentially restore faith in statins for the many patients looking for alternatives, researchers say.

“We all see patients that have their medication lists littered with dietary supplements,” observed Luke J. Laffin, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. And it’s more than just heart patients who use them.

Almost $50 billion is spent on dietary supplements annually in the United States, and recent data suggest that more than three-fourths of the population use them, 18% of those based on specious heart-health claims, Dr. Laffin said in a Nov. 6 presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The findings of the Supplements, Placebo, or Rosuvastatin Study (SPORT) and how they are framed for the public “are important for public health,” he said.

“As cardiologists, primary care doctors, and others, we really should use these results to have evidence-based discussions with patients” regarding the value of even low-dose statins and the supplements’ “lack of benefit,” said Dr. Laffin, lead author on the SPORT publication, which was published the same day in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Patients assigned to low-dose rosuvastatin showed a mean 24.4% drop in total cholesterol levels over 28 days, the study’s primary endpoint. That differed from the placebo group and those for each supplement at P < .001.

They also averaged a 19.2% decrease in serum triglycerides, P < .05 for all group comparisons. None of the six supplements was significantly different from placebo for change in levels of either total cholesterol or triglycerides.

Nor were there significant differences in adverse events across the groups; there were no adverse changes in liver or kidney function tests or glucose levels; and there were no signs of musculoskeletal symptoms, the published report notes.
 

How to message the results

The SPORT trial is valuable for “addressing the void of data on supplements and cardiovascular health,” Chiadi E. Ndumele, MD, PhD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said as the invited discussant following Dr. Laffin’s presentation.

But they also send a reassuring message about statins, he noted. In a recent study of statin-nonadherent patients, 80% “were worried about statin side effects as the primary reason for not taking their statin, and 72% preferred using natural supplements instead of taking their prescription therapy,” Dr. Ndumele said. “The reason for this is clearly mistrust, misinformation, and a lack of evidence.”

The next step, he proposed, should be to get the study’s positive message about statins to the public, and especially patients “who are hesitant about statin use.” The current study “underscores the fact that using a low dose of a high-potency statin is associated with a very, very low risk of side effects.”

At a media briefing on SPORT, Amit Khera, MD, agreed the randomized trial provides some needed evidence that can be discussed with patients. “If someone’s coming to see me for cholesterol, we can say definitively now, at least there is data that these [supplements] don’t help your cholesterol and statins do.” Dr. Khera directs the preventive cardiology program at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“I think for those who are there very specifically to lower their cholesterol, hopefully this will resonate,” he said.

“I personally didn’t see a lot of harms in using these supplements. But I also didn’t see any benefits,” Dr. Khera told this news organization.

“Now, if you’re taking them for other reasons, so be it. But if you need to lower your cholesterol for cardiovascular health reasons,” he said, “you need to know that they are minimally to not effective at all.”

But such supplements still “are not without harm,” Dr. Laffin proposed at the press conference. For example, they have potential for drug-drug interactions, “not only with cardiovascular medicines, but those taken for other reasons,” he said. “There are 90,000 supplements on the market in the United States today, and there are all kinds of potential safety issues associated with them.”

In patient discussions, Dr. Laffin said, “I do not think it’s good enough to say, you can waste your money [on supplements] as long as you’re taking your statin. These can actually be harmful in certain situations.”

SPORT, described as a single-center study, randomly assigned 199 participants from “throughout the Cleveland Clinic Health System in northeast Ohio” to one of the eight treatment groups. The investigators were blinded to treatment assignments, Dr. Laffin reported.
 

High adherence

Entry criteria included age 40 to 75 years with no history of cardiovascular disease, LDL-cholesterol from 70 to 189 mg/dL, and a 5%-20% 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease by the pooled cohort equations. The predominantly White cohort averaged 64.4 years in age and 59% were women.

They were assigned to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg daily, placebo, or daily doses of supplements, with 25 patients per group, except the fish-oil group, which comprised 24 patients.

The daily supplement dosages were 2,400 mg for fish oil (Nature Made); 2,400 mg for cinnamon (NutriFlair), 5,000 mcg allicin for the garlic (Garlique), 4,500 mg for turmeric curcumin (BioSchwartz), 1,600 mg plant sterols (CholestOff Plus, Nature Made), and 2,400 mg red yeast rice (Arazo Nutrition).

Adherence to the assigned regimens was high, Dr. Laffin said, given that only four participants took less than 70% of their assigned doses.

Levels of LDL cholesterol in the statin group fell by 37.9% in 28 days, and by 35.2% relative to the placebo group (P < .001 for both differences), whereas any changes in LDL cholesterol among patients taking the most supplements were not significantly different from the placebo group. Of note, LDL cholesterol levels rose 7.8% (P = .01) compared with placebo among the group assigned to the garlic supplement.

Rosuvastatin had no apparent effect on HDL cholesterol levels, nor did most of the supplements; but such levels in patients taking the plant sterol supplement decreased by 7.1% (P = .02) compared to placebo and by 4% (P = .01) compared to the statin group.

None of the noncontrol groups, including those assigned to rosuvastatin, showed significant changes in high-sensitivity CRP levels compared with the placebo group. The lack of rosuvastatin effect on the inflammatory biomarker, the researchers speculated, is probably explained by the statins’ low dose as well as the limited size of the trial population.

There were two serious adverse events, including one deep venous thrombosis in the placebo group and a liver adenocarcinoma in a patient assigned to fish oil who “had not yet taken any of the study drug at the time of the serious adverse event,” the published report notes.
It remains open whether any of the assigned regimens could show different results over the long term, Dr. Laffin said. The SPORT trial’s 28-day duration, he said, “may not have fully captured the impact of supplements on lipid and inflammatory biomarkers.”

Nor is it known whether the supplements can potentially affect clinical outcomes. But “you could make an argument that it would be unethical” to randomize similar patients to a placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trial comparing the same six supplements and a statin.

Dr. Laffin has disclosed consulting or serving on a steering committee for Medtronic, Lilly, Mineralys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, and Crispr Therapeutics; receiving research funding from AstraZeneca; and having ownership interest in LucidAct Health and Gordy Health. Dr. Ndumele and Dr. Khera have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain wave recordings obtained during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) offer support to near-death experiences subjectively reported by some people who survive cardiac arrest, according to a novel new study.

“These recalled experiences and brain wave changes may be the first signs of the so-called ‘near-death’ experience, and we have captured them for the first time in a large study,” lead investigator Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, with NYU Langone Health, said in a news release.

Identifying measurable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity during CPR, coupled with stories of recalled near-death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, Dr. Parnia added.

He presented the findings Nov. 6 at a resuscitation science symposium at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

The AWARE II study

“For years, some people in cardiac arrest have reported being lucid, often with a heightened sense of consciousness, while seemingly unconscious and on the brink of death,” Dr. Parnia noted in an interview.

“Yet, no one’s ever be able to prove it and a lot of people have dismissed these experiences, thinking it’s all just a trick on the brain,” Dr. Parnia said.

In a first-of-its-kind study, Dr. Parnia and colleagues examined consciousness and its underlying electrocortical biomarkers during CPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).

They incorporated independent audiovisual testing of awareness with continuous real-time EEG and cerebral oxygenation (rSO₂) monitoring into CPR.

Only 53 of the 567 IHCA patients survived (9.3%). Among the 28 (52.8%) IHCA survivors who completed interviews, 11 (39.3%) reported unique, lucid experiences during resuscitation.

These experiences included a perception of separation from one’s body, observing events without pain or distress, and an awareness and meaningful evaluation of life, including of their actions, intentions, and thoughts toward others.

“These lucid experiences of death are not hallucinations or delusions. They cannot be considered a trick of a disordered or dying brain, but rather a unique human experience that emerges on the brink of death,” Dr. Parnia said. 

And what’s “fascinating,” he added, is that despite marked cerebral ischemia (mean regional oxygen saturation [rSO₂]  43%), near-normal/physiologic EEG activity (gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta rhythms) consistent with consciousness and a possible resumption of a network-level of cognitive and neuronal activity emerged for as long as 35-60 minutes into CPR.

Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception, he said.
 

‘Seismic shift’ in understanding of death

This is the first time such biomarkers of consciousness have been identified during cardiac arrest and CPR, Dr. Parnia said.

He said further study is needed to more precisely define biomarkers of what is considered to be clinical consciousness and the recalled experience of death, and to monitor the long-term psychological effects of resuscitation after cardiac arrest.

“Our understanding of death has gone through a seismic shift in the last few years,” he said.

“The biological discoveries around death and the postmortem period are completely different to the social conventions that we have about death. That is, we perceive of death as being the end, but actually what we’re finding is that brain cells don’t die immediately. They die very slowly over many hours of time,” Dr. Parnia noted.

Reached for comment, Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, of University of Louisville (Ky.), noted that several studies, including this one, “challenge the traditional way that we think of death – that when the heart stops beating that’s when we die.”

The observation that during cardiac arrest and CPR, the brain waves are still normal for up to an hour is “fairly remarkable,” Dr. Zemmar told this news organization.

“However, whether there is conscious perception or not is very hard to answer,” he cautioned. 

“This type of research tries to bridge the objective EEG recordings with the subjective description you get from the patient, but it’s hard to know when conscious perception stops,” he said.

Funding and support for the study were provided by NYU Langone Health, The John Templeton Foundation, and the UK Resuscitation Council, and National Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Parnia and Dr. Zemmar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain wave recordings obtained during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) offer support to near-death experiences subjectively reported by some people who survive cardiac arrest, according to a novel new study.

“These recalled experiences and brain wave changes may be the first signs of the so-called ‘near-death’ experience, and we have captured them for the first time in a large study,” lead investigator Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, with NYU Langone Health, said in a news release.

Identifying measurable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity during CPR, coupled with stories of recalled near-death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, Dr. Parnia added.

He presented the findings Nov. 6 at a resuscitation science symposium at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

The AWARE II study

“For years, some people in cardiac arrest have reported being lucid, often with a heightened sense of consciousness, while seemingly unconscious and on the brink of death,” Dr. Parnia noted in an interview.

“Yet, no one’s ever be able to prove it and a lot of people have dismissed these experiences, thinking it’s all just a trick on the brain,” Dr. Parnia said.

In a first-of-its-kind study, Dr. Parnia and colleagues examined consciousness and its underlying electrocortical biomarkers during CPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).

They incorporated independent audiovisual testing of awareness with continuous real-time EEG and cerebral oxygenation (rSO₂) monitoring into CPR.

Only 53 of the 567 IHCA patients survived (9.3%). Among the 28 (52.8%) IHCA survivors who completed interviews, 11 (39.3%) reported unique, lucid experiences during resuscitation.

These experiences included a perception of separation from one’s body, observing events without pain or distress, and an awareness and meaningful evaluation of life, including of their actions, intentions, and thoughts toward others.

“These lucid experiences of death are not hallucinations or delusions. They cannot be considered a trick of a disordered or dying brain, but rather a unique human experience that emerges on the brink of death,” Dr. Parnia said. 

And what’s “fascinating,” he added, is that despite marked cerebral ischemia (mean regional oxygen saturation [rSO₂]  43%), near-normal/physiologic EEG activity (gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta rhythms) consistent with consciousness and a possible resumption of a network-level of cognitive and neuronal activity emerged for as long as 35-60 minutes into CPR.

Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception, he said.
 

‘Seismic shift’ in understanding of death

This is the first time such biomarkers of consciousness have been identified during cardiac arrest and CPR, Dr. Parnia said.

He said further study is needed to more precisely define biomarkers of what is considered to be clinical consciousness and the recalled experience of death, and to monitor the long-term psychological effects of resuscitation after cardiac arrest.

“Our understanding of death has gone through a seismic shift in the last few years,” he said.

“The biological discoveries around death and the postmortem period are completely different to the social conventions that we have about death. That is, we perceive of death as being the end, but actually what we’re finding is that brain cells don’t die immediately. They die very slowly over many hours of time,” Dr. Parnia noted.

Reached for comment, Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, of University of Louisville (Ky.), noted that several studies, including this one, “challenge the traditional way that we think of death – that when the heart stops beating that’s when we die.”

The observation that during cardiac arrest and CPR, the brain waves are still normal for up to an hour is “fairly remarkable,” Dr. Zemmar told this news organization.

“However, whether there is conscious perception or not is very hard to answer,” he cautioned. 

“This type of research tries to bridge the objective EEG recordings with the subjective description you get from the patient, but it’s hard to know when conscious perception stops,” he said.

Funding and support for the study were provided by NYU Langone Health, The John Templeton Foundation, and the UK Resuscitation Council, and National Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Parnia and Dr. Zemmar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Brain wave recordings obtained during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) offer support to near-death experiences subjectively reported by some people who survive cardiac arrest, according to a novel new study.

“These recalled experiences and brain wave changes may be the first signs of the so-called ‘near-death’ experience, and we have captured them for the first time in a large study,” lead investigator Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, with NYU Langone Health, said in a news release.

Identifying measurable electrical signs of lucid and heightened brain activity during CPR, coupled with stories of recalled near-death experiences, suggests that the human sense of self and consciousness, much like other biological body functions, may not stop completely around the time of death, Dr. Parnia added.

He presented the findings Nov. 6 at a resuscitation science symposium at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

The AWARE II study

“For years, some people in cardiac arrest have reported being lucid, often with a heightened sense of consciousness, while seemingly unconscious and on the brink of death,” Dr. Parnia noted in an interview.

“Yet, no one’s ever be able to prove it and a lot of people have dismissed these experiences, thinking it’s all just a trick on the brain,” Dr. Parnia said.

In a first-of-its-kind study, Dr. Parnia and colleagues examined consciousness and its underlying electrocortical biomarkers during CPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).

They incorporated independent audiovisual testing of awareness with continuous real-time EEG and cerebral oxygenation (rSO₂) monitoring into CPR.

Only 53 of the 567 IHCA patients survived (9.3%). Among the 28 (52.8%) IHCA survivors who completed interviews, 11 (39.3%) reported unique, lucid experiences during resuscitation.

These experiences included a perception of separation from one’s body, observing events without pain or distress, and an awareness and meaningful evaluation of life, including of their actions, intentions, and thoughts toward others.

“These lucid experiences of death are not hallucinations or delusions. They cannot be considered a trick of a disordered or dying brain, but rather a unique human experience that emerges on the brink of death,” Dr. Parnia said. 

And what’s “fascinating,” he added, is that despite marked cerebral ischemia (mean regional oxygen saturation [rSO₂]  43%), near-normal/physiologic EEG activity (gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta rhythms) consistent with consciousness and a possible resumption of a network-level of cognitive and neuronal activity emerged for as long as 35-60 minutes into CPR.

Some of these brain waves normally occur when people are conscious and performing higher mental functions, including thinking, memory retrieval, and conscious perception, he said.
 

‘Seismic shift’ in understanding of death

This is the first time such biomarkers of consciousness have been identified during cardiac arrest and CPR, Dr. Parnia said.

He said further study is needed to more precisely define biomarkers of what is considered to be clinical consciousness and the recalled experience of death, and to monitor the long-term psychological effects of resuscitation after cardiac arrest.

“Our understanding of death has gone through a seismic shift in the last few years,” he said.

“The biological discoveries around death and the postmortem period are completely different to the social conventions that we have about death. That is, we perceive of death as being the end, but actually what we’re finding is that brain cells don’t die immediately. They die very slowly over many hours of time,” Dr. Parnia noted.

Reached for comment, Ajmal Zemmar, MD, PhD, of University of Louisville (Ky.), noted that several studies, including this one, “challenge the traditional way that we think of death – that when the heart stops beating that’s when we die.”

The observation that during cardiac arrest and CPR, the brain waves are still normal for up to an hour is “fairly remarkable,” Dr. Zemmar told this news organization.

“However, whether there is conscious perception or not is very hard to answer,” he cautioned. 

“This type of research tries to bridge the objective EEG recordings with the subjective description you get from the patient, but it’s hard to know when conscious perception stops,” he said.

Funding and support for the study were provided by NYU Langone Health, The John Templeton Foundation, and the UK Resuscitation Council, and National Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Parnia and Dr. Zemmar reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new Japanese study of highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; icosapent ethyl) has suggested a possible benefit in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease taking statins.

The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. 

However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.  

Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.

Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.

“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”

However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT. 

“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).  

In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease. 

Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.

Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.

The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.

They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.

The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.

The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).

The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.  

Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.

The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).

The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).

In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.

In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).

Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
 

‘Massive loss’ of patients

Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.

“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented. 

“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.

The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”  

On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
 

Supportive data

But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.

“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.  

“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.  

He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.  

“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
 

Magnitude of benefit uncertain?

Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”

“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.

Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”

She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.

The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.

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

A new Japanese study of highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; icosapent ethyl) has suggested a possible benefit in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease taking statins.

The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. 

However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.  

Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.

Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.

“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”

However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT. 

“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).  

In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease. 

Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.

Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.

The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.

They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.

The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.

The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).

The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.  

Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.

The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).

The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).

In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.

In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).

Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
 

‘Massive loss’ of patients

Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.

“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented. 

“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.

The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”  

On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
 

Supportive data

But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.

“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.  

“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.  

He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.  

“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
 

Magnitude of benefit uncertain?

Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”

“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.

Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”

She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.

The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.

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

A new Japanese study of highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA; icosapent ethyl) has suggested a possible benefit in reducing adverse cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease taking statins.

The open-label randomized RESPECT-EPA study showed a reduction of borderline statistical significance in its primary endpoint of a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization in patients allocated to the EPA product at a dosage of 1,800 mg/day.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Hiroyuki Daida, MD, Juntendo University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan. 

However, the trial has several limitations, including a high number of patient withdrawals or protocol deviations, and as such, its conclusions are uncertain.  

Regardless, it has inevitably added to the debate on the cardiovascular benefits of EPA, which were shown in the REDUCE-IT trial. However, that trial has been dogged with controversy because of concerns that the mineral oil placebo used may have had an adverse effect.

Commenting on the new RESPECT-EPA trial for this article, lead investigator of the REDUCE-IT trial, Deepak Bhatt, MD, said the results were consistent with REDUCE-IT and another previous Japanese trial, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS), and added to the evidence supporting cardiovascular benefits of EPA.

“In isolation, this study may not be viewed as showing conclusive benefits, but looking at the totality of the data from this trial and from the field more widely, this together shows a convincing cardiovascular benefit with EPA,” Dr. Bhatt said. “We now have 3 randomized controlled trials all showing benefits of highly purified EPA in reducing cardiovascular events.”

However, long-time critic of the REDUCE-IT trial, Steve Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, was not at all impressed with the RESPECT-EPA trial and does not believe it should be used to support the EPA data from REDUCE-IT. 

“The many limitations of the RESPECT-EPA trial make it uninterpretable. It just doesn’t meet contemporary standards for clinical trials,” Dr. Nissen said in an interview. “I don’t think it sheds any light at all on the debate over the efficacy of EPA in cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Nissen was the lead investigator of another largescale trial, STRENGTH, which showed no benefit of a different high dose omega-3 fatty acid product including a combination of EPA and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).  

In his AHA presentation on the RESPECT-EPA study, Dr. Daida explained as background that in 2005, JELIS first demonstrated a beneficial effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without coronary artery disease. 

Recently, optimal medical therapy, particularly with high-intensity statins, has become the gold standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, but they are still at substantially high residual risk, he noted.

Despite of the evidence provided by JELIS, the conflicting results in recent omega-3 fatty acid trials (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) have led to an intense controversy regarding the relevance of EPA intervention on top of the latest optimal medical therapy, Dr. Daida said.

The current study – Randomized trial for Evaluating the Secondary Prevention Efficacy of Combination Therapy Statin and EPA (RESPECT-EPA) – was conducted to determine the effect of highly purified EPA on cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with chronic coronary artery disease and a low EPA/arachidonic acid (AA) ratio (< 0.4), who were already receiving statins.

They were randomly assigned to highly purified EPA (icosapent ethyl, 1,800 mg/day) plus statin therapy or to statin therapy alone.

The enrollment period started in 2013 and continued for 4 years. Patients were followed for a further 4 years from the end of the enrollment period.

The trial included 2,506 patients, 1,249 assigned to the EPA group and 1,257 to the control group. In both groups there were a high number of early withdrawals or protocol deviations (647 in the EPA group and 350 in the control group).

The analysis was conducted on 1,225 patients in the EPA group and 1,235 patients in the control group, although at 6 years’ follow-up there were fewer than 400 patients in each arm.  

Baseline characteristics showed median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 80 mg/dL, EPA levels of 45 mcg/mL, and triglyceride levels of 120 mg/dL.

The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal ischemic stroke, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization showed a borderline significant reduction in the EPA group at 6 years since the start of randomization (10.9% vs. 14.9%; hazard ratio, 0.785; P = .0547).

The secondary endpoint, a composite of sudden cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, and coronary revascularization, showed a significant reduction in the EPA group (8.0% vs. 11.3%; HR, 0.734; P = .0306).

In terms of adverse events, there was an increase in gastrointestinal disorders (3.4% vs. 1.2%) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (3.1% vs. 1.6%) in the EPA group.

In a post hoc analysis, which excluded patients with an increase of more than 30 mcg/mL in the control group (182 patients) and those with an increase of less than 30 mcg/mL in the EPA group (259 patients), the primary endpoint showed a significant reduction the EPA group (HR, 0.725; P = .0202).

Dr. Daida noted that limitations of the study included a lower than expected event rate (suggesting that the study may be underpowered), an open-label design, and the fact that baseline levels of EPA in this Japanese population would be higher than those in Western countries.
 

‘Massive loss’ of patients

Critiquing the study, Dr. Nissen highlighted the large dropout and protocol violation rate.

“There was a massive loss of patients over the 6- to 8-year follow-up, and the Kaplan-Meier curves didn’t start to diverge until after 4 years, by which time many patients had dropped out. It would have been a very selective population that lasted 6 years in the study. Patients that drop out are different to those that stay in, so they are cherry-picking the patients that persist in the trial. There is enormous bias here,” he commented. 

“Another weakness is the open-label design. Everyone knew who is getting what. Blinding is important in a study. And there was no control treatment in this trial,” he noted.

The researchers also selected patients with low EPA levels at baseline, Dr. Nissen added. “That is completely different hypothesis to what was tested in the REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH trials. And even with all these problems, the results are still statistically insignificant.”  

