Cardiology News

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

Treatment with the sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin reduced the risk for cardiovascular disease or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) in patients with diabetes, regardless of the duration of the disease, but had a greater protective benefit against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and renal events in patients with longer disease duration, according to new findings from a post hoc analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

The positive effect of dapagliflozin in patients with MACE – which includes myocardial infarction (MI), CVD, and ischemic stroke – may have been driven by lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke with the drug, compared with placebo, in patients with longer disease duration, wrote Harpreet S. Bajaj, MD, and colleagues. Their report is in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism (2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011).

It has been previously reported that the risk for complications in diabetes increases with increasing duration of the disease. Recent studies with SGLT-2 inhibitors have shown that the drugs improve cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes, and they are recommended by the American Diabetes Association as second-line therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure. The European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend that patients with diabetes patients who have three or more risk factors, or those with a disease duration of more than 20 years, should be deemed very high risk and be considered for early treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors.

“The MACE benefit observed with dapagliflozin in this study in patients with diabetes duration of [more than] 20 years, clearly supports that notion,” the authors wrote.

In DECLARE-TIMI 58, 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes received dapagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a median of 4.2 years. Of those patients, 22.4% had a disease duration of fewer than 5 years; 27.6%, a duration of 5-10 years; 23.0%, 10-15 years; 14.2%, 10-15 years; and 12.9%, more than 20 years. The median duration of disease was 11 years.

Patients in all the age groups had similar reductions in CVD/HHF, compared with placebo, with hazard ratios of 0.79 (disease duration of 5 or fewer years), 0.86, 0.92, 0.81, and 0.75 (duration of 20 years), respectively (interaction trend P = .760).

Treatment with dapagliflozin reduced the incidence of MACE, but the benefit was more apparent in patients with longer-term disease: HR, 1.08; 1.02; 0.94; 0.92; and 0.67, respectively (interaction trend P = .004). Similar trends were seen with MI (interaction trend P = .019) and ischemic stroke (interaction trend P = .015).

The researchers also reported improved benefits in renal-specific outcome with increasing disease duration, with HRs ranging from 0.79 in patients with diabetes duration of fewer than 5 years, to 0.42 in those with a duration of more than 20 years (interaction trend P = .084).

Limitations of the study include the fact that the information about diabetes duration relied on patient reports, and that the original trial was not powered for all subgroup interactions. This authors emphasized that this was a post hoc analysis and as such, should be considered hypothesis generating.

All but two of the authors reported relationships with Astra Zeneca, which funded the study, and other drug companies.

SOURCE: Bajaj HS et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020 Feb 23. doi: 10.1111/dom.14011.

LOS ANGELES – Nearly half of U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy at a U.S. hospital in 2018 went home with instructions to take combined treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel, but analysis of these and other patients from earlier years showed that most patients did not receive any benefit from this dual antiplatelet regimen compared with patients sent home on aspirin only.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The only patients who benefited from postsurgical treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were those who were symptomatic (had a stroke or transient ischemic attack) prior to their carotid endarterectomy surgery, a minority of the more than 17,000 matched U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018 and were part of this analysis, Nathan Belkin, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Among patients with symptoms prior to their carotid endarterectomy, DAPT at the time of hospital discharge was associated with a 2-year follow-up rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death of about 8%, compared with a rate of about 11% among similar patients discharged on aspirin only, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, among patients who were asymptomatic prior to their carotid endarterectomy, discharge treatment with aspirin only was associated with a 2-year event rate similar to the rate among patients discharged on DAPT.

Based in part on this finding, Dr. Belkin and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, now start symptomatic patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy on DAPT with aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) about 2 weeks before surgery, and then continue the combined regimen long term after surgery. A prospective, randomized study is needed to fully resolve the optimal use of DAPT in patients with significant carotid artery disease scheduled for carotid endarterectomy, but until then, “we’re individualizing DAPT” to patients at high risk because of a prior stroke or TIA who also have no evidence of an elevated bleeding risk, said Dr. Belkin, a vascular surgeon.

