Cardiology News

Controversy continued over the potential effect of drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system via the angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) may have on exacerbating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

A joint statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America on March 17 gave full, unqualified support to maintaining patients on drugs that work this way, specifically the ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), which together form a long-standing cornerstone of treatment for hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease.

The three societies “recommend continuation” of ACE inhibitors or ARBs “for all patients already prescribed.” The statement went on to say that patients already diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection “should be fully evaluated before adding or removing any treatments, and any changes to their treatment should be based on the latest scientific evidence and shared decision making with their physician and health care team.”

“We understand the concern – as it has become clear that people with cardiovascular disease are at much higher risk of serious complications including death from COVID-19. However, we have reviewed the latest research – the evidence does not confirm the need to discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and we strongly recommend all physicians to consider the individual needs of each patient before making any changes to ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment regimens,” said Robert A. Harrington, MD, president of the American Heart Association and professor and chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, in the statement.

“There are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients using ACE-inhibitor or ARB medications,” added Richard J. Kovacs, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology and professor of cardiology at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

The “latest research” referred to in the statement likely focuses on a report that had appeared less than a week earlier in a British journal that hypothesized a possible increase in the susceptibility of human epithelial cells of the lungs, intestine, kidneys, and blood vessels exposed to these or certain other drugs, like the thiazolidinedione oral diabetes drugs or ibuprofen, because they cause up-regulation of the ACE2 protein in cell membranes, and ACE2 is the primary cell-surface receptor that allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter.

“We therefore hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” wrote Michael Roth, MD, and his associates in their recent article (Lancet Resp Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[20]30116-8). While the potential clinical impact of an increase in the number of ACE2 molecules in a cell’s surface membrane remains uninvestigated, the risk this phenomenon poses should mean that patients taking these drugs should receive heightened monitoring for COVID-19 disease, suggested Dr. Roth, a professor of biomedicine who specializes in studying inflammatory lung diseases including asthma, and associates.

However, others who have considered the impact that ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have on ACE2 and COVID-19 infections have noted that the picture is not simple. “Higher ACE2 expression following chronically medicating SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients with AT1R [angiotensin receptor 1] blockers, while seemingly paradoxical, may protect them against acute lung injury rather than putting them at higher risk to develop SARS. This may be accounted for by two complementary mechanisms: blocking the excessive angiotensin‐mediated AT1R activation caused by the viral infection, as well as up-regulating ACE2, thereby reducing angiotensin production by ACE and increasing the production” of a vasodilating form of angiotensin, wrote David Gurwitz, PhD, in a recently published editorial (Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656). A data-mining approach may allow researchers to determine whether patients who received drugs that interfere with angiotensin 1 function prior to being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection had a better disease outcome, suggested Dr. Gurwitz, a molecular geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Jerusalem.

The statement from the three U.S. cardiology societies came a few days following a similar statement of support for ongoing use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council on Hypertension.

Dr. Harrington, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Roth, and Dr. Gurwitz had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Controversy continued over the potential effect of drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system via the angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) may have on exacerbating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

A joint statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America on March 17 gave full, unqualified support to maintaining patients on drugs that work this way, specifically the ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), which together form a long-standing cornerstone of treatment for hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease.

The three societies “recommend continuation” of ACE inhibitors or ARBs “for all patients already prescribed.” The statement went on to say that patients already diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection “should be fully evaluated before adding or removing any treatments, and any changes to their treatment should be based on the latest scientific evidence and shared decision making with their physician and health care team.”

“We understand the concern – as it has become clear that people with cardiovascular disease are at much higher risk of serious complications including death from COVID-19. However, we have reviewed the latest research – the evidence does not confirm the need to discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and we strongly recommend all physicians to consider the individual needs of each patient before making any changes to ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment regimens,” said Robert A. Harrington, MD, president of the American Heart Association and professor and chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, in the statement.

“There are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients using ACE-inhibitor or ARB medications,” added Richard J. Kovacs, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology and professor of cardiology at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

The “latest research” referred to in the statement likely focuses on a report that had appeared less than a week earlier in a British journal that hypothesized a possible increase in the susceptibility of human epithelial cells of the lungs, intestine, kidneys, and blood vessels exposed to these or certain other drugs, like the thiazolidinedione oral diabetes drugs or ibuprofen, because they cause up-regulation of the ACE2 protein in cell membranes, and ACE2 is the primary cell-surface receptor that allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter.

“We therefore hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” wrote Michael Roth, MD, and his associates in their recent article (Lancet Resp Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[20]30116-8). While the potential clinical impact of an increase in the number of ACE2 molecules in a cell’s surface membrane remains uninvestigated, the risk this phenomenon poses should mean that patients taking these drugs should receive heightened monitoring for COVID-19 disease, suggested Dr. Roth, a professor of biomedicine who specializes in studying inflammatory lung diseases including asthma, and associates.

However, others who have considered the impact that ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have on ACE2 and COVID-19 infections have noted that the picture is not simple. “Higher ACE2 expression following chronically medicating SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients with AT1R [angiotensin receptor 1] blockers, while seemingly paradoxical, may protect them against acute lung injury rather than putting them at higher risk to develop SARS. This may be accounted for by two complementary mechanisms: blocking the excessive angiotensin‐mediated AT1R activation caused by the viral infection, as well as up-regulating ACE2, thereby reducing angiotensin production by ACE and increasing the production” of a vasodilating form of angiotensin, wrote David Gurwitz, PhD, in a recently published editorial (Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656). A data-mining approach may allow researchers to determine whether patients who received drugs that interfere with angiotensin 1 function prior to being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection had a better disease outcome, suggested Dr. Gurwitz, a molecular geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Jerusalem.

The statement from the three U.S. cardiology societies came a few days following a similar statement of support for ongoing use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council on Hypertension.

Dr. Harrington, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Roth, and Dr. Gurwitz had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Controversy continued over the potential effect of drugs that interfere with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system via the angiotensin-converting enzymes (ACE) may have on exacerbating infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

A joint statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and the Heart Failure Society of America on March 17 gave full, unqualified support to maintaining patients on drugs that work this way, specifically the ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), which together form a long-standing cornerstone of treatment for hypertension, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease.

The three societies “recommend continuation” of ACE inhibitors or ARBs “for all patients already prescribed.” The statement went on to say that patients already diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection “should be fully evaluated before adding or removing any treatments, and any changes to their treatment should be based on the latest scientific evidence and shared decision making with their physician and health care team.”

“We understand the concern – as it has become clear that people with cardiovascular disease are at much higher risk of serious complications including death from COVID-19. However, we have reviewed the latest research – the evidence does not confirm the need to discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs, and we strongly recommend all physicians to consider the individual needs of each patient before making any changes to ACE-inhibitor or ARB treatment regimens,” said Robert A. Harrington, MD, president of the American Heart Association and professor and chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, in the statement.

“There are no experimental or clinical data demonstrating beneficial or adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients using ACE-inhibitor or ARB medications,” added Richard J. Kovacs, MD, president of the American College of Cardiology and professor of cardiology at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

The “latest research” referred to in the statement likely focuses on a report that had appeared less than a week earlier in a British journal that hypothesized a possible increase in the susceptibility of human epithelial cells of the lungs, intestine, kidneys, and blood vessels exposed to these or certain other drugs, like the thiazolidinedione oral diabetes drugs or ibuprofen, because they cause up-regulation of the ACE2 protein in cell membranes, and ACE2 is the primary cell-surface receptor that allows the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter.

“We therefore hypothesize that diabetes and hypertension treatment with ACE2-stimulating drugs increases the risk of developing severe and fatal COVID-19,” wrote Michael Roth, MD, and his associates in their recent article (Lancet Resp Med. 2020 Mar 11. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600[20]30116-8). While the potential clinical impact of an increase in the number of ACE2 molecules in a cell’s surface membrane remains uninvestigated, the risk this phenomenon poses should mean that patients taking these drugs should receive heightened monitoring for COVID-19 disease, suggested Dr. Roth, a professor of biomedicine who specializes in studying inflammatory lung diseases including asthma, and associates.

However, others who have considered the impact that ACE inhibitors and ARBs might have on ACE2 and COVID-19 infections have noted that the picture is not simple. “Higher ACE2 expression following chronically medicating SARS‐CoV‐2 infected patients with AT1R [angiotensin receptor 1] blockers, while seemingly paradoxical, may protect them against acute lung injury rather than putting them at higher risk to develop SARS. This may be accounted for by two complementary mechanisms: blocking the excessive angiotensin‐mediated AT1R activation caused by the viral infection, as well as up-regulating ACE2, thereby reducing angiotensin production by ACE and increasing the production” of a vasodilating form of angiotensin, wrote David Gurwitz, PhD, in a recently published editorial (Drug Dev Res. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/ddr.21656). A data-mining approach may allow researchers to determine whether patients who received drugs that interfere with angiotensin 1 function prior to being diagnosed with a COVID-19 infection had a better disease outcome, suggested Dr. Gurwitz, a molecular geneticist at Tel Aviv University in Jerusalem.

The statement from the three U.S. cardiology societies came a few days following a similar statement of support for ongoing use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council on Hypertension.

Dr. Harrington, Dr. Kovacs, Dr. Roth, and Dr. Gurwitz had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

We are in uncharted waters with national and local states of emergency, schools and most activities being shut down, and rapidly evolving strategies on managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Everyone’s anxiety is appropriately high. As health care providers for children, you are facing changes in your personal life at home and in practice, likely including setting up televisits, trying to assess which patients to see, managing staffing challenges, and facing potential cash flow issues as expenses continue but revenue may fall short. And, of course, you will address a host of novel questions and concerns from the families you care for.

Ryan McVay/ThinkStock

Your top priorities are to stay calm while offering clear recommendations on testing, quarantine, and treatment with guidance from our federal and local public health agencies. By providing clear guidance on the medical issues, you will offer substantial reassurance to families. But even with a medical plan in place, this remains a confusing and anxiety-provoking moment, one without much precedent in most people’s lives or in our national experience. Our aim is to complement that guidance by offering you some principles to help families manage the stress and anxiety that the disruptions and uncertainties that this public health emergency has created.
 

Offer clear, open, regular, and child-centered communication

Accurate information calmly delivered is the antidote to anxiety or panic in a stressful situation. If you have an email mailing list of your parents, you may want to summarize information you are gathering with a note they can expect at a specified time each day. You could request them to email you questions that then can be included as an FAQ (frequently asked questions).

Most children will have noticed people wearing face masks, or dramatic scenes on the news with hospital workers in full protective gear, breathlessly reporting growing numbers of the infected and the deceased. At a minimum, they are being commanded to wash hands and to not touch their faces (which is challenging enough for adults!), and are probably overhearing conversations about quarantines and contagion as well as family concerns about jobs and family finances. Many children are managing extended school closures and some are even managing the quarantine or serious illness of a loved one. When children overhear frightening news from distressed adults, they are going to become anxious and afraid themselves. Parents should remember to find out what their children have seen, heard, or understood about what is going on, and they should correct misinformation or misunderstandings with clear explanations. They also should find out what their children are curious about. “What has you wondering about that?” is a great response when children have questions, in order to make sure you get at any underlying worry.

It is fine to not have an answer to every question. It is difficult to offer clear explanations about something that we don’t yet fully understand, and it is fine to acknowledge what we don’t know. “That’s a great question. Let’s look together at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] website.” Offering to look for answers or information together can be a powerful way to model how to handle uncertainty. And always couch answers with appropriate (not false) reassurance: “Children and young adults appear to be very safe from this illness, but we want to take care to protect those that are older or already sick.”

Remember most children set their anxiety level based on their parent’s anxiety, and part of being child centered in your communication includes offering information in an age-appropriate manner. Preschool-aged children (up to 5 years) still have magical thinking. They are prone to finding masks and gowns scary and to assume that school stopping may be because they did something wrong. Tell them about the new illness, and about the doctors and officials working hard to keep people safe. Reassure them about all of the adults working hard together to understand the illness and take care of people who are sick. Their sense of time is less logical, so you may have to tell them more than once. Reassure them that children do not get very sick from this illness, but they can carry and spread it, like having paint on their hands, so they need to wash their hands often to take good care of other people.

monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

School-age children (aged roughly 5-12 years) are better equipped cognitively to understand the seriousness of this outbreak. They are built to master new situations, but are prone to anxiety as they don’t yet have the emotional maturity to tolerate uncertainty or unfairness. Explain what is known without euphemisms, be truly curious about what their questions are, and look for answers together. Often what they need is to see you being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion for others.

Adolescents also will need all of this support, and can be curious about more abstract implications (political, ethical, financial). Do not be surprised when they ask sophisticated questions, but still are focused on the personal disruptions or sacrifices (a canceled dance or sports meet, concerns about academic performance). Adolescence is a time of intense preoccupation with their emerging identity and relationships; it is normal for them to experience events in a way that may seem selfish, especially if it disrupts their time with friends. Remind parents to offer compassion and validation, while acknowledging that shared sacrifice and discomfort are a part of every individual’s experience when a society must respond to such a large challenge.
 

Be mindful of children’s vulnerabilities

Being child centered goes beyond thinking about their age and developmental stage. Parents are the experts on their children and will know about any particular vulnerabilities to the stresses of this serious outbreak. Children who are prone to anxiety or suffer from anxiety disorders may be more prone to silent worry. It is especially important to check in with them often, find out what they know and what they are worried about, and remind them to “never worry alone.” It also is important to continue with any recommended treatment, avoiding accommodation of their anxieties, except when it is required by public health protocols (i.e., staying home from school). Children with developmental disabilities may require additional support to change behaviors (hand washing) and may be more sensitive to changes in routine. And children with learning disabilities or special services in school may require additional support or structure during a prolonged period at home.