On the post hoc subgroup analysis showing a significant benefit, Dr. Nissen said, “they compared a subgroup in the active treatment arm who had large increases in EPA to a subgroup of control patients who had the smallest increase in EPA. That would be like comparing patients who had the largest reductions in LDL in a statin trial to those in the control arm who had no reductions or increases in LDL. That’s scientifically totally inappropriate.”
 

Supportive data

But Dr. Bhatt argues that the RESPECT-EPA trial supports the two previous trials showing benefits of EPA.

“Some may quibble with the P value, but to me this study has shown clear results, with obvious separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves,” he said.  

“It is an investigator-initiated study, which is good in principle but has some of the usual caveats of such a study in that – probably as a consequence of budget constraints – it has an open-label design and is underpowered. But as they did not use a placebo and still showed a benefit of EPA, that helps resolve the issue of the placebo used in REDUCE-IT for those who were concerned about it,” Dr. Bhatt noted.  

He pointed out that the 1,800-mg dose of EPA is the same dose used in the JELIS trial and is the dose used in Japan. The REDUCE-IT trial used a higher dose (4 g), but in general, Japanese people have higher levels of EPA than Western populations, he explained.  

“While this trial included patients with lower levels of EPA, what is considered low in Japan is much higher than average American levels,” he added.
 

Magnitude of benefit uncertain?

Discussant of the study at the Late Breaking Clinical Trials session, Pam R. Taub, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, said, “Despite being underpowered with a sample size of 2,460, RESPECT-EPA shows benefit in decreasing composite coronary events.”

“There is benefit with EPA, but the magnitude of benefit is uncertain,” she stated.

Dr. Taub pointed out that there is a signal across studies for new-onset atrial fibrillation, but the absolute increase is “rather small.”

She noted that more mechanistic and clinical data are needed to hone in on which patients will derive the most benefit, such as those with elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or highest change in EPA levels. But she concluded that in clinical practice, physicians could consider addition of EPA for reduction of residual risk in secondary prevention patients.

The RESPECT-EPA study was supported by the Japan Heart Foundation. Dr. Daida reports peakers’ bureau/honorarium fees from Novartis Pharma, Bayer Yakuhin, Sanofi, Kowa Company, Taisho Pharmaceutical, Abbott Medical Japan, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Amgen, MSD, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer Japan, FUKUDA DENSHI, Tsumura, and TOA EIYO and research funding from Philips Japan, FUJIFILM Holdings, Asahi Kasei, Inter Reha, TOHO HOLDINGS, GLORY, BMS, Abbott Japan, and Boehringer Ingelheim Japan.

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

CHICAGO – The traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo added to guideline-directed therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the CTS-AMI study suggests.

Compared with those assigned to placebo, Chinese patients assigned to tongxinluo had lower rates of 30-day and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), driven by fewer cardiac deaths. Severe STEMI complications were also lower.

Tongxinluo, which contains 10 or more potential active herbs and insects, did not result in severe adverse effects, including major bleeding.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Yuejin Yang, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Fuwai Hospital, National Center for CV Disease, Beijing.

He noted that despite reperfusion and optimal medical therapy, patients with STEMI still face high in-hospital mortality, myocardial no-flow, and reperfusion injury, which have no targeted drugs so far worldwide. In addition, “inadequate implementation of timely revascularization for STEMI in China (50-70%) and other developing countries leaves a substantial infarct size in many patients.”

Tongxinluo has been approved for angina and stroke since 1996 in China. Previous preclinical studies and the investigators’ proof-of-concept ENLEAT trial in STEMI suggested tongxinluo could reduce myocardial no-flow and infarction size and protect the cardiomyocytes, Dr. Yang said.

The CTS-AMI trial was conducted at 124 hospitals in mainland China and evenly randomly assigned 3,797 patients with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block within 24 hours of symptom onset to eight capsules of tongxinluo, 2.08 g, or to placebo plus dual antiplatelet therapy before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolysis, or medical management alone, followed by four capsules thrice daily plus guideline-directed therapy for 12 months.

In the modified intention-to-treat cohort of 1,889 tongxinluo- and 1,888 placebo-treated patients, primary PCI was performed in 94.2% and 92.3%, respectively.

The relative risk of 30-day MACCE was reduced 36% in the tongxinluo group, compared with the placebo group (3.39% vs. 5.24%; RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88).

Among the primary endpoint components, the relative risk of cardiac death was reduced 30% (2.97% vs. 4.24%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99) and MI reinfarction 65% (0 vs. 9 events; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99).

Strokes were similar in the tongxinluo and control groups (4 vs. 9; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14-1.43) and no patient had emergent coronary revascularization at 30 days.

The benefit of the traditional Chinese compound on the primary endpoint was consistent across subgroups, Dr. Yang reported.

At 30 days, severe STEMI complications (11.79% vs. 14.80%; P = .008) and malignant arrhythmias (7.84% vs. 10.20%; P = .011) were lower in the tongxinluo group, whereas mechanical complications (10 vs. 13; P = .526) and cardiogenic shock (2.37% vs. 3.31%; P =.082) were similar.

At 1 year, hazard ratios favored tongxinluo for MACCE (0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82), cardiac death (0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.97), MI reinfarction (0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.67), and stroke (0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92).

In terms of safety issues, 41 patients receiving tongxinluo and 52 patients receiving placebo had a serious adverse event (2.17% vs. 2.75%; P = .25).

Except for fewer renal injuries with tongxinluo (3.81% vs. 5.30%; P = .029), there were no significant between-group differences in adverse effects including allergic rash, hepatic injury, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time or prothrombin time, digestive tract hemorrhage, nausea, diarrhea, and headache or dizziness.

“These findings support the use of tongxinluo as an adjunctive therapy in treating STEMI, at least in China and other developing countries,” Dr. Yang concluded.

Invited discussant Kenneth Mahaffey, MD, associate dean, Stanford (Calif.) University, and director of the Stanford Center for Clinical Research, said the results “likely will support use of tongxinluo in China” but that “more studies are needed in other populations and treatment paradigms.”

Asked for further comment by this news organization, Dr. Mahaffey said, “The surprising thing is where are all the MIs? Where are all the revascularization procedures?”

Usually one would expect MIs in about 1% of patients, or about 40 MIs among the 4,000 patients but, he noted, there were zero MIs in the treatment group and 9 among controls.

“We haven’t seen a 30% reduction in cardiovascular death or overall mortality with a therapy in ages with good background therapy,” Dr. Mahaffey said. “We need to see how they ascertained all those events.”

He noted that the results were based on the modified intention-to-treat cohort, which did not include data on 20 patients allocated to treatment, and showed no difference in ST-segment resolution at 2 hours and only a slight difference at 24 hours.

“So even in this trial, for at least some of the data we’ve gotten already that supports the proposed mechanism, it doesn’t show the benefit on that mechanistic substudy. And that’s why we need to see these echoes, the biomarkers, and probably the angios to see: Did it have any effect on the proposed mechanism?” Dr. Mahaffey said.

Finally, information on background therapy is critical for putting the treatment effect into context for other health systems and populations, he said. “Unfortunately, we need to see some additional information to really understand how this will fit in, even in Chinese therapy for STEMI patients, but definitely not outside of China, particularly in the United States, because I don’t know what their background therapy was.”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. Tongxinluo and placebo were provided by Yiling Pharmacological. The study was designed, conducted, and analyzed independent of the sponsors. Dr. Yang reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Mahaffey reports research funding from the AHA, Apple, Bayer, CIRM, Eidos, Ferring, Gilead, Idorsia, Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold, PAC-12, Precordior, Sanifit, and Verily; consultancy fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, CLS Behring, Elsevier, Fibrogen, Inova, Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Phasebio, Portola, Quidel, Sanofi, and Theravance; and equity in Precordior.

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

CHICAGO – The traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo added to guideline-directed therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the CTS-AMI study suggests.

Compared with those assigned to placebo, Chinese patients assigned to tongxinluo had lower rates of 30-day and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), driven by fewer cardiac deaths. Severe STEMI complications were also lower.

Tongxinluo, which contains 10 or more potential active herbs and insects, did not result in severe adverse effects, including major bleeding.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Yuejin Yang, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Fuwai Hospital, National Center for CV Disease, Beijing.

He noted that despite reperfusion and optimal medical therapy, patients with STEMI still face high in-hospital mortality, myocardial no-flow, and reperfusion injury, which have no targeted drugs so far worldwide. In addition, “inadequate implementation of timely revascularization for STEMI in China (50-70%) and other developing countries leaves a substantial infarct size in many patients.”

Tongxinluo has been approved for angina and stroke since 1996 in China. Previous preclinical studies and the investigators’ proof-of-concept ENLEAT trial in STEMI suggested tongxinluo could reduce myocardial no-flow and infarction size and protect the cardiomyocytes, Dr. Yang said.

The CTS-AMI trial was conducted at 124 hospitals in mainland China and evenly randomly assigned 3,797 patients with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block within 24 hours of symptom onset to eight capsules of tongxinluo, 2.08 g, or to placebo plus dual antiplatelet therapy before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolysis, or medical management alone, followed by four capsules thrice daily plus guideline-directed therapy for 12 months.

In the modified intention-to-treat cohort of 1,889 tongxinluo- and 1,888 placebo-treated patients, primary PCI was performed in 94.2% and 92.3%, respectively.

The relative risk of 30-day MACCE was reduced 36% in the tongxinluo group, compared with the placebo group (3.39% vs. 5.24%; RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88).

Among the primary endpoint components, the relative risk of cardiac death was reduced 30% (2.97% vs. 4.24%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99) and MI reinfarction 65% (0 vs. 9 events; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99).

Strokes were similar in the tongxinluo and control groups (4 vs. 9; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14-1.43) and no patient had emergent coronary revascularization at 30 days.

The benefit of the traditional Chinese compound on the primary endpoint was consistent across subgroups, Dr. Yang reported.

At 30 days, severe STEMI complications (11.79% vs. 14.80%; P = .008) and malignant arrhythmias (7.84% vs. 10.20%; P = .011) were lower in the tongxinluo group, whereas mechanical complications (10 vs. 13; P = .526) and cardiogenic shock (2.37% vs. 3.31%; P =.082) were similar.

At 1 year, hazard ratios favored tongxinluo for MACCE (0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82), cardiac death (0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.97), MI reinfarction (0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.67), and stroke (0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92).

In terms of safety issues, 41 patients receiving tongxinluo and 52 patients receiving placebo had a serious adverse event (2.17% vs. 2.75%; P = .25).

Except for fewer renal injuries with tongxinluo (3.81% vs. 5.30%; P = .029), there were no significant between-group differences in adverse effects including allergic rash, hepatic injury, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time or prothrombin time, digestive tract hemorrhage, nausea, diarrhea, and headache or dizziness.

“These findings support the use of tongxinluo as an adjunctive therapy in treating STEMI, at least in China and other developing countries,” Dr. Yang concluded.

Invited discussant Kenneth Mahaffey, MD, associate dean, Stanford (Calif.) University, and director of the Stanford Center for Clinical Research, said the results “likely will support use of tongxinluo in China” but that “more studies are needed in other populations and treatment paradigms.”