“We hypothesize that patients with systemic carotid disease have a systemic disease process and more activated platelets,” which suggests a potential benefit from DAPT, he explained. But the data that Dr. Belkin reported also indicated that recent U.S. use of DAPT in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy has moved beyond this subgroup. The U.S. national data set that Dr. Belkin used for the analysis, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry maintained by the Society for Vascular Surgery, included 87,074 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018. During the entire 16-year period, 30% of patients overall received a prescription for DAPT at hospital discharge, but this level went steadily up during those years. In 2003, the rate of DAPT prescriptions at discharge was below 10% of patients but then rose incrementally over the following years and by 2018 had increased to about 44% despite a prevalence of symptomatic carotid disease closer to about a third of patients.

“It’s surprising that so many patients received DAPT for carotid disease” in recent years, commented Mai N. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, a vascular neurologist with Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. “It’s been thought that DAPT, and especially clopidogrel, was more beneficial for patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, but not so much for patients with carotid disease,” she said in an interview. “We don’t always see systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid artery disease. It’s not standard practice to look for systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid disease,” unless something in the patient’s presentation suggests wider vascular-disease progression.

The primary analysis that Dr. Belkin and associates ran removed about 16% of the patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy from the database: those who received no antiplatelet drug, those who received only clopidogrel, and those who went home from surgery on an anticoagulant. Among the remaining 72,122 patients, 35% received DAPT at discharge and 65% received aspirin only. The patients averaged 70 years old, 61% were men, 37% had a history of stroke or TIA, and their overall 2-year incidence of stroke, TIA, or death was 7.3%. To adjust for many baseline differences between the patients discharged on DAPT and those who got only aspirin, the researchers used propensity-score sorting to identify 17,398 matched patients from the two treatment subgroups, 24% of the total population. Comparison of these DAPT and aspirin-only subgroups showed no difference in the overall, 2-year rate of stroke, TIA, or death.

However, when the analysis divided the patients into asymptomatic and symptomatic subgroups, those discharged on DAPT showed a statistically significant lower rate of stroke, TIA, or death during 2 years of follow-up. The same symptomatic subgroup also showed a statistically significant lower rate of total mortality during 5 years of follow-up when treated with DAPT compared with aspirin only, again an absolute, between-group difference of about 3 percentage points that was statistically significant, a difference not seen in the asymptomatic patients. The type of treatment that symptomatic patients received had no relationship to their 2-year incidence of stroke or TIA.

To confirm these findings, Dr. Belkin and coworkers ran a multivariate logistic regression analysis on the data collected from all 72,122 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and subsequently received either DAPT or aspirin only. The only statistically significant association between treatment and outcome was among the symptomatic patients who received DAPT, who had a significant reduction in their 5-year mortality, compared with symptomatic patients who received only aspirin at hospital discharge.

Ideally, a comparison of DAPT and aspirin-only treatment should also assess the incidence and severity of bleeding events associated with these treatments, but bleeding data were not available in the database, Dr. Belkin said.

Dr. Belkin and Dr. Nguyen-Huynh had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belkin N et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1): Abstract 67.

LOS ANGELES – Nearly half of U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy at a U.S. hospital in 2018 went home with instructions to take combined treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel, but analysis of these and other patients from earlier years showed that most patients did not receive any benefit from this dual antiplatelet regimen compared with patients sent home on aspirin only.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The only patients who benefited from postsurgical treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were those who were symptomatic (had a stroke or transient ischemic attack) prior to their carotid endarterectomy surgery, a minority of the more than 17,000 matched U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018 and were part of this analysis, Nathan Belkin, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Among patients with symptoms prior to their carotid endarterectomy, DAPT at the time of hospital discharge was associated with a 2-year follow-up rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death of about 8%, compared with a rate of about 11% among similar patients discharged on aspirin only, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, among patients who were asymptomatic prior to their carotid endarterectomy, discharge treatment with aspirin only was associated with a 2-year event rate similar to the rate among patients discharged on DAPT.

Based in part on this finding, Dr. Belkin and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, now start symptomatic patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy on DAPT with aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) about 2 weeks before surgery, and then continue the combined regimen long term after surgery. A prospective, randomized study is needed to fully resolve the optimal use of DAPT in patients with significant carotid artery disease scheduled for carotid endarterectomy, but until then, “we’re individualizing DAPT” to patients at high risk because of a prior stroke or TIA who also have no evidence of an elevated bleeding risk, said Dr. Belkin, a vascular surgeon.