Preserve routines and structure

Routines and predictability are important to the sense of stability and well-being of most children (and adults). While disruptions are unavoidable, preserve what routines you can, and establish some new ones. For children who are out of school for several weeks, set up a consistent home routine, with a similar wake-up and bedtime, and a “school schedule.” There may be academic activities like reading or work sheets. If the parents’ work is disrupted, they can homeschool, shoring up weak academic areas or enhancing areas of interest. Be sure to preserve time for physical activity and social connections within this new framework. Social time does not require physical proximity, and can happen by screen or phone. Physical activity should be outside if at all possible. Predictability, preserved expectations (academic and otherwise), physical exercise, social connection, and consistent sleep will go a long way in protecting everyone’s ability to manage the disruptions of this epidemic.

Find opportunity in the disruption

Many families have been on a treadmill of work, school, and activities that have left little unscheduled time or spontaneity. Recommend looking at this disruption as a rare opportunity to slow down, spend time together, listen, learn more about one another, and even to have fun. Families could play board games, card games, watch movies together, or even read aloud. They might discover it is the time to try new hobbies (knitting, learning a new language or instrument), or to teach each other new skills. You might learn something new, or something new about your children. You also will offer a model of finding the opportunity in adversity, and even offer them some wonderful memories from a difficult time.

Take care of the vulnerable and ease others’ hardships

Without a doubt, this will be a difficult time for many people, medically, financially, and emotionally. One powerful strategy to build resilience in our children and strengthen our communities is to think with children about ways to help those who are most at risk or burdened by this challenge. Perhaps they want to make cards or FaceTime calls to older relatives who may be otherwise isolated. They may want to consider ways to support the work of first responders, even just with appreciation. They may want to reach out to elderly neighbors and offer to get groceries or other needed supplies for them. Balancing appropriate self-care with a focus on the needs of those who are more vulnerable or burdened than ourselves is a powerful way to show our children how communities pull together in a challenging time; enhance their feeling of connectedness; and build resilience in them, in our families, and in our communities.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]

We are in uncharted waters with national and local states of emergency, schools and most activities being shut down, and rapidly evolving strategies on managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Everyone’s anxiety is appropriately high. As health care providers for children, you are facing changes in your personal life at home and in practice, likely including setting up televisits, trying to assess which patients to see, managing staffing challenges, and facing potential cash flow issues as expenses continue but revenue may fall short. And, of course, you will address a host of novel questions and concerns from the families you care for.

Ryan McVay/ThinkStock

Your top priorities are to stay calm while offering clear recommendations on testing, quarantine, and treatment with guidance from our federal and local public health agencies. By providing clear guidance on the medical issues, you will offer substantial reassurance to families. But even with a medical plan in place, this remains a confusing and anxiety-provoking moment, one without much precedent in most people’s lives or in our national experience. Our aim is to complement that guidance by offering you some principles to help families manage the stress and anxiety that the disruptions and uncertainties that this public health emergency has created.
 

Offer clear, open, regular, and child-centered communication

Accurate information calmly delivered is the antidote to anxiety or panic in a stressful situation. If you have an email mailing list of your parents, you may want to summarize information you are gathering with a note they can expect at a specified time each day. You could request them to email you questions that then can be included as an FAQ (frequently asked questions).

Most children will have noticed people wearing face masks, or dramatic scenes on the news with hospital workers in full protective gear, breathlessly reporting growing numbers of the infected and the deceased. At a minimum, they are being commanded to wash hands and to not touch their faces (which is challenging enough for adults!), and are probably overhearing conversations about quarantines and contagion as well as family concerns about jobs and family finances. Many children are managing extended school closures and some are even managing the quarantine or serious illness of a loved one. When children overhear frightening news from distressed adults, they are going to become anxious and afraid themselves. Parents should remember to find out what their children have seen, heard, or understood about what is going on, and they should correct misinformation or misunderstandings with clear explanations. They also should find out what their children are curious about. “What has you wondering about that?” is a great response when children have questions, in order to make sure you get at any underlying worry.

It is fine to not have an answer to every question. It is difficult to offer clear explanations about something that we don’t yet fully understand, and it is fine to acknowledge what we don’t know. “That’s a great question. Let’s look together at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] website.” Offering to look for answers or information together can be a powerful way to model how to handle uncertainty. And always couch answers with appropriate (not false) reassurance: “Children and young adults appear to be very safe from this illness, but we want to take care to protect those that are older or already sick.”

Remember most children set their anxiety level based on their parent’s anxiety, and part of being child centered in your communication includes offering information in an age-appropriate manner. Preschool-aged children (up to 5 years) still have magical thinking. They are prone to finding masks and gowns scary and to assume that school stopping may be because they did something wrong. Tell them about the new illness, and about the doctors and officials working hard to keep people safe. Reassure them about all of the adults working hard together to understand the illness and take care of people who are sick. Their sense of time is less logical, so you may have to tell them more than once. Reassure them that children do not get very sick from this illness, but they can carry and spread it, like having paint on their hands, so they need to wash their hands often to take good care of other people.

monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

School-age children (aged roughly 5-12 years) are better equipped cognitively to understand the seriousness of this outbreak. They are built to master new situations, but are prone to anxiety as they don’t yet have the emotional maturity to tolerate uncertainty or unfairness. Explain what is known without euphemisms, be truly curious about what their questions are, and look for answers together. Often what they need is to see you being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion for others.

Adolescents also will need all of this support, and can be curious about more abstract implications (political, ethical, financial). Do not be surprised when they ask sophisticated questions, but still are focused on the personal disruptions or sacrifices (a canceled dance or sports meet, concerns about academic performance). Adolescence is a time of intense preoccupation with their emerging identity and relationships; it is normal for them to experience events in a way that may seem selfish, especially if it disrupts their time with friends. Remind parents to offer compassion and validation, while acknowledging that shared sacrifice and discomfort are a part of every individual’s experience when a society must respond to such a large challenge.
 

Be mindful of children’s vulnerabilities

Being child centered goes beyond thinking about their age and developmental stage. Parents are the experts on their children and will know about any particular vulnerabilities to the stresses of this serious outbreak. Children who are prone to anxiety or suffer from anxiety disorders may be more prone to silent worry. It is especially important to check in with them often, find out what they know and what they are worried about, and remind them to “never worry alone.” It also is important to continue with any recommended treatment, avoiding accommodation of their anxieties, except when it is required by public health protocols (i.e., staying home from school). Children with developmental disabilities may require additional support to change behaviors (hand washing) and may be more sensitive to changes in routine. And children with learning disabilities or special services in school may require additional support or structure during a prolonged period at home.

Preserve routines and structure

Routines and predictability are important to the sense of stability and well-being of most children (and adults). While disruptions are unavoidable, preserve what routines you can, and establish some new ones. For children who are out of school for several weeks, set up a consistent home routine, with a similar wake-up and bedtime, and a “school schedule.” There may be academic activities like reading or work sheets. If the parents’ work is disrupted, they can homeschool, shoring up weak academic areas or enhancing areas of interest. Be sure to preserve time for physical activity and social connections within this new framework. Social time does not require physical proximity, and can happen by screen or phone. Physical activity should be outside if at all possible. Predictability, preserved expectations (academic and otherwise), physical exercise, social connection, and consistent sleep will go a long way in protecting everyone’s ability to manage the disruptions of this epidemic.

Find opportunity in the disruption

Many families have been on a treadmill of work, school, and activities that have left little unscheduled time or spontaneity. Recommend looking at this disruption as a rare opportunity to slow down, spend time together, listen, learn more about one another, and even to have fun. Families could play board games, card games, watch movies together, or even read aloud. They might discover it is the time to try new hobbies (knitting, learning a new language or instrument), or to teach each other new skills. You might learn something new, or something new about your children. You also will offer a model of finding the opportunity in adversity, and even offer them some wonderful memories from a difficult time.

Take care of the vulnerable and ease others’ hardships

Without a doubt, this will be a difficult time for many people, medically, financially, and emotionally. One powerful strategy to build resilience in our children and strengthen our communities is to think with children about ways to help those who are most at risk or burdened by this challenge. Perhaps they want to make cards or FaceTime calls to older relatives who may be otherwise isolated. They may want to consider ways to support the work of first responders, even just with appreciation. They may want to reach out to elderly neighbors and offer to get groceries or other needed supplies for them. Balancing appropriate self-care with a focus on the needs of those who are more vulnerable or burdened than ourselves is a powerful way to show our children how communities pull together in a challenging time; enhance their feeling of connectedness; and build resilience in them, in our families, and in our communities.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]

We are in uncharted waters with national and local states of emergency, schools and most activities being shut down, and rapidly evolving strategies on managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Everyone’s anxiety is appropriately high. As health care providers for children, you are facing changes in your personal life at home and in practice, likely including setting up televisits, trying to assess which patients to see, managing staffing challenges, and facing potential cash flow issues as expenses continue but revenue may fall short. And, of course, you will address a host of novel questions and concerns from the families you care for.

Ryan McVay/ThinkStock

Your top priorities are to stay calm while offering clear recommendations on testing, quarantine, and treatment with guidance from our federal and local public health agencies. By providing clear guidance on the medical issues, you will offer substantial reassurance to families. But even with a medical plan in place, this remains a confusing and anxiety-provoking moment, one without much precedent in most people’s lives or in our national experience. Our aim is to complement that guidance by offering you some principles to help families manage the stress and anxiety that the disruptions and uncertainties that this public health emergency has created.
 

Offer clear, open, regular, and child-centered communication

Accurate information calmly delivered is the antidote to anxiety or panic in a stressful situation. If you have an email mailing list of your parents, you may want to summarize information you are gathering with a note they can expect at a specified time each day. You could request them to email you questions that then can be included as an FAQ (frequently asked questions).

Most children will have noticed people wearing face masks, or dramatic scenes on the news with hospital workers in full protective gear, breathlessly reporting growing numbers of the infected and the deceased. At a minimum, they are being commanded to wash hands and to not touch their faces (which is challenging enough for adults!), and are probably overhearing conversations about quarantines and contagion as well as family concerns about jobs and family finances. Many children are managing extended school closures and some are even managing the quarantine or serious illness of a loved one. When children overhear frightening news from distressed adults, they are going to become anxious and afraid themselves. Parents should remember to find out what their children have seen, heard, or understood about what is going on, and they should correct misinformation or misunderstandings with clear explanations. They also should find out what their children are curious about. “What has you wondering about that?” is a great response when children have questions, in order to make sure you get at any underlying worry.

It is fine to not have an answer to every question. It is difficult to offer clear explanations about something that we don’t yet fully understand, and it is fine to acknowledge what we don’t know. “That’s a great question. Let’s look together at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] website.” Offering to look for answers or information together can be a powerful way to model how to handle uncertainty. And always couch answers with appropriate (not false) reassurance: “Children and young adults appear to be very safe from this illness, but we want to take care to protect those that are older or already sick.”

Remember most children set their anxiety level based on their parent’s anxiety, and part of being child centered in your communication includes offering information in an age-appropriate manner. Preschool-aged children (up to 5 years) still have magical thinking. They are prone to finding masks and gowns scary and to assume that school stopping may be because they did something wrong. Tell them about the new illness, and about the doctors and officials working hard to keep people safe. Reassure them about all of the adults working hard together to understand the illness and take care of people who are sick. Their sense of time is less logical, so you may have to tell them more than once. Reassure them that children do not get very sick from this illness, but they can carry and spread it, like having paint on their hands, so they need to wash their hands often to take good care of other people.

monkeybusinessimages/thinkstockphotos.com

School-age children (aged roughly 5-12 years) are better equipped cognitively to understand the seriousness of this outbreak. They are built to master new situations, but are prone to anxiety as they don’t yet have the emotional maturity to tolerate uncertainty or unfairness. Explain what is known without euphemisms, be truly curious about what their questions are, and look for answers together. Often what they need is to see you being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion for others.

Adolescents also will need all of this support, and can be curious about more abstract implications (political, ethical, financial). Do not be surprised when they ask sophisticated questions, but still are focused on the personal disruptions or sacrifices (a canceled dance or sports meet, concerns about academic performance). Adolescence is a time of intense preoccupation with their emerging identity and relationships; it is normal for them to experience events in a way that may seem selfish, especially if it disrupts their time with friends. Remind parents to offer compassion and validation, while acknowledging that shared sacrifice and discomfort are a part of every individual’s experience when a society must respond to such a large challenge.
 

Be mindful of children’s vulnerabilities

Being child centered goes beyond thinking about their age and developmental stage. Parents are the experts on their children and will know about any particular vulnerabilities to the stresses of this serious outbreak. Children who are prone to anxiety or suffer from anxiety disorders may be more prone to silent worry. It is especially important to check in with them often, find out what they know and what they are worried about, and remind them to “never worry alone.” It also is important to continue with any recommended treatment, avoiding accommodation of their anxieties, except when it is required by public health protocols (i.e., staying home from school). Children with developmental disabilities may require additional support to change behaviors (hand washing) and may be more sensitive to changes in routine. And children with learning disabilities or special services in school may require additional support or structure during a prolonged period at home.