Asked for further comment by this news organization, Dr. Mahaffey said, “The surprising thing is where are all the MIs? Where are all the revascularization procedures?”

Usually one would expect MIs in about 1% of patients, or about 40 MIs among the 4,000 patients but, he noted, there were zero MIs in the treatment group and 9 among controls.

“We haven’t seen a 30% reduction in cardiovascular death or overall mortality with a therapy in ages with good background therapy,” Dr. Mahaffey said. “We need to see how they ascertained all those events.”

He noted that the results were based on the modified intention-to-treat cohort, which did not include data on 20 patients allocated to treatment, and showed no difference in ST-segment resolution at 2 hours and only a slight difference at 24 hours.

“So even in this trial, for at least some of the data we’ve gotten already that supports the proposed mechanism, it doesn’t show the benefit on that mechanistic substudy. And that’s why we need to see these echoes, the biomarkers, and probably the angios to see: Did it have any effect on the proposed mechanism?” Dr. Mahaffey said.

Finally, information on background therapy is critical for putting the treatment effect into context for other health systems and populations, he said. “Unfortunately, we need to see some additional information to really understand how this will fit in, even in Chinese therapy for STEMI patients, but definitely not outside of China, particularly in the United States, because I don’t know what their background therapy was.”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. Tongxinluo and placebo were provided by Yiling Pharmacological. The study was designed, conducted, and analyzed independent of the sponsors. Dr. Yang reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Mahaffey reports research funding from the AHA, Apple, Bayer, CIRM, Eidos, Ferring, Gilead, Idorsia, Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold, PAC-12, Precordior, Sanifit, and Verily; consultancy fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, CLS Behring, Elsevier, Fibrogen, Inova, Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Phasebio, Portola, Quidel, Sanofi, and Theravance; and equity in Precordior.

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

CHICAGO – The traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo added to guideline-directed therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the CTS-AMI study suggests.

Compared with those assigned to placebo, Chinese patients assigned to tongxinluo had lower rates of 30-day and 1-year major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), driven by fewer cardiac deaths. Severe STEMI complications were also lower.

Tongxinluo, which contains 10 or more potential active herbs and insects, did not result in severe adverse effects, including major bleeding.

The results were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions by Yuejin Yang, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at Fuwai Hospital, National Center for CV Disease, Beijing.

He noted that despite reperfusion and optimal medical therapy, patients with STEMI still face high in-hospital mortality, myocardial no-flow, and reperfusion injury, which have no targeted drugs so far worldwide. In addition, “inadequate implementation of timely revascularization for STEMI in China (50-70%) and other developing countries leaves a substantial infarct size in many patients.”

Tongxinluo has been approved for angina and stroke since 1996 in China. Previous preclinical studies and the investigators’ proof-of-concept ENLEAT trial in STEMI suggested tongxinluo could reduce myocardial no-flow and infarction size and protect the cardiomyocytes, Dr. Yang said.

The CTS-AMI trial was conducted at 124 hospitals in mainland China and evenly randomly assigned 3,797 patients with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block within 24 hours of symptom onset to eight capsules of tongxinluo, 2.08 g, or to placebo plus dual antiplatelet therapy before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolysis, or medical management alone, followed by four capsules thrice daily plus guideline-directed therapy for 12 months.

In the modified intention-to-treat cohort of 1,889 tongxinluo- and 1,888 placebo-treated patients, primary PCI was performed in 94.2% and 92.3%, respectively.

The relative risk of 30-day MACCE was reduced 36% in the tongxinluo group, compared with the placebo group (3.39% vs. 5.24%; RR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88).

Among the primary endpoint components, the relative risk of cardiac death was reduced 30% (2.97% vs. 4.24%; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99) and MI reinfarction 65% (0 vs. 9 events; RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.99).

Strokes were similar in the tongxinluo and control groups (4 vs. 9; RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14-1.43) and no patient had emergent coronary revascularization at 30 days.

The benefit of the traditional Chinese compound on the primary endpoint was consistent across subgroups, Dr. Yang reported.

At 30 days, severe STEMI complications (11.79% vs. 14.80%; P = .008) and malignant arrhythmias (7.84% vs. 10.20%; P = .011) were lower in the tongxinluo group, whereas mechanical complications (10 vs. 13; P = .526) and cardiogenic shock (2.37% vs. 3.31%; P =.082) were similar.

At 1 year, hazard ratios favored tongxinluo for MACCE (0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.82), cardiac death (0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.97), MI reinfarction (0.26; 95% CI, 0.10-0.67), and stroke (0.44; 95% CI, 0.21-0.92).

In terms of safety issues, 41 patients receiving tongxinluo and 52 patients receiving placebo had a serious adverse event (2.17% vs. 2.75%; P = .25).

Except for fewer renal injuries with tongxinluo (3.81% vs. 5.30%; P = .029), there were no significant between-group differences in adverse effects including allergic rash, hepatic injury, prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time or prothrombin time, digestive tract hemorrhage, nausea, diarrhea, and headache or dizziness.

“These findings support the use of tongxinluo as an adjunctive therapy in treating STEMI, at least in China and other developing countries,” Dr. Yang concluded.

Invited discussant Kenneth Mahaffey, MD, associate dean, Stanford (Calif.) University, and director of the Stanford Center for Clinical Research, said the results “likely will support use of tongxinluo in China” but that “more studies are needed in other populations and treatment paradigms.”

Asked for further comment by this news organization, Dr. Mahaffey said, “The surprising thing is where are all the MIs? Where are all the revascularization procedures?”

Usually one would expect MIs in about 1% of patients, or about 40 MIs among the 4,000 patients but, he noted, there were zero MIs in the treatment group and 9 among controls.

“We haven’t seen a 30% reduction in cardiovascular death or overall mortality with a therapy in ages with good background therapy,” Dr. Mahaffey said. “We need to see how they ascertained all those events.”

He noted that the results were based on the modified intention-to-treat cohort, which did not include data on 20 patients allocated to treatment, and showed no difference in ST-segment resolution at 2 hours and only a slight difference at 24 hours.

“So even in this trial, for at least some of the data we’ve gotten already that supports the proposed mechanism, it doesn’t show the benefit on that mechanistic substudy. And that’s why we need to see these echoes, the biomarkers, and probably the angios to see: Did it have any effect on the proposed mechanism?” Dr. Mahaffey said.

Finally, information on background therapy is critical for putting the treatment effect into context for other health systems and populations, he said. “Unfortunately, we need to see some additional information to really understand how this will fit in, even in Chinese therapy for STEMI patients, but definitely not outside of China, particularly in the United States, because I don’t know what their background therapy was.”

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. Tongxinluo and placebo were provided by Yiling Pharmacological. The study was designed, conducted, and analyzed independent of the sponsors. Dr. Yang reports no relevant financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Mahaffey reports research funding from the AHA, Apple, Bayer, CIRM, Eidos, Ferring, Gilead, Idorsia, Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold, PAC-12, Precordior, Sanifit, and Verily; consultancy fees from Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, CLS Behring, Elsevier, Fibrogen, Inova, Johnson & Johnson, Lexicon, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Phasebio, Portola, Quidel, Sanofi, and Theravance; and equity in Precordior.

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

CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.

The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.

Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
 

Strategy is simple but effective

Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.

After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.

In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
 

cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care

In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.

Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.

Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).

In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.

Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.

New protocol called preferred approach

On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”

Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.

Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”

Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.

In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.

Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.

The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.

Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
 

Strategy is simple but effective

Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.

After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.

In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
 

cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care

In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.

Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.

Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).

In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.

Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.

New protocol called preferred approach

On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”

Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.

Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”

Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.

In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.

Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.

CHICAGO – A stepwise care pathway was associated with a substantial reduction in the number of invasive tests performed and a major improvement in outcomes, relative to usual management, in patients suspected of coronary artery disease (CAD), according to 1-year results of the multinational, randomized PRECISE trial.

The care pathway is appropriate for patients with nonacute chest pain or equivalent complaints that have raised suspicion of CAD, and it is extremely simple, according to the description from the principal investigator, Pamela S. Douglas, MD, given in her presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Unlike the highly complex diagnostic algorithms shunting suspected CAD patients to the vast array of potential evaluations, the newly tested protocol, characterized as a “precision strategy,” divides patients into those who are immediate candidates for invasive testing and those who are not. The discriminator is the PROMISE minimal risk assessment score, a tool already validated.

Those deemed candidates for testing on the basis of an elevated score undergo computed coronary CT angiography (cCTA). In those who are not, testing is deferred.
 

Strategy is simple but effective

Although simple, this pathway is highly effective, judging by the results of the PRECISE trial, which tested the strategy in 2,103 patients at 65 sites in North America and Europe. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) that included death, nonfatal MI, and catheterization without observed CAD.

After a median follow-up of 11.8 months, the primary MACE endpoint was reached in about 11.3% of those in the usual-care group, which was more than twofold higher than the 4.2% in the precision strategy group. The unadjusted risk reduction was 65% but rose to more than 70% (hazard ratio, 0.29; P < .001) after adjustment for gender and baseline characteristics.

In the arm randomized to the precision strategy, 16% were characterized as low risk and received no further testing. Almost all the others underwent cCTA alone (48%) or cCTA with fractional flow reserve (FFR) (31%). Stress echocardiography, treadmill electrocardiography, and other functional studies were performed in the small proportion of remaining patients.
 

cCTA performed in just 15% of usual care

In the usual-care arm, cCTA with or without FFR was only performed in 15%. More than 80% of patients underwent evaluations with one or more of an array of functional tests. For example, one-third were evaluated with single photon emission CT/PET and nearly as many underwent stress echocardiography testing. Only 7% in usual care underwent no testing after referral.

Within the MACE composite endpoint, almost all the relative benefit in the precision strategy arm was derived from the endpoint of angiography performed without evidence of obstructive CAD (2.6% vs. 10.2%). Rates of all-cause mortality and MI were not significantly different.

Important for the safety and utility of the precision strategy, there “were no deaths or MI events among those assigned deferred testing ” in that experimental arm, according to Dr. Douglas, professor of research in cardiovascular diseases at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Instead, those in the precision strategy arm were far less likely to undergo catheterization without finding CAD (20% vs. 60%) and far less likely to undergo catheterization without revascularization (28% vs. 70%).

In addition, the group randomized to the precision strategy were more likely to be placed on risk reducing therapies following testing. Although the higher proportion of patients placed on antihypertensive therapy did not reach statistical significance (P = .1), the increased proportions placed on lipid therapy (P < .001) and antiplatelet therapy (P < .001) did.

Citing a study in JAMA Cardiology that found that more than 25% of patients presenting with stable chest pain have normal coronary arteries, Dr. Douglas said that the precision strategy as shown in the PRECISE trial addresses several agreed-upon goals in guidelines from the AHA, the European Society of Cardiology and the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These goals include reducing unnecessary testing by risk stratification, improving diagnostic yield of the testing that is performed, and avoiding the costs and complications of unneeded invasive testing.

New protocol called preferred approach

On the basis of these results, Dr. Douglas called the precision strategy “a preferred approach in evaluating patients with stable symptoms and suspected coronary disease.”

Julie Indik, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, Tuscon, said that application of this approach in routine care could have “a major impact on care” by avoiding unnecessary tests with no apparent adverse effect on outcomes.