“We hypothesize that patients with systemic carotid disease have a systemic disease process and more activated platelets,” which suggests a potential benefit from DAPT, he explained. But the data that Dr. Belkin reported also indicated that recent U.S. use of DAPT in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy has moved beyond this subgroup. The U.S. national data set that Dr. Belkin used for the analysis, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry maintained by the Society for Vascular Surgery, included 87,074 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018. During the entire 16-year period, 30% of patients overall received a prescription for DAPT at hospital discharge, but this level went steadily up during those years. In 2003, the rate of DAPT prescriptions at discharge was below 10% of patients but then rose incrementally over the following years and by 2018 had increased to about 44% despite a prevalence of symptomatic carotid disease closer to about a third of patients.

“It’s surprising that so many patients received DAPT for carotid disease” in recent years, commented Mai N. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, a vascular neurologist with Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. “It’s been thought that DAPT, and especially clopidogrel, was more beneficial for patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, but not so much for patients with carotid disease,” she said in an interview. “We don’t always see systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid artery disease. It’s not standard practice to look for systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid disease,” unless something in the patient’s presentation suggests wider vascular-disease progression.

The primary analysis that Dr. Belkin and associates ran removed about 16% of the patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy from the database: those who received no antiplatelet drug, those who received only clopidogrel, and those who went home from surgery on an anticoagulant. Among the remaining 72,122 patients, 35% received DAPT at discharge and 65% received aspirin only. The patients averaged 70 years old, 61% were men, 37% had a history of stroke or TIA, and their overall 2-year incidence of stroke, TIA, or death was 7.3%. To adjust for many baseline differences between the patients discharged on DAPT and those who got only aspirin, the researchers used propensity-score sorting to identify 17,398 matched patients from the two treatment subgroups, 24% of the total population. Comparison of these DAPT and aspirin-only subgroups showed no difference in the overall, 2-year rate of stroke, TIA, or death.

However, when the analysis divided the patients into asymptomatic and symptomatic subgroups, those discharged on DAPT showed a statistically significant lower rate of stroke, TIA, or death during 2 years of follow-up. The same symptomatic subgroup also showed a statistically significant lower rate of total mortality during 5 years of follow-up when treated with DAPT compared with aspirin only, again an absolute, between-group difference of about 3 percentage points that was statistically significant, a difference not seen in the asymptomatic patients. The type of treatment that symptomatic patients received had no relationship to their 2-year incidence of stroke or TIA.

To confirm these findings, Dr. Belkin and coworkers ran a multivariate logistic regression analysis on the data collected from all 72,122 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and subsequently received either DAPT or aspirin only. The only statistically significant association between treatment and outcome was among the symptomatic patients who received DAPT, who had a significant reduction in their 5-year mortality, compared with symptomatic patients who received only aspirin at hospital discharge.

Ideally, a comparison of DAPT and aspirin-only treatment should also assess the incidence and severity of bleeding events associated with these treatments, but bleeding data were not available in the database, Dr. Belkin said.

Dr. Belkin and Dr. Nguyen-Huynh had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belkin N et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1): Abstract 67.

LOS ANGELES – Nearly half of U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy at a U.S. hospital in 2018 went home with instructions to take combined treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel, but analysis of these and other patients from earlier years showed that most patients did not receive any benefit from this dual antiplatelet regimen compared with patients sent home on aspirin only.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The only patients who benefited from postsurgical treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were those who were symptomatic (had a stroke or transient ischemic attack) prior to their carotid endarterectomy surgery, a minority of the more than 17,000 matched U.S. patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018 and were part of this analysis, Nathan Belkin, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Among patients with symptoms prior to their carotid endarterectomy, DAPT at the time of hospital discharge was associated with a 2-year follow-up rate of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or death of about 8%, compared with a rate of about 11% among similar patients discharged on aspirin only, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, among patients who were asymptomatic prior to their carotid endarterectomy, discharge treatment with aspirin only was associated with a 2-year event rate similar to the rate among patients discharged on DAPT.

Based in part on this finding, Dr. Belkin and associates at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, now start symptomatic patients scheduled for carotid endarterectomy on DAPT with aspirin plus clopidogrel (Plavix) about 2 weeks before surgery, and then continue the combined regimen long term after surgery. A prospective, randomized study is needed to fully resolve the optimal use of DAPT in patients with significant carotid artery disease scheduled for carotid endarterectomy, but until then, “we’re individualizing DAPT” to patients at high risk because of a prior stroke or TIA who also have no evidence of an elevated bleeding risk, said Dr. Belkin, a vascular surgeon.