Preserve routines and structure

Routines and predictability are important to the sense of stability and well-being of most children (and adults). While disruptions are unavoidable, preserve what routines you can, and establish some new ones. For children who are out of school for several weeks, set up a consistent home routine, with a similar wake-up and bedtime, and a “school schedule.” There may be academic activities like reading or work sheets. If the parents’ work is disrupted, they can homeschool, shoring up weak academic areas or enhancing areas of interest. Be sure to preserve time for physical activity and social connections within this new framework. Social time does not require physical proximity, and can happen by screen or phone. Physical activity should be outside if at all possible. Predictability, preserved expectations (academic and otherwise), physical exercise, social connection, and consistent sleep will go a long way in protecting everyone’s ability to manage the disruptions of this epidemic.

Find opportunity in the disruption

Many families have been on a treadmill of work, school, and activities that have left little unscheduled time or spontaneity. Recommend looking at this disruption as a rare opportunity to slow down, spend time together, listen, learn more about one another, and even to have fun. Families could play board games, card games, watch movies together, or even read aloud. They might discover it is the time to try new hobbies (knitting, learning a new language or instrument), or to teach each other new skills. You might learn something new, or something new about your children. You also will offer a model of finding the opportunity in adversity, and even offer them some wonderful memories from a difficult time.

Take care of the vulnerable and ease others’ hardships

Without a doubt, this will be a difficult time for many people, medically, financially, and emotionally. One powerful strategy to build resilience in our children and strengthen our communities is to think with children about ways to help those who are most at risk or burdened by this challenge. Perhaps they want to make cards or FaceTime calls to older relatives who may be otherwise isolated. They may want to consider ways to support the work of first responders, even just with appreciation. They may want to reach out to elderly neighbors and offer to get groceries or other needed supplies for them. Balancing appropriate self-care with a focus on the needs of those who are more vulnerable or burdened than ourselves is a powerful way to show our children how communities pull together in a challenging time; enhance their feeling of connectedness; and build resilience in them, in our families, and in our communities.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]

A message from a Chief Wellness Officer

We are at a time, unfortunately, of significant public uncertainty and fear of “the coronavirus.” Mixed and inaccurate messages from national leaders in the setting of delayed testing availability have heightened fears and impeded a uniformity in responses, medical and preventive.

Despite this, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals across the country, and in many other countries, have been addressing the medical realities of this pandemic in a way that should make every one of us health professionals proud – from the Chinese doctors and nurses to the Italian intensivists and primary care physicians throughout many countries who have treated patients suffering from, or fearful of, a novel disease with uncertain transmission characteristics and unpredictable clinical outcomes.

It is now time for physicians and other health providers in the United States to step up to the plate and model appropriate transmission-reducing behavior for the general public. This will help reduce the overall morbidity and mortality associated with this pandemic and let us return to a more normal lifestyle as soon as possible. Physicians need to be reassuring but realistic, and there are concrete steps that we can take to demonstrate to the general public that there is a way forward.

First the basic facts. The United States does not have enough intensive care beds or ventilators to handle a major pandemic. We will also have insufficient physicians and nurses if many are quarantined. The tragic experience in Italy, where patients are dying from lack of ventilators, intensive care facilities, and staff, must not be repeated here.

Many health systems are canceling or reducing outpatient appointments and increasingly using video and other telehealth technologies, especially for assessing and triaging people who believe that they may have become infected and are relatively asymptomatic. While all of the disruptions may seem unsettling, they are actually good news for those of us in healthcare. Efforts to “flatten the curve” will slow the infection spread and help us better manage patients who become critical.

So, what can physicians do?

• Make sure you are getting good information about the situation. Access reliable information and data that are widely available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization. Listen to professional news organizations, local and national. Pass this information to your patients and community.
• Obviously, when practicing clinically, follow all infection control protocols, which will inevitably change over time. Make it clear to your patients why you are following these protocols and procedures.
• Support and actively promote the public health responses to this pandemic. Systematic reviews of the evidence base have found that isolating ill persons, testing and tracing contacts, quarantining exposed persons, closing schools and workplaces, and avoiding crowding are more effective if implemented immediately, simultaneously (ie, school closures combined with teleworking for parents), and with high community compliance.
• Practice social distancing so that you remain as much in control as you can. This will make you feel psychologically better and safer, as well as reduce the risk for transmission. Take the essential precautionary measures that we are all being asked to take. Wash your hands. Do not shake hands. Clean shared items. Do not go to large public gatherings. Minimize large group travel as much as you can. Use video to see your patients or your own doctor.
• Connect and reconnect with people you trust and love. See your family, your partner, your children, your friends. Speak to them on the phone and nourish those relationships. See how they feel and care for each other. They will be worried about you. Reassure them. Be in the moment with them and use the importance of these relationships to give yourself a chance not to overthink any fears you might have.
• Look after yourself physically. Physical fitness is good for your mental health. While White House guidelines suggest avoiding gyms, you can still enjoy long walks and outdoor activities. Take the weekend off and don’t work excessively. Sleep well – at least 7-8 hours. Yoga and tai chi are great for relaxation, as are some apps. One that I use personally is CBT-I Coach, a free app made by the VA for veterans, which has a series of really excellent meditation and relaxation tools.
• Do not panic. Uncertainty surrounding the pandemic makes all of us anxious and afraid. It is normal to become hypervigilant, especially with our nonstop media. It is normal to be concerned when we feel out of control and when we are hearing about a possible future catastrophe, especially when fed with differing sets of information from multiple sources and countries.
• Be careful with any large decisions you are making that may affect the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Think about your decisions and try to take the long view; and run them by your spouse, partner, or friends. This is not a time to be making sudden big decisions that may be driven unconsciously, in part at least, by fear and anxiety.
• Realize that all of these societal disruptions are actually good for us in health care, and they help your family and friends understand the importance of slowing the disease’s spread. That’s good for health care and good for everyone.

Finally, remember that “this is what we do,” to quote Doug Kirk, MD, chief medical officer of UC Davis Health. We must look after our patients. But we also have to look after ourselves so that we can look after our patients. We should all be proud of our work and our caring. And we should model our personal behavior to our patients and to our families and friends so that they will model it to their community networks. That way, more people will keep well, and we will have more chance of “flattening the curve” and reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
 

Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. He is a longtime Medscape contributor.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A message from a Chief Wellness Officer

We are at a time, unfortunately, of significant public uncertainty and fear of “the coronavirus.” Mixed and inaccurate messages from national leaders in the setting of delayed testing availability have heightened fears and impeded a uniformity in responses, medical and preventive.

Despite this, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals across the country, and in many other countries, have been addressing the medical realities of this pandemic in a way that should make every one of us health professionals proud – from the Chinese doctors and nurses to the Italian intensivists and primary care physicians throughout many countries who have treated patients suffering from, or fearful of, a novel disease with uncertain transmission characteristics and unpredictable clinical outcomes.

It is now time for physicians and other health providers in the United States to step up to the plate and model appropriate transmission-reducing behavior for the general public. This will help reduce the overall morbidity and mortality associated with this pandemic and let us return to a more normal lifestyle as soon as possible. Physicians need to be reassuring but realistic, and there are concrete steps that we can take to demonstrate to the general public that there is a way forward.

First the basic facts. The United States does not have enough intensive care beds or ventilators to handle a major pandemic. We will also have insufficient physicians and nurses if many are quarantined. The tragic experience in Italy, where patients are dying from lack of ventilators, intensive care facilities, and staff, must not be repeated here.

Many health systems are canceling or reducing outpatient appointments and increasingly using video and other telehealth technologies, especially for assessing and triaging people who believe that they may have become infected and are relatively asymptomatic. While all of the disruptions may seem unsettling, they are actually good news for those of us in healthcare. Efforts to “flatten the curve” will slow the infection spread and help us better manage patients who become critical.

So, what can physicians do?

• Make sure you are getting good information about the situation. Access reliable information and data that are widely available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization. Listen to professional news organizations, local and national. Pass this information to your patients and community.
• Obviously, when practicing clinically, follow all infection control protocols, which will inevitably change over time. Make it clear to your patients why you are following these protocols and procedures.
• Support and actively promote the public health responses to this pandemic. Systematic reviews of the evidence base have found that isolating ill persons, testing and tracing contacts, quarantining exposed persons, closing schools and workplaces, and avoiding crowding are more effective if implemented immediately, simultaneously (ie, school closures combined with teleworking for parents), and with high community compliance.
• Practice social distancing so that you remain as much in control as you can. This will make you feel psychologically better and safer, as well as reduce the risk for transmission. Take the essential precautionary measures that we are all being asked to take. Wash your hands. Do not shake hands. Clean shared items. Do not go to large public gatherings. Minimize large group travel as much as you can. Use video to see your patients or your own doctor.
• Connect and reconnect with people you trust and love. See your family, your partner, your children, your friends. Speak to them on the phone and nourish those relationships. See how they feel and care for each other. They will be worried about you. Reassure them. Be in the moment with them and use the importance of these relationships to give yourself a chance not to overthink any fears you might have.
• Look after yourself physically. Physical fitness is good for your mental health. While White House guidelines suggest avoiding gyms, you can still enjoy long walks and outdoor activities. Take the weekend off and don’t work excessively. Sleep well – at least 7-8 hours. Yoga and tai chi are great for relaxation, as are some apps. One that I use personally is CBT-I Coach, a free app made by the VA for veterans, which has a series of really excellent meditation and relaxation tools.
• Do not panic. Uncertainty surrounding the pandemic makes all of us anxious and afraid. It is normal to become hypervigilant, especially with our nonstop media. It is normal to be concerned when we feel out of control and when we are hearing about a possible future catastrophe, especially when fed with differing sets of information from multiple sources and countries.
• Be careful with any large decisions you are making that may affect the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Think about your decisions and try to take the long view; and run them by your spouse, partner, or friends. This is not a time to be making sudden big decisions that may be driven unconsciously, in part at least, by fear and anxiety.
• Realize that all of these societal disruptions are actually good for us in health care, and they help your family and friends understand the importance of slowing the disease’s spread. That’s good for health care and good for everyone.

Finally, remember that “this is what we do,” to quote Doug Kirk, MD, chief medical officer of UC Davis Health. We must look after our patients. But we also have to look after ourselves so that we can look after our patients. We should all be proud of our work and our caring. And we should model our personal behavior to our patients and to our families and friends so that they will model it to their community networks. That way, more people will keep well, and we will have more chance of “flattening the curve” and reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
 

Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. He is a longtime Medscape contributor.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A message from a Chief Wellness Officer

We are at a time, unfortunately, of significant public uncertainty and fear of “the coronavirus.” Mixed and inaccurate messages from national leaders in the setting of delayed testing availability have heightened fears and impeded a uniformity in responses, medical and preventive.

Despite this, physicians, nurses, and other health professionals across the country, and in many other countries, have been addressing the medical realities of this pandemic in a way that should make every one of us health professionals proud – from the Chinese doctors and nurses to the Italian intensivists and primary care physicians throughout many countries who have treated patients suffering from, or fearful of, a novel disease with uncertain transmission characteristics and unpredictable clinical outcomes.

It is now time for physicians and other health providers in the United States to step up to the plate and model appropriate transmission-reducing behavior for the general public. This will help reduce the overall morbidity and mortality associated with this pandemic and let us return to a more normal lifestyle as soon as possible. Physicians need to be reassuring but realistic, and there are concrete steps that we can take to demonstrate to the general public that there is a way forward.

First the basic facts. The United States does not have enough intensive care beds or ventilators to handle a major pandemic. We will also have insufficient physicians and nurses if many are quarantined. The tragic experience in Italy, where patients are dying from lack of ventilators, intensive care facilities, and staff, must not be repeated here.

Many health systems are canceling or reducing outpatient appointments and increasingly using video and other telehealth technologies, especially for assessing and triaging people who believe that they may have become infected and are relatively asymptomatic. While all of the disruptions may seem unsettling, they are actually good news for those of us in healthcare. Efforts to “flatten the curve” will slow the infection spread and help us better manage patients who become critical.

So, what can physicians do?

• Make sure you are getting good information about the situation. Access reliable information and data that are widely available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization. Listen to professional news organizations, local and national. Pass this information to your patients and community.
• Obviously, when practicing clinically, follow all infection control protocols, which will inevitably change over time. Make it clear to your patients why you are following these protocols and procedures.
• Support and actively promote the public health responses to this pandemic. Systematic reviews of the evidence base have found that isolating ill persons, testing and tracing contacts, quarantining exposed persons, closing schools and workplaces, and avoiding crowding are more effective if implemented immediately, simultaneously (ie, school closures combined with teleworking for parents), and with high community compliance.
• Practice social distancing so that you remain as much in control as you can. This will make you feel psychologically better and safer, as well as reduce the risk for transmission. Take the essential precautionary measures that we are all being asked to take. Wash your hands. Do not shake hands. Clean shared items. Do not go to large public gatherings. Minimize large group travel as much as you can. Use video to see your patients or your own doctor.
• Connect and reconnect with people you trust and love. See your family, your partner, your children, your friends. Speak to them on the phone and nourish those relationships. See how they feel and care for each other. They will be worried about you. Reassure them. Be in the moment with them and use the importance of these relationships to give yourself a chance not to overthink any fears you might have.
• Look after yourself physically. Physical fitness is good for your mental health. While White House guidelines suggest avoiding gyms, you can still enjoy long walks and outdoor activities. Take the weekend off and don’t work excessively. Sleep well – at least 7-8 hours. Yoga and tai chi are great for relaxation, as are some apps. One that I use personally is CBT-I Coach, a free app made by the VA for veterans, which has a series of really excellent meditation and relaxation tools.
• Do not panic. Uncertainty surrounding the pandemic makes all of us anxious and afraid. It is normal to become hypervigilant, especially with our nonstop media. It is normal to be concerned when we feel out of control and when we are hearing about a possible future catastrophe, especially when fed with differing sets of information from multiple sources and countries.
• Be careful with any large decisions you are making that may affect the lives of yourself and your loved ones. Think about your decisions and try to take the long view; and run them by your spouse, partner, or friends. This is not a time to be making sudden big decisions that may be driven unconsciously, in part at least, by fear and anxiety.
• Realize that all of these societal disruptions are actually good for us in health care, and they help your family and friends understand the importance of slowing the disease’s spread. That’s good for health care and good for everyone.