Although not demonstrated in this study, Dr. Indik suggested that the large number of patients tested for CAD each year – she estimated 4 million visits – means that less testing is likely to have a major impact on the costs of care, and she praised “the practical, efficient” approach of the precision strategy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Ron Blankstein, MD, director of cardiac computed tomography, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, also said these data “have both economic and safety implications.” As an AHA-invited discussant of this study, he emphasized that this is a strategy that should only be applied to lower risk patients with no prior history of CAD, but, in this group, he believes these data “will inform future guidelines.”

Dr. Douglas declined to speculate on whether the precision strategy will be incorporated into future guidelines, but she did say that the PRECISE data demonstrate that this approach improves quality of care.

In an interview, Dr. Douglas suggested that this care pathway could provide a basis on which to demonstrate improved outcomes with more efficient use of resources, a common definition of quality care delivery.

Dr. Douglas reported financial relationships with Caption Health, Kowa, and Heartflow, which provided funding for the PRECISE trial. Dr. Indik reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Blankstein reported financial relationships with Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, and Novartis.

Katrina Ubell, MD, listened with growing skepticism as the dietician outlined her weight-loss plan. “You’re going to have to eat a snack in the afternoon,” she instructed.

Dr. Ubell refrained from rolling her eyes. The afternoon was in the middle of clinic. “I’m not ever going to do that,” she tried to explain. “I can’t.”

“Of course, you can,” the dietician insisted. “You shouldn’t think that way. You get to decide.”

“She wasn’t wrong about that,” Dr. Ubell conceded years later. But the well-meaning dietician couldn’t understand the reality of life as a physician. As a pediatrician, Dr. Ubell could visualize how her afternoon would play out. “You’re already 40 minutes behind. This mom needs to get home to get her kid off the bus. This mom, her toddler is losing his mind because he needs a nap. You’re not going to say: ‘Sorry, I need to eat some carrots and hummus.’ ”

Most of what the dieting realm recommends for weight loss, Dr. Ubell discovered, seems only relevant to people with a consistent 9 to 5 schedule. That was not her life. Neither was she looking for one of the many diet plans based on self-denial and will power. Having already lost and gained back 40 pounds several times, she knew these methods were not effective long term.

What were other overweight doctors doing? she wondered. Someone must know how to help doctors lose weight. But her Google searches revealed ... nothing. No one was offering a useful diet or exercise plan specifically for physicians.

Dr. Ubell’s search for answers led to the world of life coaching, and eventually she became a master-certified life and weight-loss coach, working exclusively with women-identifying physicians.

The field is small. Very few weight-loss programs are solely for physicians, whose stress levels, unpredictable schedules, and high-achieving mindset pose unique challenges. Among the constantly changing diet fads, few would likely work for the surgeon confined to an operating room for 9 hours at a time or the anesthesiologist who can’t even manage to drink water during the workday.

Dr. Ubell set out to create a weight-loss program rooted in the physical and mental demands of medical practice. In the process, she lost 45 pounds.
 

Step 1: Acknowledge that doctors are, unfortunately, human

Dr. Ubell’s approach to food combines concepts from cognitive-behavioral therapy with personalized eating plans, coaching, and support from a community of doctors.

All of this stems from her own experience with emotional eating, which she said many doctors use to process their stress and exhaustion. This is a direct result of needing to repress emotions while caring for patients but lacking guidance on how to manage those feelings outside of work.

“That kind of behavior, being what we call ‘professional,’ but really emotionally shut down, is prized and valued in medicine,” Dr. Ubell said. “I’m not saying we should be open all the time. But we’re not given any tools for what to do at the end of the day. In my case, it was eating. For other people, it’s drinking more than they would like, spending money, gambling, basically just numbing behavior.”

Dr. Ubell said only 20% of her work with clients revolves around what to eat. The other 80% is about managing the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that negatively affect their lives, teaching them how to cope “without food as the crutch.” Once the problems regarding eating are resolved, clients can begin to address all the problems they were using food to obscure.

“A lot of my clients really have to work on self-love, self-acceptance, self-compassion,” Dr. Ubell said. “They’re such high achievers, and often many of them think that they’ve achieved so much by being harsh with themselves and driving themselves hard. They think it’s causal, but it’s not. They have to learn, How can I be accomplished while being nice to myself?”
 

Step 2: Reassess your mindset

Ali Novitsky, MD, an obesity medicine physician and now full-time life coach, calls this attitude the “heaven’s reward fallacy.” Observed by renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck, MD, this cognitive distortion involves imagining that hard work, struggle, and self-sacrifice must ultimately pay off, as if suffering entitles us to compensation in the future. For physicians, who are embedded in a culture of selflessness and dedication to the health of others, this often means forfeiting their own health and well-being.

For many, there is also a sense of secrecy and shame regarding health and fitness problems. As doctors, they are experts in the human body. They should already know how to lose weight. Right? And so not knowing or being unable to muster the will power for a diet plan while on call overnight or working 12-hour shifts feels like a professional failure as well as a personal one.

“As physicians, we’re so afraid to fail,” Dr. Novitsky explained. “It’s more comfortable just to not know. Maybe we’ve failed before, or maybe we didn’t get the result that we wanted, so now we can’t bear to have that happen again. It’s just way too painful.”

Dr. Novitsky – who has herself lost 50 pounds and have kept it off for 20 years – provides weight loss, intuitive eating, and fitness programs for female physicians. Her evidence-based approach aims to optimize body composition rather than hitting a number on a scale. Conscious of the physician lifestyle, she offers night and weekend meetings, sessions that can be replayed, and even an “on-call workout” series designed for being in the call room.

Dr. Novitsky notices that many of her clients are stuck in an “all-or-none” mindset. If they can’t do something perfectly with total commitment, they would rather not do it at all. With so many demands on their time and energy, something has to give, and putting their health first begins to seem selfish or hopeless. “I can speak to this,” Dr. Novitsky admitted, “because I did it to myself”

Like Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky said that “most of the stuff we’re coaching on is not about their food. It’s about how they feel undervalued at work, how their relationships are suffering, how they feel super guilty as a parent. They feel like they look good on paper, but this is not the life they signed up for.”
 

Step 3: Life change equals physical change

Siobhan Key, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician, sees her own weight loss struggle as a symptom of a former lifestyle that, frankly, “sucked.”

Her grueling schedule and lack of self-care left her feeling stuck on a “hamster wheel” of work and family responsibilities. There was no space for herself. She craved the dopamine burst from junk food and felt powerless to stop reaching for Wendy’s French fries as a frequent reward. It took realizing that she was on track to develop type 2 diabetes to motivate her to change.

Where she lived also affected her struggle. Living in the small community of Prince George, B.C., local weight-loss programs were difficult for Dr. Key. It was likely that she would encounter some of her patients, which would not be a safe space to reveal her personal challenges. Searching for an expert who could explain how to eat healthy meals while on call and then working a full day afterward also yielded no solutions.

Unlike Dr. Ubell and Dr. Novitsky, Dr. Key still practices medicine. But she is also a weight-loss coach. She takes an unconventional approach by not proposing any specific diet rules or plans. Dictating which foods you can or cannot eat is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Dr. Key said. It will never work long term. Instead, she wants to help her clients use both their medical knowledge and life experience to make healthy eating fit into their lives.

“Let’s stop doing things that makes our lives worse just to lose weight, because it will never be sustainable,” said Dr. Key. “Rather, let’s choose paths of losing weight and managing our eating that actually make our lives better. And those exist. They’re just not the classic diet paths that we’ve been taught before.”

Dr. Key’s program also includes advice from other physician coaches on professional struggles. For example, charting is a big one, Dr. Key said. The pressure of completing patient notes, often outside of working hours, is a major source of stress that triggers a lot of eating.

Weight loss doesn’t happen in a vacuum, Dr. Key pointed out. It isn’t the simple “eat less, exercise more” equation that physicians learned in medical school. “The reality is, weight loss and eating happen in conjunction with the rest of your life,” she said.

Find ways to make your life easier and the benefits will follow, she said. “As your life gets better, you feel more empowered. You feel less stressed. Your eating choices start to be simpler, and the cravings start to go down. You can’t have one without the other.”
 

Weight is just a symptom of a bigger problem

Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key all say they have seen dramatic transformations among their clients. They don’t mean just physical ones. Dr. Ubell remembered an emergency medicine physician so miserable at work that she considered defaulting on her student loans. Dr. Novitsky recalled an anesthesiologist so insecure that she nearly passed up a scholarship to a fitness program. Dr. Key has seen clients so obsessed with what they should and shouldn’t eat that food dominated their thoughts every free minute of the day.

All these doctors, the coaches said, have been able to regain a sense of control over their lives, rethink how they show up at work and at home, and even rediscover their joy in medicine.

These changes are less about body mass index and more about confidence and self-love. For weight loss to last, according to Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key, there must be permanent mental shifts that redefine one’s relationship with food.

“There’s no finish line when we’re talking about long-term weight maintenance,” Dr. Key tells physicians. “You have to be able to do it for the rest of your life.”

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

Katrina Ubell, MD, listened with growing skepticism as the dietician outlined her weight-loss plan. “You’re going to have to eat a snack in the afternoon,” she instructed.

Dr. Ubell refrained from rolling her eyes. The afternoon was in the middle of clinic. “I’m not ever going to do that,” she tried to explain. “I can’t.”

“Of course, you can,” the dietician insisted. “You shouldn’t think that way. You get to decide.”

“She wasn’t wrong about that,” Dr. Ubell conceded years later. But the well-meaning dietician couldn’t understand the reality of life as a physician. As a pediatrician, Dr. Ubell could visualize how her afternoon would play out. “You’re already 40 minutes behind. This mom needs to get home to get her kid off the bus. This mom, her toddler is losing his mind because he needs a nap. You’re not going to say: ‘Sorry, I need to eat some carrots and hummus.’ ”

Most of what the dieting realm recommends for weight loss, Dr. Ubell discovered, seems only relevant to people with a consistent 9 to 5 schedule. That was not her life. Neither was she looking for one of the many diet plans based on self-denial and will power. Having already lost and gained back 40 pounds several times, she knew these methods were not effective long term.

What were other overweight doctors doing? she wondered. Someone must know how to help doctors lose weight. But her Google searches revealed ... nothing. No one was offering a useful diet or exercise plan specifically for physicians.

Dr. Ubell’s search for answers led to the world of life coaching, and eventually she became a master-certified life and weight-loss coach, working exclusively with women-identifying physicians.

The field is small. Very few weight-loss programs are solely for physicians, whose stress levels, unpredictable schedules, and high-achieving mindset pose unique challenges. Among the constantly changing diet fads, few would likely work for the surgeon confined to an operating room for 9 hours at a time or the anesthesiologist who can’t even manage to drink water during the workday.

Dr. Ubell set out to create a weight-loss program rooted in the physical and mental demands of medical practice. In the process, she lost 45 pounds.
 

Step 1: Acknowledge that doctors are, unfortunately, human

Dr. Ubell’s approach to food combines concepts from cognitive-behavioral therapy with personalized eating plans, coaching, and support from a community of doctors.

All of this stems from her own experience with emotional eating, which she said many doctors use to process their stress and exhaustion. This is a direct result of needing to repress emotions while caring for patients but lacking guidance on how to manage those feelings outside of work.