“We hypothesize that patients with systemic carotid disease have a systemic disease process and more activated platelets,” which suggests a potential benefit from DAPT, he explained. But the data that Dr. Belkin reported also indicated that recent U.S. use of DAPT in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy has moved beyond this subgroup. The U.S. national data set that Dr. Belkin used for the analysis, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry maintained by the Society for Vascular Surgery, included 87,074 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy during 2003-2018. During the entire 16-year period, 30% of patients overall received a prescription for DAPT at hospital discharge, but this level went steadily up during those years. In 2003, the rate of DAPT prescriptions at discharge was below 10% of patients but then rose incrementally over the following years and by 2018 had increased to about 44% despite a prevalence of symptomatic carotid disease closer to about a third of patients.

“It’s surprising that so many patients received DAPT for carotid disease” in recent years, commented Mai N. Nguyen-Huynh, MD, a vascular neurologist with Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland. “It’s been thought that DAPT, and especially clopidogrel, was more beneficial for patients with intracranial atherosclerotic disease, but not so much for patients with carotid disease,” she said in an interview. “We don’t always see systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid artery disease. It’s not standard practice to look for systemic atherosclerotic disease in patients with carotid disease,” unless something in the patient’s presentation suggests wider vascular-disease progression.

The primary analysis that Dr. Belkin and associates ran removed about 16% of the patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy from the database: those who received no antiplatelet drug, those who received only clopidogrel, and those who went home from surgery on an anticoagulant. Among the remaining 72,122 patients, 35% received DAPT at discharge and 65% received aspirin only. The patients averaged 70 years old, 61% were men, 37% had a history of stroke or TIA, and their overall 2-year incidence of stroke, TIA, or death was 7.3%. To adjust for many baseline differences between the patients discharged on DAPT and those who got only aspirin, the researchers used propensity-score sorting to identify 17,398 matched patients from the two treatment subgroups, 24% of the total population. Comparison of these DAPT and aspirin-only subgroups showed no difference in the overall, 2-year rate of stroke, TIA, or death.

However, when the analysis divided the patients into asymptomatic and symptomatic subgroups, those discharged on DAPT showed a statistically significant lower rate of stroke, TIA, or death during 2 years of follow-up. The same symptomatic subgroup also showed a statistically significant lower rate of total mortality during 5 years of follow-up when treated with DAPT compared with aspirin only, again an absolute, between-group difference of about 3 percentage points that was statistically significant, a difference not seen in the asymptomatic patients. The type of treatment that symptomatic patients received had no relationship to their 2-year incidence of stroke or TIA.

To confirm these findings, Dr. Belkin and coworkers ran a multivariate logistic regression analysis on the data collected from all 72,122 patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy and subsequently received either DAPT or aspirin only. The only statistically significant association between treatment and outcome was among the symptomatic patients who received DAPT, who had a significant reduction in their 5-year mortality, compared with symptomatic patients who received only aspirin at hospital discharge.

Ideally, a comparison of DAPT and aspirin-only treatment should also assess the incidence and severity of bleeding events associated with these treatments, but bleeding data were not available in the database, Dr. Belkin said.

Dr. Belkin and Dr. Nguyen-Huynh had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Belkin N et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1): Abstract 67.

The risk for microvascular complications in adults with latent autoimmune diabetes increases the longer they have the disease, according a post hoc analysis of a large European database.

However, Ernesto Maddaloni, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome and University of Oxford (England), and colleagues noted that the risk is less than half that in patients with type 2 disease during the first several years after diagnosis but that, after 9 years, the risk curves cross over, and patients with latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood (LADA) matriculate to a 25% greater risk microvascular complications than do their type 2 counterparts.

The results point to a need for tighter glycemic control in patients with latent autoimmune disease and “might have relevant implications for the understanding of the differential risk of complications between type 2 diabetes and autoimmune diabetes in general,” the researchers wrote online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. They emphasized that the study represents the largest population of patients with latent autoimmune diabetes with the longest follow-up in a randomized controlled trial so far.

Diabetic microvascular complications are a major cause of end-stage renal disease and blindness in LADA, therefore, “implementing strict glycemic control from the time of diagnosis could reduce the later risk of microvascular complications in [these patients],” the authors wrote.

The researchers analyzed 30 years of data from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, focusing on 564 patients with LADA and 4,464 adults with type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was first occurrence of renal failure, death from renal disease, blindness in one eye, vitreous hemorrhage, or retinal laser treatment.