Finally, remember that “this is what we do,” to quote Doug Kirk, MD, chief medical officer of UC Davis Health. We must look after our patients. But we also have to look after ourselves so that we can look after our patients. We should all be proud of our work and our caring. And we should model our personal behavior to our patients and to our families and friends so that they will model it to their community networks. That way, more people will keep well, and we will have more chance of “flattening the curve” and reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.
 

Peter M. Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, is a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. He is a longtime Medscape contributor.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – In a head-to-head comparison, the ultrathin-strut Orsiro drug-eluting stent (DES) is demonstrating a growing advantage over the thin-strut Xience DES stent in stable patients undergoing coronary revascularization, according to a presentation at the 2020 CRT meeting.

Ted Bostworth/MDedge News

“These results direct our attention to strut thickness and polymer composition as key attributes for stent design,” reported David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at the Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta.

In the multinational BIOFLOW V trial, 1,334 patients were randomized in a two-to-one ratio to the Orsiro stent, which is composed of a bioabsorbable, sirolimus-eluting polymer, or to the Xience stent, which is composed of an everolimus-eluting durable polymer. Relative to the Xience device, which has thin struts of 81 microns in width, the struts of the Orsiro device, at 60 microns in width, are characterized as ultrathin.

In earlier published follow-up studies, the ultrathin device demonstrated a lower rate of target lesion (TL) failure at 1 year (5.9% vs. 9.2%; P = .032) and at 2 years (7.1% vs. 11.1%; P = .015), but the 3-year data are notable because they indicate that the relative advantage is continuing to grow, according to Dr. Kandzari.

At 3 years, with follow-up available for 94.8% and 94.2% of the Orsiro and Xience groups, respectively, the absolute relative difference in the primary endpoint of TL failure reached 5.4% (8.2% vs. 13.6%; P = .002) in favor of the Orsiro device.

For the components of the composite TL failure endpoint, which includes cardiovascular death, TL-related myocardial infarction, and TL revascularization, there were large relative advantages for every outcome except cardiovascular death, which did not differ between the Orsiro and Xience groups (1.1% vs. 1.2%, respectively; P = .1). Conversely, the TL-related MI (5.5% vs. 10.1%; P = .004) and ischemia-driven TL revascularization (3.4% vs. 6.9%; P = .008) rates were nearly cut in half in the Orsiro arm.

“The benefit appears to be bimodal in that there is a significant advantage in the periprocedural period [for the Orsiro device] and then a late advantage,” Dr. Kandzari reported.

Most TL-related MI in both groups, for example, occurred within the first 30 days of follow-up. Although there was a relative advantage for the Orsiro device in this early period (4.1% vs. 6.7%; P = .04), Dr. Kandzari indicated that the advantage between 30 days and 3 years was even more impressive (0.95% vs. 2.8%; P = .012).

Dr. Kandzari, showing a graph in which the line representing Orsiro device hugged the x axis as the line for the Xience device climbed, emphasized that the rate of target vessel MI at the end of follow-up was nearly three times greater for those randomized to the Xience device.

The patterns of ischemia-driven TL revascularization also diverged. In this case, the rates over the first 360 days were very similar for the two devices initially. At 1 year, the lower rate in the Orsiro device was not significantly different (2.0% vs. 2.3%; P = .72), but the lines began to separate at about 18 months. By the end of 3 years, the rate of ischemia-related TL revascularization was nearly 70% lower in the Orsiro arm (1.5% vs. 4.7%; P < .001).

The Orsiro device was also linked with a lower rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis when the two devices were compared from 30 days post implantation to 3 years of follow-up (0.1% vs. 1.2%; P = .018).

Noting that there are several features of the Orsiro device that might explain these results, including the width of the struts, the biodegradable polymer, and the type of anti-inflammatory coating, Dr. Kandzari said that it is difficult to determine which attributes account for the overall or the specific advantages observed for the Orsiro device in the BIOFLOW V trial.

However, he hypothesized that “there might be different time lines for different benefits” related to individual device characteristics. For example, the ultrathin struts might be important for the early relative advantages while the biodegradation of the strut might explain the reduced need for revascularization.

Overall, “there is an emerging evidence base consistent across clinical trials demonstrating a potential efficacy and safety difference in favor of ultrathin struts,” according to Dr. Kandzari.

The data are “remarkable,” according to James B. Hermiller, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis. A panel member for the CRT late-breaking trial session where these data were presented, Dr. Hermiller was impressed by the very low rate of revascularization in the extended follow-up.

“We have all wanted to see a flattening of these event curves after a year,” Dr. Hermiller said. He indicated that the BIOFLOW V data represent a departure from the need for revascularization and other late events so commonly seen over lengthening follow-up with earlier generation devices.

SOURCE: Kandzari DE. CRT 2020, Late Breaking Trials session S300.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – In a head-to-head comparison, the ultrathin-strut Orsiro drug-eluting stent (DES) is demonstrating a growing advantage over the thin-strut Xience DES stent in stable patients undergoing coronary revascularization, according to a presentation at the 2020 CRT meeting.

Ted Bostworth/MDedge News

“These results direct our attention to strut thickness and polymer composition as key attributes for stent design,” reported David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at the Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta.

In the multinational BIOFLOW V trial, 1,334 patients were randomized in a two-to-one ratio to the Orsiro stent, which is composed of a bioabsorbable, sirolimus-eluting polymer, or to the Xience stent, which is composed of an everolimus-eluting durable polymer. Relative to the Xience device, which has thin struts of 81 microns in width, the struts of the Orsiro device, at 60 microns in width, are characterized as ultrathin.

In earlier published follow-up studies, the ultrathin device demonstrated a lower rate of target lesion (TL) failure at 1 year (5.9% vs. 9.2%; P = .032) and at 2 years (7.1% vs. 11.1%; P = .015), but the 3-year data are notable because they indicate that the relative advantage is continuing to grow, according to Dr. Kandzari.

At 3 years, with follow-up available for 94.8% and 94.2% of the Orsiro and Xience groups, respectively, the absolute relative difference in the primary endpoint of TL failure reached 5.4% (8.2% vs. 13.6%; P = .002) in favor of the Orsiro device.

For the components of the composite TL failure endpoint, which includes cardiovascular death, TL-related myocardial infarction, and TL revascularization, there were large relative advantages for every outcome except cardiovascular death, which did not differ between the Orsiro and Xience groups (1.1% vs. 1.2%, respectively; P = .1). Conversely, the TL-related MI (5.5% vs. 10.1%; P = .004) and ischemia-driven TL revascularization (3.4% vs. 6.9%; P = .008) rates were nearly cut in half in the Orsiro arm.

“The benefit appears to be bimodal in that there is a significant advantage in the periprocedural period [for the Orsiro device] and then a late advantage,” Dr. Kandzari reported.

Most TL-related MI in both groups, for example, occurred within the first 30 days of follow-up. Although there was a relative advantage for the Orsiro device in this early period (4.1% vs. 6.7%; P = .04), Dr. Kandzari indicated that the advantage between 30 days and 3 years was even more impressive (0.95% vs. 2.8%; P = .012).

Dr. Kandzari, showing a graph in which the line representing Orsiro device hugged the x axis as the line for the Xience device climbed, emphasized that the rate of target vessel MI at the end of follow-up was nearly three times greater for those randomized to the Xience device.

The patterns of ischemia-driven TL revascularization also diverged. In this case, the rates over the first 360 days were very similar for the two devices initially. At 1 year, the lower rate in the Orsiro device was not significantly different (2.0% vs. 2.3%; P = .72), but the lines began to separate at about 18 months. By the end of 3 years, the rate of ischemia-related TL revascularization was nearly 70% lower in the Orsiro arm (1.5% vs. 4.7%; P < .001).

The Orsiro device was also linked with a lower rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis when the two devices were compared from 30 days post implantation to 3 years of follow-up (0.1% vs. 1.2%; P = .018).

Noting that there are several features of the Orsiro device that might explain these results, including the width of the struts, the biodegradable polymer, and the type of anti-inflammatory coating, Dr. Kandzari said that it is difficult to determine which attributes account for the overall or the specific advantages observed for the Orsiro device in the BIOFLOW V trial.

However, he hypothesized that “there might be different time lines for different benefits” related to individual device characteristics. For example, the ultrathin struts might be important for the early relative advantages while the biodegradation of the strut might explain the reduced need for revascularization.

Overall, “there is an emerging evidence base consistent across clinical trials demonstrating a potential efficacy and safety difference in favor of ultrathin struts,” according to Dr. Kandzari.

The data are “remarkable,” according to James B. Hermiller, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis. A panel member for the CRT late-breaking trial session where these data were presented, Dr. Hermiller was impressed by the very low rate of revascularization in the extended follow-up.

“We have all wanted to see a flattening of these event curves after a year,” Dr. Hermiller said. He indicated that the BIOFLOW V data represent a departure from the need for revascularization and other late events so commonly seen over lengthening follow-up with earlier generation devices.

SOURCE: Kandzari DE. CRT 2020, Late Breaking Trials session S300.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – In a head-to-head comparison, the ultrathin-strut Orsiro drug-eluting stent (DES) is demonstrating a growing advantage over the thin-strut Xience DES stent in stable patients undergoing coronary revascularization, according to a presentation at the 2020 CRT meeting.

Ted Bostworth/MDedge News

“These results direct our attention to strut thickness and polymer composition as key attributes for stent design,” reported David E. Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology at the Piedmont Heart Institute in Atlanta.

In the multinational BIOFLOW V trial, 1,334 patients were randomized in a two-to-one ratio to the Orsiro stent, which is composed of a bioabsorbable, sirolimus-eluting polymer, or to the Xience stent, which is composed of an everolimus-eluting durable polymer. Relative to the Xience device, which has thin struts of 81 microns in width, the struts of the Orsiro device, at 60 microns in width, are characterized as ultrathin.

In earlier published follow-up studies, the ultrathin device demonstrated a lower rate of target lesion (TL) failure at 1 year (5.9% vs. 9.2%; P = .032) and at 2 years (7.1% vs. 11.1%; P = .015), but the 3-year data are notable because they indicate that the relative advantage is continuing to grow, according to Dr. Kandzari.

At 3 years, with follow-up available for 94.8% and 94.2% of the Orsiro and Xience groups, respectively, the absolute relative difference in the primary endpoint of TL failure reached 5.4% (8.2% vs. 13.6%; P = .002) in favor of the Orsiro device.

For the components of the composite TL failure endpoint, which includes cardiovascular death, TL-related myocardial infarction, and TL revascularization, there were large relative advantages for every outcome except cardiovascular death, which did not differ between the Orsiro and Xience groups (1.1% vs. 1.2%, respectively; P = .1). Conversely, the TL-related MI (5.5% vs. 10.1%; P = .004) and ischemia-driven TL revascularization (3.4% vs. 6.9%; P = .008) rates were nearly cut in half in the Orsiro arm.

“The benefit appears to be bimodal in that there is a significant advantage in the periprocedural period [for the Orsiro device] and then a late advantage,” Dr. Kandzari reported.

Most TL-related MI in both groups, for example, occurred within the first 30 days of follow-up. Although there was a relative advantage for the Orsiro device in this early period (4.1% vs. 6.7%; P = .04), Dr. Kandzari indicated that the advantage between 30 days and 3 years was even more impressive (0.95% vs. 2.8%; P = .012).

Dr. Kandzari, showing a graph in which the line representing Orsiro device hugged the x axis as the line for the Xience device climbed, emphasized that the rate of target vessel MI at the end of follow-up was nearly three times greater for those randomized to the Xience device.

The patterns of ischemia-driven TL revascularization also diverged. In this case, the rates over the first 360 days were very similar for the two devices initially. At 1 year, the lower rate in the Orsiro device was not significantly different (2.0% vs. 2.3%; P = .72), but the lines began to separate at about 18 months. By the end of 3 years, the rate of ischemia-related TL revascularization was nearly 70% lower in the Orsiro arm (1.5% vs. 4.7%; P < .001).

The Orsiro device was also linked with a lower rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis when the two devices were compared from 30 days post implantation to 3 years of follow-up (0.1% vs. 1.2%; P = .018).

Noting that there are several features of the Orsiro device that might explain these results, including the width of the struts, the biodegradable polymer, and the type of anti-inflammatory coating, Dr. Kandzari said that it is difficult to determine which attributes account for the overall or the specific advantages observed for the Orsiro device in the BIOFLOW V trial.

However, he hypothesized that “there might be different time lines for different benefits” related to individual device characteristics. For example, the ultrathin struts might be important for the early relative advantages while the biodegradation of the strut might explain the reduced need for revascularization.

Overall, “there is an emerging evidence base consistent across clinical trials demonstrating a potential efficacy and safety difference in favor of ultrathin struts,” according to Dr. Kandzari.

The data are “remarkable,” according to James B. Hermiller, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Heart Center of Indiana in Indianapolis. A panel member for the CRT late-breaking trial session where these data were presented, Dr. Hermiller was impressed by the very low rate of revascularization in the extended follow-up.

“We have all wanted to see a flattening of these event curves after a year,” Dr. Hermiller said. He indicated that the BIOFLOW V data represent a departure from the need for revascularization and other late events so commonly seen over lengthening follow-up with earlier generation devices.