“That kind of behavior, being what we call ‘professional,’ but really emotionally shut down, is prized and valued in medicine,” Dr. Ubell said. “I’m not saying we should be open all the time. But we’re not given any tools for what to do at the end of the day. In my case, it was eating. For other people, it’s drinking more than they would like, spending money, gambling, basically just numbing behavior.”

Dr. Ubell said only 20% of her work with clients revolves around what to eat. The other 80% is about managing the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that negatively affect their lives, teaching them how to cope “without food as the crutch.” Once the problems regarding eating are resolved, clients can begin to address all the problems they were using food to obscure.

“A lot of my clients really have to work on self-love, self-acceptance, self-compassion,” Dr. Ubell said. “They’re such high achievers, and often many of them think that they’ve achieved so much by being harsh with themselves and driving themselves hard. They think it’s causal, but it’s not. They have to learn, How can I be accomplished while being nice to myself?”
 

Step 2: Reassess your mindset

Ali Novitsky, MD, an obesity medicine physician and now full-time life coach, calls this attitude the “heaven’s reward fallacy.” Observed by renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck, MD, this cognitive distortion involves imagining that hard work, struggle, and self-sacrifice must ultimately pay off, as if suffering entitles us to compensation in the future. For physicians, who are embedded in a culture of selflessness and dedication to the health of others, this often means forfeiting their own health and well-being.

For many, there is also a sense of secrecy and shame regarding health and fitness problems. As doctors, they are experts in the human body. They should already know how to lose weight. Right? And so not knowing or being unable to muster the will power for a diet plan while on call overnight or working 12-hour shifts feels like a professional failure as well as a personal one.

“As physicians, we’re so afraid to fail,” Dr. Novitsky explained. “It’s more comfortable just to not know. Maybe we’ve failed before, or maybe we didn’t get the result that we wanted, so now we can’t bear to have that happen again. It’s just way too painful.”

Dr. Novitsky – who has herself lost 50 pounds and have kept it off for 20 years – provides weight loss, intuitive eating, and fitness programs for female physicians. Her evidence-based approach aims to optimize body composition rather than hitting a number on a scale. Conscious of the physician lifestyle, she offers night and weekend meetings, sessions that can be replayed, and even an “on-call workout” series designed for being in the call room.

Dr. Novitsky notices that many of her clients are stuck in an “all-or-none” mindset. If they can’t do something perfectly with total commitment, they would rather not do it at all. With so many demands on their time and energy, something has to give, and putting their health first begins to seem selfish or hopeless. “I can speak to this,” Dr. Novitsky admitted, “because I did it to myself”

Like Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky said that “most of the stuff we’re coaching on is not about their food. It’s about how they feel undervalued at work, how their relationships are suffering, how they feel super guilty as a parent. They feel like they look good on paper, but this is not the life they signed up for.”
 

Step 3: Life change equals physical change

Siobhan Key, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician, sees her own weight loss struggle as a symptom of a former lifestyle that, frankly, “sucked.”

Her grueling schedule and lack of self-care left her feeling stuck on a “hamster wheel” of work and family responsibilities. There was no space for herself. She craved the dopamine burst from junk food and felt powerless to stop reaching for Wendy’s French fries as a frequent reward. It took realizing that she was on track to develop type 2 diabetes to motivate her to change.

Where she lived also affected her struggle. Living in the small community of Prince George, B.C., local weight-loss programs were difficult for Dr. Key. It was likely that she would encounter some of her patients, which would not be a safe space to reveal her personal challenges. Searching for an expert who could explain how to eat healthy meals while on call and then working a full day afterward also yielded no solutions.

Unlike Dr. Ubell and Dr. Novitsky, Dr. Key still practices medicine. But she is also a weight-loss coach. She takes an unconventional approach by not proposing any specific diet rules or plans. Dictating which foods you can or cannot eat is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Dr. Key said. It will never work long term. Instead, she wants to help her clients use both their medical knowledge and life experience to make healthy eating fit into their lives.

“Let’s stop doing things that makes our lives worse just to lose weight, because it will never be sustainable,” said Dr. Key. “Rather, let’s choose paths of losing weight and managing our eating that actually make our lives better. And those exist. They’re just not the classic diet paths that we’ve been taught before.”

Dr. Key’s program also includes advice from other physician coaches on professional struggles. For example, charting is a big one, Dr. Key said. The pressure of completing patient notes, often outside of working hours, is a major source of stress that triggers a lot of eating.

Weight loss doesn’t happen in a vacuum, Dr. Key pointed out. It isn’t the simple “eat less, exercise more” equation that physicians learned in medical school. “The reality is, weight loss and eating happen in conjunction with the rest of your life,” she said.

Find ways to make your life easier and the benefits will follow, she said. “As your life gets better, you feel more empowered. You feel less stressed. Your eating choices start to be simpler, and the cravings start to go down. You can’t have one without the other.”
 

Weight is just a symptom of a bigger problem

Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key all say they have seen dramatic transformations among their clients. They don’t mean just physical ones. Dr. Ubell remembered an emergency medicine physician so miserable at work that she considered defaulting on her student loans. Dr. Novitsky recalled an anesthesiologist so insecure that she nearly passed up a scholarship to a fitness program. Dr. Key has seen clients so obsessed with what they should and shouldn’t eat that food dominated their thoughts every free minute of the day.

All these doctors, the coaches said, have been able to regain a sense of control over their lives, rethink how they show up at work and at home, and even rediscover their joy in medicine.

These changes are less about body mass index and more about confidence and self-love. For weight loss to last, according to Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key, there must be permanent mental shifts that redefine one’s relationship with food.

“There’s no finish line when we’re talking about long-term weight maintenance,” Dr. Key tells physicians. “You have to be able to do it for the rest of your life.”

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

Katrina Ubell, MD, listened with growing skepticism as the dietician outlined her weight-loss plan. “You’re going to have to eat a snack in the afternoon,” she instructed.

Dr. Ubell refrained from rolling her eyes. The afternoon was in the middle of clinic. “I’m not ever going to do that,” she tried to explain. “I can’t.”

“Of course, you can,” the dietician insisted. “You shouldn’t think that way. You get to decide.”

“She wasn’t wrong about that,” Dr. Ubell conceded years later. But the well-meaning dietician couldn’t understand the reality of life as a physician. As a pediatrician, Dr. Ubell could visualize how her afternoon would play out. “You’re already 40 minutes behind. This mom needs to get home to get her kid off the bus. This mom, her toddler is losing his mind because he needs a nap. You’re not going to say: ‘Sorry, I need to eat some carrots and hummus.’ ”

Most of what the dieting realm recommends for weight loss, Dr. Ubell discovered, seems only relevant to people with a consistent 9 to 5 schedule. That was not her life. Neither was she looking for one of the many diet plans based on self-denial and will power. Having already lost and gained back 40 pounds several times, she knew these methods were not effective long term.

What were other overweight doctors doing? she wondered. Someone must know how to help doctors lose weight. But her Google searches revealed ... nothing. No one was offering a useful diet or exercise plan specifically for physicians.

Dr. Ubell’s search for answers led to the world of life coaching, and eventually she became a master-certified life and weight-loss coach, working exclusively with women-identifying physicians.

The field is small. Very few weight-loss programs are solely for physicians, whose stress levels, unpredictable schedules, and high-achieving mindset pose unique challenges. Among the constantly changing diet fads, few would likely work for the surgeon confined to an operating room for 9 hours at a time or the anesthesiologist who can’t even manage to drink water during the workday.

Dr. Ubell set out to create a weight-loss program rooted in the physical and mental demands of medical practice. In the process, she lost 45 pounds.
 

Step 1: Acknowledge that doctors are, unfortunately, human

Dr. Ubell’s approach to food combines concepts from cognitive-behavioral therapy with personalized eating plans, coaching, and support from a community of doctors.

All of this stems from her own experience with emotional eating, which she said many doctors use to process their stress and exhaustion. This is a direct result of needing to repress emotions while caring for patients but lacking guidance on how to manage those feelings outside of work.

“That kind of behavior, being what we call ‘professional,’ but really emotionally shut down, is prized and valued in medicine,” Dr. Ubell said. “I’m not saying we should be open all the time. But we’re not given any tools for what to do at the end of the day. In my case, it was eating. For other people, it’s drinking more than they would like, spending money, gambling, basically just numbing behavior.”

Dr. Ubell said only 20% of her work with clients revolves around what to eat. The other 80% is about managing the thoughts, beliefs, and emotions that negatively affect their lives, teaching them how to cope “without food as the crutch.” Once the problems regarding eating are resolved, clients can begin to address all the problems they were using food to obscure.

“A lot of my clients really have to work on self-love, self-acceptance, self-compassion,” Dr. Ubell said. “They’re such high achievers, and often many of them think that they’ve achieved so much by being harsh with themselves and driving themselves hard. They think it’s causal, but it’s not. They have to learn, How can I be accomplished while being nice to myself?”
 

Step 2: Reassess your mindset

Ali Novitsky, MD, an obesity medicine physician and now full-time life coach, calls this attitude the “heaven’s reward fallacy.” Observed by renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck, MD, this cognitive distortion involves imagining that hard work, struggle, and self-sacrifice must ultimately pay off, as if suffering entitles us to compensation in the future. For physicians, who are embedded in a culture of selflessness and dedication to the health of others, this often means forfeiting their own health and well-being.

For many, there is also a sense of secrecy and shame regarding health and fitness problems. As doctors, they are experts in the human body. They should already know how to lose weight. Right? And so not knowing or being unable to muster the will power for a diet plan while on call overnight or working 12-hour shifts feels like a professional failure as well as a personal one.

“As physicians, we’re so afraid to fail,” Dr. Novitsky explained. “It’s more comfortable just to not know. Maybe we’ve failed before, or maybe we didn’t get the result that we wanted, so now we can’t bear to have that happen again. It’s just way too painful.”

Dr. Novitsky – who has herself lost 50 pounds and have kept it off for 20 years – provides weight loss, intuitive eating, and fitness programs for female physicians. Her evidence-based approach aims to optimize body composition rather than hitting a number on a scale. Conscious of the physician lifestyle, she offers night and weekend meetings, sessions that can be replayed, and even an “on-call workout” series designed for being in the call room.

Dr. Novitsky notices that many of her clients are stuck in an “all-or-none” mindset. If they can’t do something perfectly with total commitment, they would rather not do it at all. With so many demands on their time and energy, something has to give, and putting their health first begins to seem selfish or hopeless. “I can speak to this,” Dr. Novitsky admitted, “because I did it to myself”

Like Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky said that “most of the stuff we’re coaching on is not about their food. It’s about how they feel undervalued at work, how their relationships are suffering, how they feel super guilty as a parent. They feel like they look good on paper, but this is not the life they signed up for.”
 

Step 3: Life change equals physical change

Siobhan Key, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician, sees her own weight loss struggle as a symptom of a former lifestyle that, frankly, “sucked.”

Her grueling schedule and lack of self-care left her feeling stuck on a “hamster wheel” of work and family responsibilities. There was no space for herself. She craved the dopamine burst from junk food and felt powerless to stop reaching for Wendy’s French fries as a frequent reward. It took realizing that she was on track to develop type 2 diabetes to motivate her to change.