SOURCE: Kandzari DE. CRT 2020, Late Breaking Trials session S300.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved safety labeling changes to all sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used to treat high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The new changes affect canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, and were made because surgery may put patients being treated with SGLT2 inhibitors at a higher risk of ketoacidosis. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin should be discontinued 3 days before scheduled surgery, and ertugliflozin should be stopped at least 4 days before, the agency noted in a press release. Blood glucose should be monitored after drug discontinuation and appropriately managed before surgery.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor may be restarted once the patient’s oral intake is back to baseline and any other risk factors for ketoacidosis are resolved,” the agency added.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidney to remove sugar from the body through urine. Side effects for the drugs vary, but include urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infection. Patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, who are on dialysis treatment, or who have a known hypersensitivity to the medication should not take SGLT2 inhibitors, the FDA said.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved safety labeling changes to all sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used to treat high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The new changes affect canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, and were made because surgery may put patients being treated with SGLT2 inhibitors at a higher risk of ketoacidosis. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin should be discontinued 3 days before scheduled surgery, and ertugliflozin should be stopped at least 4 days before, the agency noted in a press release. Blood glucose should be monitored after drug discontinuation and appropriately managed before surgery.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor may be restarted once the patient’s oral intake is back to baseline and any other risk factors for ketoacidosis are resolved,” the agency added.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidney to remove sugar from the body through urine. Side effects for the drugs vary, but include urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infection. Patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, who are on dialysis treatment, or who have a known hypersensitivity to the medication should not take SGLT2 inhibitors, the FDA said.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved safety labeling changes to all sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors used to treat high blood sugar in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The new changes affect canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, and were made because surgery may put patients being treated with SGLT2 inhibitors at a higher risk of ketoacidosis. Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin should be discontinued 3 days before scheduled surgery, and ertugliflozin should be stopped at least 4 days before, the agency noted in a press release. Blood glucose should be monitored after drug discontinuation and appropriately managed before surgery.

“The SGLT2 inhibitor may be restarted once the patient’s oral intake is back to baseline and any other risk factors for ketoacidosis are resolved,” the agency added.

SGLT2 inhibitors lower blood sugar by causing the kidney to remove sugar from the body through urine. Side effects for the drugs vary, but include urinary tract infections and genital mycotic infection. Patients with severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease, who are on dialysis treatment, or who have a known hypersensitivity to the medication should not take SGLT2 inhibitors, the FDA said.

[email protected]

PHOENIX – African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, compared with other racial/ethnic groups, results from a single-state registry study found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“SLE is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation affecting multiple organ systems including the cardiovascular system,” Meghan Angley, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Therefore, individuals with SLE are at risk for early CVD. African Americans represent the racial group at greatest risk for SLE.”

According to Ms. Angley, with the department of epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta, white women with SLE have CVD associated mortality 12 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts, while African American women with SLE have CVD-associated mortality 19 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts. “We know that recurrent hospitalizations for CVD are associated with mortality,” she said. “These represent potential points of identification of high-risk individuals and also points of interventions.”

In order to study racial disparities across recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in an SLE population, Ms. Angley and her colleagues drew from the Georgia Lupus Registry, which is a population-based registry of patients with validated SLE in two Georgia counties. They included all cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004. The registry was linked to records of all inpatient hospitalizations in Georgia between 2000 and 2013. The researchers used ICD-9 codes to identify hospitalizations for coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure and used the Prentice-Williams-Peterson model for recurrent time-to-event analysis. Specifically, they looked at the total time scale from the point of diagnosis to each of the subsequent CVD hospitalizations and truncated the number of hospitalizations at three to maintain stable modeling estimates. The analysis was censored at the time of patient death or at the end of 2013 and adjusted for sex and age at diagnosis.

The sample included 417 African Americans with SLE and 149 non–African Americans with the disease. Most (86%) were female, and the non–African American group was slightly more likely to have been diagnosed with SLE after the age of 45 years, compared with the African American group (36% vs. 30%, respectively).

Ms. Angley and her colleagues found that 24% of African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 14% had at least two, while 13% of non–African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 5% had at least two. Among those in the African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure, (58%), cerebrovascular disease (27%), coronary heart disease (18%), and peripheral artery disease (2%). Among those in the non–African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (38%), coronary heart disease (38%), cerebrovascular disease (25%), and peripheral artery disease (6%).

Overall, African American race was associated with recurrent hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9). In an event-specific stratified analysis, the association between African American race and the hazard of recurrence became even more pronounced with each event (hospitalization 1 aHR, 1.2; hospitalization 2 aHR, 1.5; hospitalization 3 aHR, 1.9). The researchers also observed that African Americans were hospitalized sooner, compared with non–African Americans: a median of 3.68 versus 4.61 years for hospitalization 1, 3.73 years versus 5.98 years for hospitalization 2, and 4.84 years versus 8.14 years for hospitalization 3.

“African Americans with SLE are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for CVD,” Ms. Angley concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The events occur sooner after diagnosis than in non–African Americans, suggesting that African Americans may be more vulnerable to the cardiovascular complications of SLE. Our next steps include examining potential reasons for these disparities, such as looking at primary care patterns over time, SLE severity over time, and treatment at CVD hospitalizations.”

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, called for additional research to determine the reasons for disparities that were observed between African Americans with SLE and their non–African American counterparts. “We need to figure out why and address it,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician-scientist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We recognize that social determinants of health, such as insurance, socioeconomic factors, and psychosocial factors, can contribute. We need to figure out the additional steps we need to take in order to close that gap.”

Ms. Angley reported having no disclosures. The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Angley M et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 5.

PHOENIX – African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, compared with other racial/ethnic groups, results from a single-state registry study found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“SLE is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation affecting multiple organ systems including the cardiovascular system,” Meghan Angley, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Therefore, individuals with SLE are at risk for early CVD. African Americans represent the racial group at greatest risk for SLE.”

According to Ms. Angley, with the department of epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta, white women with SLE have CVD associated mortality 12 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts, while African American women with SLE have CVD-associated mortality 19 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts. “We know that recurrent hospitalizations for CVD are associated with mortality,” she said. “These represent potential points of identification of high-risk individuals and also points of interventions.”

In order to study racial disparities across recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in an SLE population, Ms. Angley and her colleagues drew from the Georgia Lupus Registry, which is a population-based registry of patients with validated SLE in two Georgia counties. They included all cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004. The registry was linked to records of all inpatient hospitalizations in Georgia between 2000 and 2013. The researchers used ICD-9 codes to identify hospitalizations for coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure and used the Prentice-Williams-Peterson model for recurrent time-to-event analysis. Specifically, they looked at the total time scale from the point of diagnosis to each of the subsequent CVD hospitalizations and truncated the number of hospitalizations at three to maintain stable modeling estimates. The analysis was censored at the time of patient death or at the end of 2013 and adjusted for sex and age at diagnosis.

The sample included 417 African Americans with SLE and 149 non–African Americans with the disease. Most (86%) were female, and the non–African American group was slightly more likely to have been diagnosed with SLE after the age of 45 years, compared with the African American group (36% vs. 30%, respectively).

Ms. Angley and her colleagues found that 24% of African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 14% had at least two, while 13% of non–African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 5% had at least two. Among those in the African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure, (58%), cerebrovascular disease (27%), coronary heart disease (18%), and peripheral artery disease (2%). Among those in the non–African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (38%), coronary heart disease (38%), cerebrovascular disease (25%), and peripheral artery disease (6%).

Overall, African American race was associated with recurrent hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9). In an event-specific stratified analysis, the association between African American race and the hazard of recurrence became even more pronounced with each event (hospitalization 1 aHR, 1.2; hospitalization 2 aHR, 1.5; hospitalization 3 aHR, 1.9). The researchers also observed that African Americans were hospitalized sooner, compared with non–African Americans: a median of 3.68 versus 4.61 years for hospitalization 1, 3.73 years versus 5.98 years for hospitalization 2, and 4.84 years versus 8.14 years for hospitalization 3.

“African Americans with SLE are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for CVD,” Ms. Angley concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The events occur sooner after diagnosis than in non–African Americans, suggesting that African Americans may be more vulnerable to the cardiovascular complications of SLE. Our next steps include examining potential reasons for these disparities, such as looking at primary care patterns over time, SLE severity over time, and treatment at CVD hospitalizations.”

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, called for additional research to determine the reasons for disparities that were observed between African Americans with SLE and their non–African American counterparts. “We need to figure out why and address it,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician-scientist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We recognize that social determinants of health, such as insurance, socioeconomic factors, and psychosocial factors, can contribute. We need to figure out the additional steps we need to take in order to close that gap.”

Ms. Angley reported having no disclosures. The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Angley M et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 5.

PHOENIX – African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, compared with other racial/ethnic groups, results from a single-state registry study found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“SLE is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation affecting multiple organ systems including the cardiovascular system,” Meghan Angley, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Therefore, individuals with SLE are at risk for early CVD. African Americans represent the racial group at greatest risk for SLE.”

According to Ms. Angley, with the department of epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta, white women with SLE have CVD associated mortality 12 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts, while African American women with SLE have CVD-associated mortality 19 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts. “We know that recurrent hospitalizations for CVD are associated with mortality,” she said. “These represent potential points of identification of high-risk individuals and also points of interventions.”

In order to study racial disparities across recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in an SLE population, Ms. Angley and her colleagues drew from the Georgia Lupus Registry, which is a population-based registry of patients with validated SLE in two Georgia counties. They included all cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004. The registry was linked to records of all inpatient hospitalizations in Georgia between 2000 and 2013. The researchers used ICD-9 codes to identify hospitalizations for coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure and used the Prentice-Williams-Peterson model for recurrent time-to-event analysis. Specifically, they looked at the total time scale from the point of diagnosis to each of the subsequent CVD hospitalizations and truncated the number of hospitalizations at three to maintain stable modeling estimates. The analysis was censored at the time of patient death or at the end of 2013 and adjusted for sex and age at diagnosis.

The sample included 417 African Americans with SLE and 149 non–African Americans with the disease. Most (86%) were female, and the non–African American group was slightly more likely to have been diagnosed with SLE after the age of 45 years, compared with the African American group (36% vs. 30%, respectively).

Ms. Angley and her colleagues found that 24% of African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 14% had at least two, while 13% of non–African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 5% had at least two. Among those in the African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure, (58%), cerebrovascular disease (27%), coronary heart disease (18%), and peripheral artery disease (2%). Among those in the non–African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (38%), coronary heart disease (38%), cerebrovascular disease (25%), and peripheral artery disease (6%).

Overall, African American race was associated with recurrent hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9). In an event-specific stratified analysis, the association between African American race and the hazard of recurrence became even more pronounced with each event (hospitalization 1 aHR, 1.2; hospitalization 2 aHR, 1.5; hospitalization 3 aHR, 1.9). The researchers also observed that African Americans were hospitalized sooner, compared with non–African Americans: a median of 3.68 versus 4.61 years for hospitalization 1, 3.73 years versus 5.98 years for hospitalization 2, and 4.84 years versus 8.14 years for hospitalization 3.

“African Americans with SLE are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for CVD,” Ms. Angley concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The events occur sooner after diagnosis than in non–African Americans, suggesting that African Americans may be more vulnerable to the cardiovascular complications of SLE. Our next steps include examining potential reasons for these disparities, such as looking at primary care patterns over time, SLE severity over time, and treatment at CVD hospitalizations.”

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, called for additional research to determine the reasons for disparities that were observed between African Americans with SLE and their non–African American counterparts. “We need to figure out why and address it,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician-scientist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We recognize that social determinants of health, such as insurance, socioeconomic factors, and psychosocial factors, can contribute. We need to figure out the additional steps we need to take in order to close that gap.”

Ms. Angley reported having no disclosures. The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Angley M et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 5.

A target systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 120-129 mm Hg in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction proved to be the sweet spot with the lowest rates of major adverse cardiovascular and renal events in a new analysis from the landmark PARAGON-HF trial.

This finding from the largest-ever randomized, controlled study in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) strengthens support for current U.S. joint hypertension guidelines, which call for a target SBP less than 130 mm Hg in patients with HFpEF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803), a recommendation based upon weak evidence until now. That’s because the SPRINT trial, the major impetus for adoption of intensive blood pressure control in the current guidelines, excluded patients with symptomatic HF, Scott D. Solomon, MD, and coinvestigators noted in their new analysis. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and had been planned for presentation during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

The new analysis from PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) also ruled out the SBP-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) as the explanation for the combination drug’s demonstrated beneficial impact on outcomes in the subgroup with an SBP of 120-129 mm Hg. That wasn’t actually a surprise. Indeed, the new study had two hypotheses: one, that the relationship between SBP and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in HFpEF would follow a J-shaped curve, and two, that sacubitril/valsartan’s blood pressure–lowering effect would not account for the drug’s outcome benefits in the subset of HFpEF patients with an SBP in the sweet spot of 120-129 mm Hg. Both hypotheses were borne out, noted Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

“These data strongly support that additional mechanisms other than blood pressure–lowering account for the benefit. But this is not surprising. The same can be said for most of the therapies that work in heart failure,” he said in an interview.

Take, for example, spironolactone. In TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist), another major trial in which Dr. Solomon played a leadership role, the beneficial effect of spironolactone on clinical outcomes also proved unrelated to the drug’s blood pressure–lowering effect.

Other known effects of sacubitril/valsartan, a novel angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, or ARNI, might in theory account for the observed clinical benefits in ARNI-treated patients with an on-treatment SBP of 120-129 mm Hg in PARAGON-HF. These include improved left atrial remodeling, an increase in natriuretic peptides, and improved myocardial relaxation. However, the current lack of understanding of the basic mechanistic processes underlying the varied clinical expressions of HFpEF is a major factor contributing to the lack of any proven-effective therapy for this extremely common and costly disorder, according to Dr. Solomon and coinvestigators.

In contrast to HFpEF, for which to date there is no proven treatment, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction sacubitril/valsartan has a class I recommendation on the strength of its performance in significantly reducing cardiovascular deaths and heart failure hospitalizations in the PARADIGM-HF trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371:993-1004).

PARAGON-HF included 4,822 patients with symptomatic HFpEF who were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan at 97/103 mg b.i.d. or valsartan at 160 mg b.i.d. As previously reported (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20), at an average follow-up of 35 months, the primary outcome – a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death – occurred at a rate of 12.8 events per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 14.6 per 100 patient-years in the valsartan arm, for a 13% relative risk reduction that narrowly missed statistical significance (P = .059).

However, sacubitril/valsartan showed significant benefit on some prespecified secondary endpoints, including worsening renal function, change in New York Heart Association class, and quality of life. Women, who notably accounted for 52% of study participants, appeared to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan more than men as evidenced by their 27% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint. Also, in the roughly half of PARAGON-HF participants with a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a statistically significant 22% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with valsartan alone.

SBP and cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF

In the new analysis, Dr. Solomon and coworkers examined outcomes based on baseline and mean achieved SBP quartiles regardless of treatment arm. In an unadjusted analysis, the primary composite endpoint occurred at a rate of 15.2 events/100 patient-years in HFpEF patients with an achieved SBP below 120 mm Hg, 11.4/100 patient-years at 120-129 mm Hg, 12.2/100 patient-years at 130-139 mm Hg, and 15.6/100 patient-years at 140 mm Hg or more. Further, in a multivariate regression analysis extensively adjusted for atrial fibrillation, sex, race, and numerous other potential confounders, the group with an achieved SBP of 120-129 mm Hg continued to fare best. The adjusted risks for the primary endpoint were 11% and 21% higher in patients in the first and third quartiles of achieved SBP, compared with those at 120-129 mm Hg, although neither trend reached statistical significance. But patients in the top quartile, with an achieved SBP of 140 mm Hg or more, had a highly significant 56% increase in risk, compared with patients in the second-lowest SBP quartile.

Change in blood pressure from baseline to week 48 had no impact on quality of life or high-sensitivity troponin T. However, each 10–mm Hg lowering of SBP was associated with a modest 2.1% reduction in log-transformed N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by an average of 5.2 mm Hg more than valsartan alone at 4 weeks regardless of baseline SBP. And the combo drug had a significantly greater SBP-lowering effect in women than men, by a margin of 6.3 mm Hg versus 4.0 mm Hg. But a Cox regression analysis showed that in women, as in the study population as a whole, sacubitril/valsartan’s SBP-lowering effects didn’t account for the drug’s impact on outcomes.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the new PARAGON-HF blood pressure analysis (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.024), Hector O. Ventura, MD, and colleagues at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans observed that the study results “lend some credence to the prognostic relationship of blood pressure in HFpEF, but whether they should serve as a therapeutic target or are merely a prognostic surrogate determined by other pathogenic factors, such as vascular ventricular uncoupling or aortic stiffness on one hand when blood pressure is greater than 140 mm Hg, or a reduced cardiac performance indicated by reduced blood pressure to less than 120 mm Hg, remains uncertain.”

“What is certain, however, is that the relationship and contributions of hypertension in manifest HFpEF are complex, multifactorial and likely go well beyond a simplistic framework of hemodynamic influences,” they added.

Dr. Solomon has received research grants from and serves as a consultant to Novartis, which funded PARAGON-HF, and has similar financial relationships with more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ventura reported having no relevant financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Solomon SD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.009.

A target systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 120-129 mm Hg in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction proved to be the sweet spot with the lowest rates of major adverse cardiovascular and renal events in a new analysis from the landmark PARAGON-HF trial.

This finding from the largest-ever randomized, controlled study in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) strengthens support for current U.S. joint hypertension guidelines, which call for a target SBP less than 130 mm Hg in patients with HFpEF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803), a recommendation based upon weak evidence until now. That’s because the SPRINT trial, the major impetus for adoption of intensive blood pressure control in the current guidelines, excluded patients with symptomatic HF, Scott D. Solomon, MD, and coinvestigators noted in their new analysis. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and had been planned for presentation during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

The new analysis from PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) also ruled out the SBP-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) as the explanation for the combination drug’s demonstrated beneficial impact on outcomes in the subgroup with an SBP of 120-129 mm Hg. That wasn’t actually a surprise. Indeed, the new study had two hypotheses: one, that the relationship between SBP and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in HFpEF would follow a J-shaped curve, and two, that sacubitril/valsartan’s blood pressure–lowering effect would not account for the drug’s outcome benefits in the subset of HFpEF patients with an SBP in the sweet spot of 120-129 mm Hg. Both hypotheses were borne out, noted Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

“These data strongly support that additional mechanisms other than blood pressure–lowering account for the benefit. But this is not surprising. The same can be said for most of the therapies that work in heart failure,” he said in an interview.

Take, for example, spironolactone. In TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist), another major trial in which Dr. Solomon played a leadership role, the beneficial effect of spironolactone on clinical outcomes also proved unrelated to the drug’s blood pressure–lowering effect.

Other known effects of sacubitril/valsartan, a novel angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, or ARNI, might in theory account for the observed clinical benefits in ARNI-treated patients with an on-treatment SBP of 120-129 mm Hg in PARAGON-HF. These include improved left atrial remodeling, an increase in natriuretic peptides, and improved myocardial relaxation. However, the current lack of understanding of the basic mechanistic processes underlying the varied clinical expressions of HFpEF is a major factor contributing to the lack of any proven-effective therapy for this extremely common and costly disorder, according to Dr. Solomon and coinvestigators.

In contrast to HFpEF, for which to date there is no proven treatment, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction sacubitril/valsartan has a class I recommendation on the strength of its performance in significantly reducing cardiovascular deaths and heart failure hospitalizations in the PARADIGM-HF trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371:993-1004).

PARAGON-HF included 4,822 patients with symptomatic HFpEF who were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan at 97/103 mg b.i.d. or valsartan at 160 mg b.i.d. As previously reported (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20), at an average follow-up of 35 months, the primary outcome – a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death – occurred at a rate of 12.8 events per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 14.6 per 100 patient-years in the valsartan arm, for a 13% relative risk reduction that narrowly missed statistical significance (P = .059).

However, sacubitril/valsartan showed significant benefit on some prespecified secondary endpoints, including worsening renal function, change in New York Heart Association class, and quality of life. Women, who notably accounted for 52% of study participants, appeared to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan more than men as evidenced by their 27% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint. Also, in the roughly half of PARAGON-HF participants with a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a statistically significant 22% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with valsartan alone.

SBP and cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF

In the new analysis, Dr. Solomon and coworkers examined outcomes based on baseline and mean achieved SBP quartiles regardless of treatment arm. In an unadjusted analysis, the primary composite endpoint occurred at a rate of 15.2 events/100 patient-years in HFpEF patients with an achieved SBP below 120 mm Hg, 11.4/100 patient-years at 120-129 mm Hg, 12.2/100 patient-years at 130-139 mm Hg, and 15.6/100 patient-years at 140 mm Hg or more. Further, in a multivariate regression analysis extensively adjusted for atrial fibrillation, sex, race, and numerous other potential confounders, the group with an achieved SBP of 120-129 mm Hg continued to fare best. The adjusted risks for the primary endpoint were 11% and 21% higher in patients in the first and third quartiles of achieved SBP, compared with those at 120-129 mm Hg, although neither trend reached statistical significance. But patients in the top quartile, with an achieved SBP of 140 mm Hg or more, had a highly significant 56% increase in risk, compared with patients in the second-lowest SBP quartile.

Change in blood pressure from baseline to week 48 had no impact on quality of life or high-sensitivity troponin T. However, each 10–mm Hg lowering of SBP was associated with a modest 2.1% reduction in log-transformed N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by an average of 5.2 mm Hg more than valsartan alone at 4 weeks regardless of baseline SBP. And the combo drug had a significantly greater SBP-lowering effect in women than men, by a margin of 6.3 mm Hg versus 4.0 mm Hg. But a Cox regression analysis showed that in women, as in the study population as a whole, sacubitril/valsartan’s SBP-lowering effects didn’t account for the drug’s impact on outcomes.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the new PARAGON-HF blood pressure analysis (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.024), Hector O. Ventura, MD, and colleagues at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans observed that the study results “lend some credence to the prognostic relationship of blood pressure in HFpEF, but whether they should serve as a therapeutic target or are merely a prognostic surrogate determined by other pathogenic factors, such as vascular ventricular uncoupling or aortic stiffness on one hand when blood pressure is greater than 140 mm Hg, or a reduced cardiac performance indicated by reduced blood pressure to less than 120 mm Hg, remains uncertain.”

“What is certain, however, is that the relationship and contributions of hypertension in manifest HFpEF are complex, multifactorial and likely go well beyond a simplistic framework of hemodynamic influences,” they added.

Dr. Solomon has received research grants from and serves as a consultant to Novartis, which funded PARAGON-HF, and has similar financial relationships with more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ventura reported having no relevant financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Solomon SD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.009.

A target systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 120-129 mm Hg in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction proved to be the sweet spot with the lowest rates of major adverse cardiovascular and renal events in a new analysis from the landmark PARAGON-HF trial.

This finding from the largest-ever randomized, controlled study in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) strengthens support for current U.S. joint hypertension guidelines, which call for a target SBP less than 130 mm Hg in patients with HFpEF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803), a recommendation based upon weak evidence until now. That’s because the SPRINT trial, the major impetus for adoption of intensive blood pressure control in the current guidelines, excluded patients with symptomatic HF, Scott D. Solomon, MD, and coinvestigators noted in their new analysis. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and had been planned for presentation during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

The new analysis from PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HFpEF) also ruled out the SBP-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) as the explanation for the combination drug’s demonstrated beneficial impact on outcomes in the subgroup with an SBP of 120-129 mm Hg. That wasn’t actually a surprise. Indeed, the new study had two hypotheses: one, that the relationship between SBP and cardiovascular and renal outcomes in HFpEF would follow a J-shaped curve, and two, that sacubitril/valsartan’s blood pressure–lowering effect would not account for the drug’s outcome benefits in the subset of HFpEF patients with an SBP in the sweet spot of 120-129 mm Hg. Both hypotheses were borne out, noted Dr. Solomon, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of noninvasive cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

“These data strongly support that additional mechanisms other than blood pressure–lowering account for the benefit. But this is not surprising. The same can be said for most of the therapies that work in heart failure,” he said in an interview.

Take, for example, spironolactone. In TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist), another major trial in which Dr. Solomon played a leadership role, the beneficial effect of spironolactone on clinical outcomes also proved unrelated to the drug’s blood pressure–lowering effect.

Other known effects of sacubitril/valsartan, a novel angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, or ARNI, might in theory account for the observed clinical benefits in ARNI-treated patients with an on-treatment SBP of 120-129 mm Hg in PARAGON-HF. These include improved left atrial remodeling, an increase in natriuretic peptides, and improved myocardial relaxation. However, the current lack of understanding of the basic mechanistic processes underlying the varied clinical expressions of HFpEF is a major factor contributing to the lack of any proven-effective therapy for this extremely common and costly disorder, according to Dr. Solomon and coinvestigators.

In contrast to HFpEF, for which to date there is no proven treatment, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction sacubitril/valsartan has a class I recommendation on the strength of its performance in significantly reducing cardiovascular deaths and heart failure hospitalizations in the PARADIGM-HF trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371:993-1004).

PARAGON-HF included 4,822 patients with symptomatic HFpEF who were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan at 97/103 mg b.i.d. or valsartan at 160 mg b.i.d. As previously reported (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20), at an average follow-up of 35 months, the primary outcome – a composite of total hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death – occurred at a rate of 12.8 events per 100 patient-years in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 14.6 per 100 patient-years in the valsartan arm, for a 13% relative risk reduction that narrowly missed statistical significance (P = .059).

However, sacubitril/valsartan showed significant benefit on some prespecified secondary endpoints, including worsening renal function, change in New York Heart Association class, and quality of life. Women, who notably accounted for 52% of study participants, appeared to benefit from sacubitril/valsartan more than men as evidenced by their 27% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint. Also, in the roughly half of PARAGON-HF participants with a baseline left ventricular ejection fraction of 45%-57%, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a statistically significant 22% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint, compared with valsartan alone.

SBP and cardiovascular outcomes in HFpEF

In the new analysis, Dr. Solomon and coworkers examined outcomes based on baseline and mean achieved SBP quartiles regardless of treatment arm. In an unadjusted analysis, the primary composite endpoint occurred at a rate of 15.2 events/100 patient-years in HFpEF patients with an achieved SBP below 120 mm Hg, 11.4/100 patient-years at 120-129 mm Hg, 12.2/100 patient-years at 130-139 mm Hg, and 15.6/100 patient-years at 140 mm Hg or more. Further, in a multivariate regression analysis extensively adjusted for atrial fibrillation, sex, race, and numerous other potential confounders, the group with an achieved SBP of 120-129 mm Hg continued to fare best. The adjusted risks for the primary endpoint were 11% and 21% higher in patients in the first and third quartiles of achieved SBP, compared with those at 120-129 mm Hg, although neither trend reached statistical significance. But patients in the top quartile, with an achieved SBP of 140 mm Hg or more, had a highly significant 56% increase in risk, compared with patients in the second-lowest SBP quartile.