Where she lived also affected her struggle. Living in the small community of Prince George, B.C., local weight-loss programs were difficult for Dr. Key. It was likely that she would encounter some of her patients, which would not be a safe space to reveal her personal challenges. Searching for an expert who could explain how to eat healthy meals while on call and then working a full day afterward also yielded no solutions.

Unlike Dr. Ubell and Dr. Novitsky, Dr. Key still practices medicine. But she is also a weight-loss coach. She takes an unconventional approach by not proposing any specific diet rules or plans. Dictating which foods you can or cannot eat is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, Dr. Key said. It will never work long term. Instead, she wants to help her clients use both their medical knowledge and life experience to make healthy eating fit into their lives.

“Let’s stop doing things that makes our lives worse just to lose weight, because it will never be sustainable,” said Dr. Key. “Rather, let’s choose paths of losing weight and managing our eating that actually make our lives better. And those exist. They’re just not the classic diet paths that we’ve been taught before.”

Dr. Key’s program also includes advice from other physician coaches on professional struggles. For example, charting is a big one, Dr. Key said. The pressure of completing patient notes, often outside of working hours, is a major source of stress that triggers a lot of eating.

Weight loss doesn’t happen in a vacuum, Dr. Key pointed out. It isn’t the simple “eat less, exercise more” equation that physicians learned in medical school. “The reality is, weight loss and eating happen in conjunction with the rest of your life,” she said.

Find ways to make your life easier and the benefits will follow, she said. “As your life gets better, you feel more empowered. You feel less stressed. Your eating choices start to be simpler, and the cravings start to go down. You can’t have one without the other.”
 

Weight is just a symptom of a bigger problem

Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key all say they have seen dramatic transformations among their clients. They don’t mean just physical ones. Dr. Ubell remembered an emergency medicine physician so miserable at work that she considered defaulting on her student loans. Dr. Novitsky recalled an anesthesiologist so insecure that she nearly passed up a scholarship to a fitness program. Dr. Key has seen clients so obsessed with what they should and shouldn’t eat that food dominated their thoughts every free minute of the day.

All these doctors, the coaches said, have been able to regain a sense of control over their lives, rethink how they show up at work and at home, and even rediscover their joy in medicine.

These changes are less about body mass index and more about confidence and self-love. For weight loss to last, according to Dr. Ubell, Dr. Novitsky, and Dr. Key, there must be permanent mental shifts that redefine one’s relationship with food.

“There’s no finish line when we’re talking about long-term weight maintenance,” Dr. Key tells physicians. “You have to be able to do it for the rest of your life.”

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

Medicare’s recently announced 2023 physician payment rule likely trims doctors’ pay even as it aims to expand patients’ access to behavioral health services, chronic pain management, and hearing screening. The rule also seeks to ease financial and administrative burdens on accountable care organizations (ACOs).

But physician groups’ initial reactions centered on what the American Medical Association describes as a “damaging across-the-board reduction” of 4.4% in a base calculation, known as a conversion factor.

The reduction is only one of the current threats to physician’s finances, Jack Resneck Jr, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. Medicare payment rates also fail to account for inflation in practice costs and COVID-related challenges. Physician’s Medicare payments could be cut by nearly 8.5% in 2023, factoring in other budget cuts, Dr. Resneck said in the statement.

That “would severely impede patient access to care due to the forced closure of physician practices and put further strain on those that remained open during the pandemic,” he said.

A key driver of these cuts is a law that was intended to resolve budget battles between Congress and physicians, while also transitioning Medicare away from fee-for-service payments and pegging reimbursement to judgments about value of care provided. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services thus had little choice about cuts mandated by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015.

For AMA and other physician groups, the finalization of the Medicare rule served as a rallying point to build support for pending legislation intended to stave off at least some payment cuts.

Federal officials should act soon to block the expected cuts before this season of Congress ends in January, said Anders Gilberg, senior vice president for government affairs at the Medical Group Management Association, in a statement.

“This cannot wait until next Congress – there are claims-processing implications for retroactively applying these policies,” Mr. Gilberg said.

He said MGMA would work with Congress and CMS “to mitigate these cuts and develop sustainable payment policies to allow physician practices to focus on treating patients instead of scrambling to keep their doors open.”
 

Chronic budget battles

Once seen as a promising resolution to chronic annual budget battles between physicians and Medicare, MACRA has proven a near-universal disappointment. A federal advisory commission in 2018 recommended that Congress scrap MACRA’s  Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and replace it with a new approach for attempting to tie reimbursement to judgments about the quality of medical care.

MACRA replaced an earlier budgeting approach on Medicare physician pay, known as the sustainable growth rate (SGR). Physician groups successfully lobbied Congress for many years to block threatened Medicare payment cuts. Between 2003 and April 2014, Congress passed 17 laws overriding the cuts to physician pay that the lawmakers earlier mandated through the SGR.

A similar pattern has emerged as Congress now acts on short-term fixes to stave off MACRA-mandated cuts. A law passed last December postponed cuts in physician pay from MACRA and federal budget laws.

And more than 70 members of the House support a bill (HR 8800) intended to block a slated 4.4% MACRA-related cut in physician pay for 2023. Two physicians, Rep. Ami Bera, MD, (D-CA) and Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN) sponsored the bill.

Among the groups backing the bill are the AMA, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American College of Physicians. The lawmakers may try to attach this bill to a large spending measure, known as an omnibus, that Congress will try to clear in December to avoid a partial government shutdown.

In a statement, Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, the president of AAFP, urged Congress to factor in inflation in setting physician reimbursement and to reconsider Medicare’s approach to paying physicians.

“It’s past time to end the untenable physician payment cuts – which have now become an annual threat to the stability of physician practices – caused by Medicare budget neutrality requirements and the ongoing freeze in annual payment updates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

Congress also needs to retool its approach to alternative payment models (APMs) intended to improve the quality of patient care, Dr. Iroku-Malize said.

“Physicians in APMs are better equipped to address unmet social needs and provide other enhanced services that are not supported by fee-for-service payment rates,” Dr. Iroku-Malize said. “However, insufficient Medicare fee-for-service payment rates, inadequate support, and burdensome timelines are undermining the move to value-based care and exacerbating our nation’s underinvestment in primary care.”
 

Policy changes

But the new rule did have some good news for family physicians, Dr. Iroku-Malize told this news organization in an email.

CMS said it will pay psychologists and social workers to help manage behavioral health needs as part of the primary care team, in addition to their own services. This change will give primary care practices more flexibility to coordinate with behavioral health professionals, Dr. Iroku-Malize noted.

“We know that primary care physicians are the first point of contact for many patients, and behavioral health integration increases critical access to mental health care, decreases stigma for patients, and can prevent more severe medical and behavioral health events,” she wrote.

CMS also eased a supervision requirement for nonphysicians providing behavioral health services.

It intends to allow certain health professionals to provide this care without requiring that a supervising physician or nurse practitioner be physically on site. This shift from direct supervision to what’s called general supervision applies to marriage and family therapists, licensed professional counselors, addiction counselors, certified peer recovery specialists, and behavioral health specialists, CMS said.

Other major policy changes include:

Medicare will pay for telehealth opioid treatment programs allowing patients to initiate treatment with buprenorphine. CMS also clarified that certain programs can bill for opioid use disorder treatment services provided through mobile units, such as vans.

Medicare enrollees may see audiologists for nonacute hearing conditions without an order from a physician or nurse practitioner. The policy is meant to allow audiologists to examine patients to prescribe, fit, or change hearing aids, or to provide hearing tests unrelated to disequilibrium.

CMS created new reimbursement codes for chronic pain management and treatment services to encourage clinicians to see patients with this condition. The codes also are meant to encourage practitioners already treating Medicare patients with chronic pain to spend more time helping them manage their condition “within a trusting, supportive, and ongoing care partnership,” CMS said.

CMS also made changes to the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) intended to reduce administrative burdens and offer more financial support to practices involved in ACOs. These steps include expanding opportunities for certain low-revenue ACOs to share in savings even if they do not meet a target rate.

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

CHICAGO – Routine early, expeditious use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a common strategy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock, but a less aggressive initial approach may be just as effective, a randomized trial suggests.

In the study that assigned patients with “rapidly deteriorating or severe” cardiogenic shock to one or the other approach, clinical outcomes were no better for those who received immediate ECMO than for those initially managed with inotropes and vasopressors, researchers said.

The conservative strategy, importantly, allowed for downstream ECMO in the event of hemodynamic deterioration, which occurred in a substantial 39% of cases, observed Petr Ostadal, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Ostadal of Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, is also first author on the published report of the study, called Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS), which was published the same day in Circulation.

The trial makes a firm case for preferring the conservative initial approach over routine early ECMO in the kind of patients it entered, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, told this news organization.

More than 60% of the trial’s 117 patients had shock secondary to an acute coronary syndrome; another 23% were in heart failure decompensation.

A preference for the conservative initial approach would be welcome, he said. The early aggressive ECMO approach is resource intensive and carries some important risks, such as stroke or coagulopathy, said Dr. Allen, who is not connected with ECMO-CS. Yet it is increasingly the go-to approach in such patients, based primarily on observational data.

Although early ECMO apparently didn’t benefit patients in this study in their specific stage of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Allen observed, it would presumably help some, but identifying them in practice presents challenges. “Defining where people are in the spectrum of early versus middle versus late cardiogenic shock is actually very tricky.”

It will therefore be important, he said, to identify ways to predict which conservatively managed patients do well with the strategy, and which are most at risk for hemodynamic deterioration and for whom ECMO should be readily available.

“I think part of what ECMO-CS tells us is that, if a patient is stable on intravenous inotropic and vasopressor support, you can defer ECMO while you’re thinking about the patient – about their larger context and the right medical decision-making for them.”

The trial randomly assigned 122 patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock to the immediate-ECMO or the conservative strategy at four centers in the Czech Republic. The 117 patients for whom informed consent could be obtained were included in the analysis, 58 and 59 patients, respectively. Their mean age was about 65 years and three-fourths were male.

The primary endpoint, the only endpoint for which the study was powered, consisted of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, or use of a different form of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) by 30 days.

It occurred in 63.8% of patients assigned to immediate ECMO and 71.2% of those in the conservative strategy group, for a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.12; P = .21).

As individual endpoints, rates of death from any cause and resuscitated arrest did not significantly differ between the groups, but conservatively managed patients more often used another form of MCS. The HRs were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.66-1.87) for death from any cause, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.27-2.28) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18-0.79) for use of another MCS device.

The rates for serious adverse events – including bleeding, ischemia, stroke, pneumonia, or sepsis – were similar at 60.3% in the early-ECMO group and 61% in group with conservative initial management, Dr. Ostadal reported.

Other than the 23 patients in the conservative initial strategy group who went on to receive ECMO (1.9 days after randomization, on average), 1 went on to undergo implantation with a HeartMate (Abbott) ventricular assist device and 3 received an Impella pump (Abiomed).

Six patients in the early-ECMO group were already receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support at randomization, two underwent temporary implantation with a Centrimag device (Abbott), and three went on to receive a HeartMate device, the published report notes.

ECMO is the optimal first choice for MCS in such patients with cardiogenic shock who need a circulatory support device, especially because it also oxygenates the blood, Dr. Ostadal told this news organization.

But ECMO doesn’t help with ventricular unloading. Indeed, it can sometimes reduce ventricular preload, especially if right-heart pressures are low. So MCS devices that unload the ventricle, typically an IABP, can complement ECMO.

Dr. Ostadal speculates, however, that there may be a better pairing option. “Impella plus ECMO, I think, is the combination which has a future,” he said, for patients in cardiogenic shock who need a short-term percutaneous hemodynamic support device. Impella “supports the whole circulation” and unloads the left ventricle.

“A balloon pump in combination with ECMO is still not a bad choice. It’s very cheap in comparison with Impella.” But in his opinion, Dr. Ostadal said, “The combination of Impella plus ECMO is more efficient from a hemodynamic point of view.”

As the published report notes, ongoing randomized trials looking at ECMO plus other MCS devices in cardiogenic shock include ECLS-SHOCK, with a projected enrollment of 420 patients, and EURO-SHOCK, aiming for a similar number of patients; both compare routine ECMO to conservative management.

In addition, ANCHOR, in which ECMO is combined with IABP, and DanShock, which looks at early use of Impella rather than ECMO, are enrolling patients with shock secondary to acute coronary syndromes.

Dr. Ostadal disclosed consulting for Getinge, Edwards, Medtronic, Biomedica, and Xenios/Fresenius, and receiving research support from Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Allen disclosed modest or significant relationships with ACI Clinical, Novartis, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, and Cytokinetics.

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

CHICAGO – Routine early, expeditious use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a common strategy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock, but a less aggressive initial approach may be just as effective, a randomized trial suggests.

In the study that assigned patients with “rapidly deteriorating or severe” cardiogenic shock to one or the other approach, clinical outcomes were no better for those who received immediate ECMO than for those initially managed with inotropes and vasopressors, researchers said.

The conservative strategy, importantly, allowed for downstream ECMO in the event of hemodynamic deterioration, which occurred in a substantial 39% of cases, observed Petr Ostadal, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Ostadal of Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, is also first author on the published report of the study, called Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS), which was published the same day in Circulation.

The trial makes a firm case for preferring the conservative initial approach over routine early ECMO in the kind of patients it entered, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, told this news organization.

More than 60% of the trial’s 117 patients had shock secondary to an acute coronary syndrome; another 23% were in heart failure decompensation.

A preference for the conservative initial approach would be welcome, he said. The early aggressive ECMO approach is resource intensive and carries some important risks, such as stroke or coagulopathy, said Dr. Allen, who is not connected with ECMO-CS. Yet it is increasingly the go-to approach in such patients, based primarily on observational data.

Although early ECMO apparently didn’t benefit patients in this study in their specific stage of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Allen observed, it would presumably help some, but identifying them in practice presents challenges. “Defining where people are in the spectrum of early versus middle versus late cardiogenic shock is actually very tricky.”

It will therefore be important, he said, to identify ways to predict which conservatively managed patients do well with the strategy, and which are most at risk for hemodynamic deterioration and for whom ECMO should be readily available.

“I think part of what ECMO-CS tells us is that, if a patient is stable on intravenous inotropic and vasopressor support, you can defer ECMO while you’re thinking about the patient – about their larger context and the right medical decision-making for them.”

The trial randomly assigned 122 patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock to the immediate-ECMO or the conservative strategy at four centers in the Czech Republic. The 117 patients for whom informed consent could be obtained were included in the analysis, 58 and 59 patients, respectively. Their mean age was about 65 years and three-fourths were male.

The primary endpoint, the only endpoint for which the study was powered, consisted of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, or use of a different form of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) by 30 days.

It occurred in 63.8% of patients assigned to immediate ECMO and 71.2% of those in the conservative strategy group, for a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.12; P = .21).

As individual endpoints, rates of death from any cause and resuscitated arrest did not significantly differ between the groups, but conservatively managed patients more often used another form of MCS. The HRs were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.66-1.87) for death from any cause, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.27-2.28) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18-0.79) for use of another MCS device.

The rates for serious adverse events – including bleeding, ischemia, stroke, pneumonia, or sepsis – were similar at 60.3% in the early-ECMO group and 61% in group with conservative initial management, Dr. Ostadal reported.

Other than the 23 patients in the conservative initial strategy group who went on to receive ECMO (1.9 days after randomization, on average), 1 went on to undergo implantation with a HeartMate (Abbott) ventricular assist device and 3 received an Impella pump (Abiomed).

Six patients in the early-ECMO group were already receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support at randomization, two underwent temporary implantation with a Centrimag device (Abbott), and three went on to receive a HeartMate device, the published report notes.

ECMO is the optimal first choice for MCS in such patients with cardiogenic shock who need a circulatory support device, especially because it also oxygenates the blood, Dr. Ostadal told this news organization.

But ECMO doesn’t help with ventricular unloading. Indeed, it can sometimes reduce ventricular preload, especially if right-heart pressures are low. So MCS devices that unload the ventricle, typically an IABP, can complement ECMO.

Dr. Ostadal speculates, however, that there may be a better pairing option. “Impella plus ECMO, I think, is the combination which has a future,” he said, for patients in cardiogenic shock who need a short-term percutaneous hemodynamic support device. Impella “supports the whole circulation” and unloads the left ventricle.

“A balloon pump in combination with ECMO is still not a bad choice. It’s very cheap in comparison with Impella.” But in his opinion, Dr. Ostadal said, “The combination of Impella plus ECMO is more efficient from a hemodynamic point of view.”

As the published report notes, ongoing randomized trials looking at ECMO plus other MCS devices in cardiogenic shock include ECLS-SHOCK, with a projected enrollment of 420 patients, and EURO-SHOCK, aiming for a similar number of patients; both compare routine ECMO to conservative management.

In addition, ANCHOR, in which ECMO is combined with IABP, and DanShock, which looks at early use of Impella rather than ECMO, are enrolling patients with shock secondary to acute coronary syndromes.

Dr. Ostadal disclosed consulting for Getinge, Edwards, Medtronic, Biomedica, and Xenios/Fresenius, and receiving research support from Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Allen disclosed modest or significant relationships with ACI Clinical, Novartis, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, and Cytokinetics.

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

CHICAGO – Routine early, expeditious use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a common strategy in patients with severe cardiogenic shock, but a less aggressive initial approach may be just as effective, a randomized trial suggests.

In the study that assigned patients with “rapidly deteriorating or severe” cardiogenic shock to one or the other approach, clinical outcomes were no better for those who received immediate ECMO than for those initially managed with inotropes and vasopressors, researchers said.

The conservative strategy, importantly, allowed for downstream ECMO in the event of hemodynamic deterioration, which occurred in a substantial 39% of cases, observed Petr Ostadal, MD, PhD, when presenting the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Ostadal of Na Homolce Hospital, Prague, is also first author on the published report of the study, called Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock (ECMO-CS), which was published the same day in Circulation.

The trial makes a firm case for preferring the conservative initial approach over routine early ECMO in the kind of patients it entered, Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS, University of Coloradoat Denver, Aurora, told this news organization.

More than 60% of the trial’s 117 patients had shock secondary to an acute coronary syndrome; another 23% were in heart failure decompensation.

A preference for the conservative initial approach would be welcome, he said. The early aggressive ECMO approach is resource intensive and carries some important risks, such as stroke or coagulopathy, said Dr. Allen, who is not connected with ECMO-CS. Yet it is increasingly the go-to approach in such patients, based primarily on observational data.

Although early ECMO apparently didn’t benefit patients in this study in their specific stage of cardiogenic shock, Dr. Allen observed, it would presumably help some, but identifying them in practice presents challenges. “Defining where people are in the spectrum of early versus middle versus late cardiogenic shock is actually very tricky.”

It will therefore be important, he said, to identify ways to predict which conservatively managed patients do well with the strategy, and which are most at risk for hemodynamic deterioration and for whom ECMO should be readily available.

“I think part of what ECMO-CS tells us is that, if a patient is stable on intravenous inotropic and vasopressor support, you can defer ECMO while you’re thinking about the patient – about their larger context and the right medical decision-making for them.”

The trial randomly assigned 122 patients with rapidly deteriorating or severe cardiogenic shock to the immediate-ECMO or the conservative strategy at four centers in the Czech Republic. The 117 patients for whom informed consent could be obtained were included in the analysis, 58 and 59 patients, respectively. Their mean age was about 65 years and three-fourths were male.

The primary endpoint, the only endpoint for which the study was powered, consisted of death from any cause, resuscitated circulatory arrest, or use of a different form of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) by 30 days.

It occurred in 63.8% of patients assigned to immediate ECMO and 71.2% of those in the conservative strategy group, for a hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.12; P = .21).

As individual endpoints, rates of death from any cause and resuscitated arrest did not significantly differ between the groups, but conservatively managed patients more often used another form of MCS. The HRs were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.66-1.87) for death from any cause, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.27-2.28) for resuscitated cardiac arrest, and 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18-0.79) for use of another MCS device.

The rates for serious adverse events – including bleeding, ischemia, stroke, pneumonia, or sepsis – were similar at 60.3% in the early-ECMO group and 61% in group with conservative initial management, Dr. Ostadal reported.

Other than the 23 patients in the conservative initial strategy group who went on to receive ECMO (1.9 days after randomization, on average), 1 went on to undergo implantation with a HeartMate (Abbott) ventricular assist device and 3 received an Impella pump (Abiomed).

Six patients in the early-ECMO group were already receiving intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support at randomization, two underwent temporary implantation with a Centrimag device (Abbott), and three went on to receive a HeartMate device, the published report notes.

ECMO is the optimal first choice for MCS in such patients with cardiogenic shock who need a circulatory support device, especially because it also oxygenates the blood, Dr. Ostadal told this news organization.

But ECMO doesn’t help with ventricular unloading. Indeed, it can sometimes reduce ventricular preload, especially if right-heart pressures are low. So MCS devices that unload the ventricle, typically an IABP, can complement ECMO.

Dr. Ostadal speculates, however, that there may be a better pairing option. “Impella plus ECMO, I think, is the combination which has a future,” he said, for patients in cardiogenic shock who need a short-term percutaneous hemodynamic support device. Impella “supports the whole circulation” and unloads the left ventricle.

“A balloon pump in combination with ECMO is still not a bad choice. It’s very cheap in comparison with Impella.” But in his opinion, Dr. Ostadal said, “The combination of Impella plus ECMO is more efficient from a hemodynamic point of view.”

As the published report notes, ongoing randomized trials looking at ECMO plus other MCS devices in cardiogenic shock include ECLS-SHOCK, with a projected enrollment of 420 patients, and EURO-SHOCK, aiming for a similar number of patients; both compare routine ECMO to conservative management.

In addition, ANCHOR, in which ECMO is combined with IABP, and DanShock, which looks at early use of Impella rather than ECMO, are enrolling patients with shock secondary to acute coronary syndromes.

Dr. Ostadal disclosed consulting for Getinge, Edwards, Medtronic, Biomedica, and Xenios/Fresenius, and receiving research support from Xenios/Fresenius. Dr. Allen disclosed modest or significant relationships with ACI Clinical, Novartis, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, and Cytokinetics.

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