Change in blood pressure from baseline to week 48 had no impact on quality of life or high-sensitivity troponin T. However, each 10–mm Hg lowering of SBP was associated with a modest 2.1% reduction in log-transformed N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide.

Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by an average of 5.2 mm Hg more than valsartan alone at 4 weeks regardless of baseline SBP. And the combo drug had a significantly greater SBP-lowering effect in women than men, by a margin of 6.3 mm Hg versus 4.0 mm Hg. But a Cox regression analysis showed that in women, as in the study population as a whole, sacubitril/valsartan’s SBP-lowering effects didn’t account for the drug’s impact on outcomes.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the new PARAGON-HF blood pressure analysis (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.024), Hector O. Ventura, MD, and colleagues at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans observed that the study results “lend some credence to the prognostic relationship of blood pressure in HFpEF, but whether they should serve as a therapeutic target or are merely a prognostic surrogate determined by other pathogenic factors, such as vascular ventricular uncoupling or aortic stiffness on one hand when blood pressure is greater than 140 mm Hg, or a reduced cardiac performance indicated by reduced blood pressure to less than 120 mm Hg, remains uncertain.”

“What is certain, however, is that the relationship and contributions of hypertension in manifest HFpEF are complex, multifactorial and likely go well beyond a simplistic framework of hemodynamic influences,” they added.

Dr. Solomon has received research grants from and serves as a consultant to Novartis, which funded PARAGON-HF, and has similar financial relationships with more than a dozen other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Ventura reported having no relevant financial interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Solomon SD et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.02.009.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spreads, it now seems like the norm is that large medical conferences are being canceled.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) canceled its 2020 annual meeting, which was scheduled for late April. The cancellation disappointed many, because we will miss out on the camaraderie and professional invigoration that comes from gathering with psychiatrists and other mental health professionals from across the United States and around the world. After the APA’s decision was announced, the White House released guidelines advising Americans to avoid social gatherings of 10 or more people.

On a practical level, many psychiatrists will not be able to earn up to 35 continuing medical education credits (CME) from attending the meeting and fulfilling the administrative requirements to obtain a CME certificate. Not only have meetings been canceled, but events many other clinicians count on for CME, such as journal clubs and department grand rounds, have been canceled until they can be moved to a virtual space.

The CME requirements for state medical licenses vary widely. On average, most states require at least 25 credits per year or 60 to 100 credits every 2 years, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology requires diplomates to complete an average of 30 specialty and/or subspecialty CME credits per year, averaged over 3 years. Usually, annual medical conferences would be a great way to get an infusion of CME credits, brush up on cutting-edge treatments, and review the basics.

On top of everything else we have to worry about with COVID-19, getting enough CME credits has been added to the list for many psychiatrists and mental health clinicians. A public health emergency like COVID-19 is a time for flexibility and thoughtful planning. As our schedules and daily lives are disrupted, it’s important to find relief in routine activities that are not affected by social distancing and fears of isolation and quarantine. A routine activity to lean into might include learning or practicing a skill that we enjoy, such as psychiatry (hopefully!) and the practice of medicine. The CME could be focused on a psychiatric topic or perhaps learning about the specifics of COVID-19 or brushing up on medical knowledge that might be a bit rusty after many years of practicing solely psychiatry.

As you start to gather CME credits online, it’s helpful to sign up for a service that stores your CME credits and helps you keep track of the number. When it comes time to renew your medical license or apply for maintenance of certification (MOC), who wants to be the person searching through their email for PDFs of CME certificates or taking pictures or scanning paper certificates? The APA has a section under education and MOC to track certificates earned by watching online modules from its “Learning Center.” The website also allows users to upload external certificates. The American Medical Association offers a similar service on its “Ed Hub,” in which users can log in to watch, listen, or download articles to earn CME credits after finishing the associated quiz. Medscape, in the CME and Education section, also offers an easy-to-use CME dashboard, in which clinicians can filter by their specialty, topic, duration of learning activity – ranging from 0.25 to 3 CME credits. Clinicians also can track their credits as they complete activities.

If you’re someone who’s having trouble focusing on anything besides COVID-19, there are COVID-19-specific CME activities that are available and can help psychiatrists feel comfortable talking with patients, family, and their institutions about the risks of COVID-19. The AMA Ed Hub has a featured 8-credit CME course about the novel coronavirus with updates about diagnosis, treatment, and public health strategies.

For the psychiatrists who may have procrastinated in-depth learning about the opioid crisis or getting their buprenorphine waivers, AMA Ed Hub offers a 42-credit course about opioids and pain management covering guidelines, research, and treatment.

For fun refreshers on general medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine offers up to 20 online CME exams based on quizzes from interesting clinical cases ranging from “regular” medicine to rare clinical scenarios. The APA Learning Center has an easy-to-use search function allowing users to select content from more than 200 modules covering a wide range of general topics; from reviewing recent treatment guidelines to specialized psychiatric topics such as geriatric bipolar disorder. A psychiatrist who has been quickly pushed to telepsychiatry because of the current pandemic could use the APA Learning Center to find educational modules about risk management in telepsychiatry or learn the special considerations of using telepsychiatry to treat patients with serious mental illness.

Using podcasts to earn CME is becoming increasingly common, with such as outlets as JAMA Networks offering podcasts in many specialties in which subscribers can take a quiz through the JAMA app and obtain CME credits.

As our clinical boundaries as psychiatrists are pushed by an ever-changing public health situation, now is the time to earn CME focused on new topics to meet the demands placed on health care workers at the front lines of clinical care.

If the COVID-19 pandemic reaches the number of cases predicted by public health officials, our health care system is going to be under extreme stress. All specialties face the threat of losing part of their working capacity as clinicians get sick with the virus, or as they stay home because of exposure or to take care of a loved one. It’s a time for flexibility but also to flex our muscles as health care professionals. CME can be a way to empower ourselves by staying current on the cutting edge of our specialties, but also brushing up on the medicine that we may be asked to practice in a time of great need.
 

Dr. Posada is consultation-liaison psychiatry fellow with the Inova Fairfax Hospital/George Washington University program in Falls Church, Va. She also is associate producer of the MDedge Psychcast. Dr. Posada has no disclosures.

The Trump Administration is looking to telehealth services to play a more prominent role in helping mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by expanding existing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patients’ places of residence, starting March 6, 2020,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a fact sheet issued March 17.

Some of the existing benefits were previously limited to rural communities.

“Medicare beneficiaries across the nation, no matter where they live, will now be able to receive a wide range of services via telehealth without ever having to leave home,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 17 White House press briefing on administration actions to contain the spread of COVID-19. “These services can also be provided in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospital outpatient departments, and more.”

That means that seniors can continue to receive their routine care without having to leave the home and risk infection, or they can get medical guidance if they have mild symptoms, which would help mitigate the spread to others.

“This shift is very important for clinicians and providers who, over the coming weeks, will face considerable strain on their time and resources,” Dr. Verma said. “[It] allows the health care system to prioritize care for those who have more needs or who are in dire need, and it also preserves protective equipment.”

A range of providers will be able to deliver telehealth services, including doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers. Visits using the telehealth services will be considered the same as in-person visits and will be paid as if the patient were seen in the office.

This expansion of Medicare telehealth services will continue for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

“In addition, the [Health and Human Services’] office of inspector general is providing flexibility for health care providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for telehealth visits paid by federal health care programs,” the fact sheet states. CMS also said it will not conduct audits to ensure that an established relationship exists between the provider and the patient – a prior requirement for telehealth billing – during this public health emergency.

Billing for virtual check-ins, which are essentially brief conversations that may not require a full visit to the physician office, needs an established relationship between the practice and the patient. Likewise, for e-visits, which include non–face-to-face communications through online patient portals, billing can occur only when there is an established patient relationship.

Key to the expansion is that it will cover the entire United States and will not be limited to rural areas.

Dr. Verma also noted that the administration “will be temporarily suspending certain HIPAA requirements so that doctors can provide telehealth with their own phones.”

She noted this was all a part of mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“As we are encouraging Americans to stay home whenever possible, we don’t want our Medicare policies getting in the way,” she said, adding that state Medicaid agencies can expand their telehealth services without the approval of CMS during this emergency.

[email protected]

The Trump Administration is looking to telehealth services to play a more prominent role in helping mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by expanding existing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patients’ places of residence, starting March 6, 2020,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a fact sheet issued March 17.

Some of the existing benefits were previously limited to rural communities.

“Medicare beneficiaries across the nation, no matter where they live, will now be able to receive a wide range of services via telehealth without ever having to leave home,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 17 White House press briefing on administration actions to contain the spread of COVID-19. “These services can also be provided in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospital outpatient departments, and more.”

That means that seniors can continue to receive their routine care without having to leave the home and risk infection, or they can get medical guidance if they have mild symptoms, which would help mitigate the spread to others.

“This shift is very important for clinicians and providers who, over the coming weeks, will face considerable strain on their time and resources,” Dr. Verma said. “[It] allows the health care system to prioritize care for those who have more needs or who are in dire need, and it also preserves protective equipment.”

A range of providers will be able to deliver telehealth services, including doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers. Visits using the telehealth services will be considered the same as in-person visits and will be paid as if the patient were seen in the office.

This expansion of Medicare telehealth services will continue for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

“In addition, the [Health and Human Services’] office of inspector general is providing flexibility for health care providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for telehealth visits paid by federal health care programs,” the fact sheet states. CMS also said it will not conduct audits to ensure that an established relationship exists between the provider and the patient – a prior requirement for telehealth billing – during this public health emergency.

Billing for virtual check-ins, which are essentially brief conversations that may not require a full visit to the physician office, needs an established relationship between the practice and the patient. Likewise, for e-visits, which include non–face-to-face communications through online patient portals, billing can occur only when there is an established patient relationship.

Key to the expansion is that it will cover the entire United States and will not be limited to rural areas.

Dr. Verma also noted that the administration “will be temporarily suspending certain HIPAA requirements so that doctors can provide telehealth with their own phones.”

She noted this was all a part of mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“As we are encouraging Americans to stay home whenever possible, we don’t want our Medicare policies getting in the way,” she said, adding that state Medicaid agencies can expand their telehealth services without the approval of CMS during this emergency.

[email protected]

The Trump Administration is looking to telehealth services to play a more prominent role in helping mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by expanding existing benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Medicare can pay for office, hospital, and other visits furnished via telehealth across the country and including in patients’ places of residence, starting March 6, 2020,” the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a fact sheet issued March 17.

Some of the existing benefits were previously limited to rural communities.

“Medicare beneficiaries across the nation, no matter where they live, will now be able to receive a wide range of services via telehealth without ever having to leave home,” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said during a March 17 White House press briefing on administration actions to contain the spread of COVID-19. “These services can also be provided in a variety of settings, including nursing homes, hospital outpatient departments, and more.”

That means that seniors can continue to receive their routine care without having to leave the home and risk infection, or they can get medical guidance if they have mild symptoms, which would help mitigate the spread to others.

“This shift is very important for clinicians and providers who, over the coming weeks, will face considerable strain on their time and resources,” Dr. Verma said. “[It] allows the health care system to prioritize care for those who have more needs or who are in dire need, and it also preserves protective equipment.”

A range of providers will be able to deliver telehealth services, including doctors, nurse practitioners, clinical psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers. Visits using the telehealth services will be considered the same as in-person visits and will be paid as if the patient were seen in the office.

This expansion of Medicare telehealth services will continue for the duration of the COVID-19 public health emergency.

“In addition, the [Health and Human Services’] office of inspector general is providing flexibility for health care providers to reduce or waive cost-sharing for telehealth visits paid by federal health care programs,” the fact sheet states. CMS also said it will not conduct audits to ensure that an established relationship exists between the provider and the patient – a prior requirement for telehealth billing – during this public health emergency.

Billing for virtual check-ins, which are essentially brief conversations that may not require a full visit to the physician office, needs an established relationship between the practice and the patient. Likewise, for e-visits, which include non–face-to-face communications through online patient portals, billing can occur only when there is an established patient relationship.

Key to the expansion is that it will cover the entire United States and will not be limited to rural areas.

Dr. Verma also noted that the administration “will be temporarily suspending certain HIPAA requirements so that doctors can provide telehealth with their own phones.”

She noted this was all a part of mitigation efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.

“As we are encouraging Americans to stay home whenever possible, we don’t want our Medicare policies getting in the way,” she said, adding that state Medicaid agencies can expand their telehealth services without the approval of CMS during this emergency.

[email protected]

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, using a specific orientation at deployment may optimize valve alignment and potentially preserve coronary access, at least for some devices, results of a pilot imaging study suggest.

In particular, positioning the Evolut THV (Medtronic) at a certain way at deployment led to an improvement in commissural alignment and a significant reduction in coronary artery overlap, according to authors of the study, led by Gilbert H. L. Tang, MD, MSc, MBA, surgical director of the structural heart program at Mount Sinai Health System, and associate professor of cardiovascular surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Likewise, a specific positioning of the commissural post at deployment appeared to improve alignment and reduce coronary overlap when using the ACURATE-neo (Boston Scientific), though results with this transcatheter heart valve need to be considered preliminary because of the smaller number of cases, Dr. Tang said in an interview.

By contrast, initial deployment orientation of the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) did not seem to have an impact on final orientation or neocommissural overlap with arteries in this study by Dr. Tang and colleagues, which was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions and had been planned for presentation at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Improved positioning may have important future implications for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly if they are younger and therefore perhaps more likely than older patients to undergo a procedure requiring coronary access at some point in the future, according to Dr. Tang.

“Right now, device design does not permit us to have consistent commissural alignment,” said Dr. Tang in the interview. “What this study shows is that, with modification of delivery catheter insertion technique, at least for the EVOLUT valve, we can improve commissural alignment and hypothetically speaking, improve the likelihood of coronary access.”

While the technique modifications described by Dr. Tang and colleagues are commendable, the overall impact on commissural alignment and coronary overlap are “modest” and do not solve the problem, according to Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, associate professor of medicine and cardiothoracic surgery at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Instead, the onus should be on the device manufacturers to develop solutions that allow for better alignment between their devices and patients’ commissures, said Dr. Jilaihawi.

“We need really industry to focus wholeheartedly on this,” Dr. Jilaihawi said in an interview. “I think they will, and there will be some discussions about focusing on [commissural alignment], but I think it’s coming really very late.”

Dr. Tang agreed on the need for increased focus on achieving commissural alignment. Of note, he said, there are newer transcatheter heart valves under study that may be more likely to achieve alignment and reduce the possibility of severe coronary overlap, including the JenaValve (JenaValve Technology) and the J-Valve (JC Medical).

“We hope that manufacturers can design valves that would improve commissural alignment for these patients, so that in 10 or even 20 years’ time, when these patients require reintervention, we won’t have to do surgery because the valves are not aligned,” said Dr. Tang. “Ideally, we might have to do one surgical intervention in their lifetime, but really what we are talking about now is the lifetime management of these patients as the coronary artery disease progresses, and also the aortic valve disease returns with the prosthetic valve.”

The pilot imaging study by Dr. Tang and colleagues included a total of 828 patients undergoing TAVR, including 483 treated with SAPIEN 3, 245 with Evolut, and 100 with ACURATE-neo.

To track deployment orientation, the SAPIEN 3 cases had a commissure crimped at 3, 6, 9, or 12 o’clock orientation relative to the delivery catheter. However, crimping orientation at initial deployment did not appear to have an impact on the final orientation, with overall incidence of severe coronary overlap of 36.6% for the left main coronary artery (LMCA), 23.6% for the right coronary artery (RCA), and 51.3% for one or both, according to the report.

For 107 cases treated with Evolut, the investigators sought to have a marker on the device (known as the “hat” marker) oriented to the outer curve of the descending aorta; to do that, they inserted the delivery catheter with the flush port at the 3 o’clock position. Those cases with the hat marker at the outer curve or the center front had improved commissural alignment as compared to those with the hat at the inner curve or center back, according to investigators. The incidence of coronary overlap with the LMCA was 15.7% for those with the hat at the outer curve or center front, compared to 66.0% for those with the hat at the inner curve or center back (P < .001), and the differences in coronary overlap were likewise significantly different in favor of the outer curve/center front for the RCA or both coronaries.

Finally, the incidence of coronary overlap with the ACURATE-neo was much lower when the commissural post at initial deployment was at the center back or inner curve, and in a few cases where the operators tried to torque the delivery catheter to position the commissural post to the inner curve, commissural alignment was achieved in about three-quarters of the patients (five of seven cases).

This is believed to be the first study to systematically characterize how the initial orientation of different transcatheter heart valves impact commissural alignment and coronary overlap, according to Dr. Tang and coinvestigators.

Dr. Jilaihawi, who was not involved in the study, said the investigators studied this phenomenon in a “very detailed, methodical fashion,” but emphasized the need for new device innovations to improve alignment and overlap.

“Their efforts weren’t completely in vain, but they really made a small difference in something that is too important to be [addressed] in a kind of ‘MacGyver’ approach to this problem,” he said in the interview.

Disclosures reported by Dr. Tang were related to Edwards Lifesciences (physician proctor) and Medtronic (physician proctor, consultant). Coauthors reported disclosures related to Edwards, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific, among others.

SOURCE: ACC 20. Tang GHL et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.005.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, using a specific orientation at deployment may optimize valve alignment and potentially preserve coronary access, at least for some devices, results of a pilot imaging study suggest.

In particular, positioning the Evolut THV (Medtronic) at a certain way at deployment led to an improvement in commissural alignment and a significant reduction in coronary artery overlap, according to authors of the study, led by Gilbert H. L. Tang, MD, MSc, MBA, surgical director of the structural heart program at Mount Sinai Health System, and associate professor of cardiovascular surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Likewise, a specific positioning of the commissural post at deployment appeared to improve alignment and reduce coronary overlap when using the ACURATE-neo (Boston Scientific), though results with this transcatheter heart valve need to be considered preliminary because of the smaller number of cases, Dr. Tang said in an interview.

By contrast, initial deployment orientation of the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) did not seem to have an impact on final orientation or neocommissural overlap with arteries in this study by Dr. Tang and colleagues, which was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions and had been planned for presentation at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Improved positioning may have important future implications for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly if they are younger and therefore perhaps more likely than older patients to undergo a procedure requiring coronary access at some point in the future, according to Dr. Tang.

“Right now, device design does not permit us to have consistent commissural alignment,” said Dr. Tang in the interview. “What this study shows is that, with modification of delivery catheter insertion technique, at least for the EVOLUT valve, we can improve commissural alignment and hypothetically speaking, improve the likelihood of coronary access.”

While the technique modifications described by Dr. Tang and colleagues are commendable, the overall impact on commissural alignment and coronary overlap are “modest” and do not solve the problem, according to Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, associate professor of medicine and cardiothoracic surgery at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Instead, the onus should be on the device manufacturers to develop solutions that allow for better alignment between their devices and patients’ commissures, said Dr. Jilaihawi.

“We need really industry to focus wholeheartedly on this,” Dr. Jilaihawi said in an interview. “I think they will, and there will be some discussions about focusing on [commissural alignment], but I think it’s coming really very late.”

Dr. Tang agreed on the need for increased focus on achieving commissural alignment. Of note, he said, there are newer transcatheter heart valves under study that may be more likely to achieve alignment and reduce the possibility of severe coronary overlap, including the JenaValve (JenaValve Technology) and the J-Valve (JC Medical).

“We hope that manufacturers can design valves that would improve commissural alignment for these patients, so that in 10 or even 20 years’ time, when these patients require reintervention, we won’t have to do surgery because the valves are not aligned,” said Dr. Tang. “Ideally, we might have to do one surgical intervention in their lifetime, but really what we are talking about now is the lifetime management of these patients as the coronary artery disease progresses, and also the aortic valve disease returns with the prosthetic valve.”

The pilot imaging study by Dr. Tang and colleagues included a total of 828 patients undergoing TAVR, including 483 treated with SAPIEN 3, 245 with Evolut, and 100 with ACURATE-neo.

To track deployment orientation, the SAPIEN 3 cases had a commissure crimped at 3, 6, 9, or 12 o’clock orientation relative to the delivery catheter. However, crimping orientation at initial deployment did not appear to have an impact on the final orientation, with overall incidence of severe coronary overlap of 36.6% for the left main coronary artery (LMCA), 23.6% for the right coronary artery (RCA), and 51.3% for one or both, according to the report.

For 107 cases treated with Evolut, the investigators sought to have a marker on the device (known as the “hat” marker) oriented to the outer curve of the descending aorta; to do that, they inserted the delivery catheter with the flush port at the 3 o’clock position. Those cases with the hat marker at the outer curve or the center front had improved commissural alignment as compared to those with the hat at the inner curve or center back, according to investigators. The incidence of coronary overlap with the LMCA was 15.7% for those with the hat at the outer curve or center front, compared to 66.0% for those with the hat at the inner curve or center back (P < .001), and the differences in coronary overlap were likewise significantly different in favor of the outer curve/center front for the RCA or both coronaries.

Finally, the incidence of coronary overlap with the ACURATE-neo was much lower when the commissural post at initial deployment was at the center back or inner curve, and in a few cases where the operators tried to torque the delivery catheter to position the commissural post to the inner curve, commissural alignment was achieved in about three-quarters of the patients (five of seven cases).

This is believed to be the first study to systematically characterize how the initial orientation of different transcatheter heart valves impact commissural alignment and coronary overlap, according to Dr. Tang and coinvestigators.

Dr. Jilaihawi, who was not involved in the study, said the investigators studied this phenomenon in a “very detailed, methodical fashion,” but emphasized the need for new device innovations to improve alignment and overlap.

“Their efforts weren’t completely in vain, but they really made a small difference in something that is too important to be [addressed] in a kind of ‘MacGyver’ approach to this problem,” he said in the interview.

Disclosures reported by Dr. Tang were related to Edwards Lifesciences (physician proctor) and Medtronic (physician proctor, consultant). Coauthors reported disclosures related to Edwards, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific, among others.

SOURCE: ACC 20. Tang GHL et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.005.

For patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, using a specific orientation at deployment may optimize valve alignment and potentially preserve coronary access, at least for some devices, results of a pilot imaging study suggest.

In particular, positioning the Evolut THV (Medtronic) at a certain way at deployment led to an improvement in commissural alignment and a significant reduction in coronary artery overlap, according to authors of the study, led by Gilbert H. L. Tang, MD, MSc, MBA, surgical director of the structural heart program at Mount Sinai Health System, and associate professor of cardiovascular surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.

Likewise, a specific positioning of the commissural post at deployment appeared to improve alignment and reduce coronary overlap when using the ACURATE-neo (Boston Scientific), though results with this transcatheter heart valve need to be considered preliminary because of the smaller number of cases, Dr. Tang said in an interview.

By contrast, initial deployment orientation of the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences) did not seem to have an impact on final orientation or neocommissural overlap with arteries in this study by Dr. Tang and colleagues, which was published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions and had been planned for presentation at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Improved positioning may have important future implications for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), particularly if they are younger and therefore perhaps more likely than older patients to undergo a procedure requiring coronary access at some point in the future, according to Dr. Tang.

“Right now, device design does not permit us to have consistent commissural alignment,” said Dr. Tang in the interview. “What this study shows is that, with modification of delivery catheter insertion technique, at least for the EVOLUT valve, we can improve commissural alignment and hypothetically speaking, improve the likelihood of coronary access.”

While the technique modifications described by Dr. Tang and colleagues are commendable, the overall impact on commissural alignment and coronary overlap are “modest” and do not solve the problem, according to Hasan Jilaihawi, MD, associate professor of medicine and cardiothoracic surgery at NYU Langone Health, New York.

Instead, the onus should be on the device manufacturers to develop solutions that allow for better alignment between their devices and patients’ commissures, said Dr. Jilaihawi.

“We need really industry to focus wholeheartedly on this,” Dr. Jilaihawi said in an interview. “I think they will, and there will be some discussions about focusing on [commissural alignment], but I think it’s coming really very late.”

Dr. Tang agreed on the need for increased focus on achieving commissural alignment. Of note, he said, there are newer transcatheter heart valves under study that may be more likely to achieve alignment and reduce the possibility of severe coronary overlap, including the JenaValve (JenaValve Technology) and the J-Valve (JC Medical).

“We hope that manufacturers can design valves that would improve commissural alignment for these patients, so that in 10 or even 20 years’ time, when these patients require reintervention, we won’t have to do surgery because the valves are not aligned,” said Dr. Tang. “Ideally, we might have to do one surgical intervention in their lifetime, but really what we are talking about now is the lifetime management of these patients as the coronary artery disease progresses, and also the aortic valve disease returns with the prosthetic valve.”

The pilot imaging study by Dr. Tang and colleagues included a total of 828 patients undergoing TAVR, including 483 treated with SAPIEN 3, 245 with Evolut, and 100 with ACURATE-neo.

To track deployment orientation, the SAPIEN 3 cases had a commissure crimped at 3, 6, 9, or 12 o’clock orientation relative to the delivery catheter. However, crimping orientation at initial deployment did not appear to have an impact on the final orientation, with overall incidence of severe coronary overlap of 36.6% for the left main coronary artery (LMCA), 23.6% for the right coronary artery (RCA), and 51.3% for one or both, according to the report.

For 107 cases treated with Evolut, the investigators sought to have a marker on the device (known as the “hat” marker) oriented to the outer curve of the descending aorta; to do that, they inserted the delivery catheter with the flush port at the 3 o’clock position. Those cases with the hat marker at the outer curve or the center front had improved commissural alignment as compared to those with the hat at the inner curve or center back, according to investigators. The incidence of coronary overlap with the LMCA was 15.7% for those with the hat at the outer curve or center front, compared to 66.0% for those with the hat at the inner curve or center back (P < .001), and the differences in coronary overlap were likewise significantly different in favor of the outer curve/center front for the RCA or both coronaries.

Finally, the incidence of coronary overlap with the ACURATE-neo was much lower when the commissural post at initial deployment was at the center back or inner curve, and in a few cases where the operators tried to torque the delivery catheter to position the commissural post to the inner curve, commissural alignment was achieved in about three-quarters of the patients (five of seven cases).

This is believed to be the first study to systematically characterize how the initial orientation of different transcatheter heart valves impact commissural alignment and coronary overlap, according to Dr. Tang and coinvestigators.

Dr. Jilaihawi, who was not involved in the study, said the investigators studied this phenomenon in a “very detailed, methodical fashion,” but emphasized the need for new device innovations to improve alignment and overlap.

“Their efforts weren’t completely in vain, but they really made a small difference in something that is too important to be [addressed] in a kind of ‘MacGyver’ approach to this problem,” he said in the interview.

Disclosures reported by Dr. Tang were related to Edwards Lifesciences (physician proctor) and Medtronic (physician proctor, consultant). Coauthors reported disclosures related to Edwards, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific, among others.

SOURCE: ACC 20. Tang GHL et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.02.005.