With a median follow-up of 17.3 years, 21% of all patients (1,041) developed microvascular complications, of which there were 65 renal events and 976 retinopathy events. Secondary outcomes were nephropathy and retinopathy.

The study measured incidence in 1,000 person-years and found that the incidence for the overall primary composite microvascular outcome was 5.3% for LADA and 10% for type 2 diabetes in the first 9 years after diagnosis (P = .0020), but 13.6% and 9.2%, respectively, after that (P less than .0001). That translated into adjusted hazard ratios of 0.45 for LADA, compared with type 2 diabetes, in the first 9 years (P less than .0001) and 1.25 beyond 9 years (P = .047). The incidence of retinopathy events was 5.3% for LADA and 9.6% for type 2 diabetes up to 9 years (P = .003), and 12.5% and 8.6% thereafter (P = .001). Nephropathy rates were similar in both groups at 1.3% or less.

“The lower risk of microvascular complications during the first years after the diagnosis of latent autoimmune diabetes needs further examination,” Dr. Maddaloni and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned that LADA is often misdiagnosed as a form of type 1 diabetes. “Therefore, latent autoimmune diabetes could be the right bench test for studying differences between autoimmune diabetes and type 2 diabetes, because of fewer disparities in age and disease duration than with the comparison of type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Didac Mauricio, MD, of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, credited Dr. Maddaloni and colleagues with presenting evidence “of major relevance” in an adequately powered study that provided “a robust conclusion” about the risk of microvascular complications in latent autoimmune diabetes.

Dr. Mauricio noted that the study adds to the literature that different subgroups of type 2 diabetes patients exist and highlights the distinct characteristics of latent autoimmune diabetes. In addition, it builds on a previous study by Dr. Maddaloni and coauthors that found cardiovascular disease outcomes did not differ between latent autoimmune and type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21:2115-22), he wrote. The research team’s most recent findings “emphasize the need for early identification of latent autoimmune disease,” he stated.

The findings also raise important questions about screening all patients for antibodies upon diagnosis of diabetes, he said. “I firmly believe that it is time to take action,” first, because antibody testing is likely cost-effective and cost-saving because it facilitates better-informed, more timely decisions early in the disease trajectory, and second, it has already been well documented that patients with latent autoimmune diabetes have a higher glycemic burden.

An alternative to early universal screening for antibodies would be to raise awareness, especially among general practitioners, about the importance of timely diagnosis of LADA, Dr. Mauricio added.

The study received funding from the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes Mentorship Program, supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Maddaloni disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and AstraZeneca. Another author disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. All the other authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Mauricio disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Ferrer, Janssen, Menarini, and URGO.
 

SOURCE: Maddaloni E et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 0.1016/S2213-8587(20)30003-6.

The risk for microvascular complications in adults with latent autoimmune diabetes increases the longer they have the disease, according a post hoc analysis of a large European database.

However, Ernesto Maddaloni, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome and University of Oxford (England), and colleagues noted that the risk is less than half that in patients with type 2 disease during the first several years after diagnosis but that, after 9 years, the risk curves cross over, and patients with latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood (LADA) matriculate to a 25% greater risk microvascular complications than do their type 2 counterparts.

The results point to a need for tighter glycemic control in patients with latent autoimmune disease and “might have relevant implications for the understanding of the differential risk of complications between type 2 diabetes and autoimmune diabetes in general,” the researchers wrote online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. They emphasized that the study represents the largest population of patients with latent autoimmune diabetes with the longest follow-up in a randomized controlled trial so far.

Diabetic microvascular complications are a major cause of end-stage renal disease and blindness in LADA, therefore, “implementing strict glycemic control from the time of diagnosis could reduce the later risk of microvascular complications in [these patients],” the authors wrote.

The researchers analyzed 30 years of data from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, focusing on 564 patients with LADA and 4,464 adults with type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was first occurrence of renal failure, death from renal disease, blindness in one eye, vitreous hemorrhage, or retinal laser treatment.

With a median follow-up of 17.3 years, 21% of all patients (1,041) developed microvascular complications, of which there were 65 renal events and 976 retinopathy events. Secondary outcomes were nephropathy and retinopathy.

The study measured incidence in 1,000 person-years and found that the incidence for the overall primary composite microvascular outcome was 5.3% for LADA and 10% for type 2 diabetes in the first 9 years after diagnosis (P = .0020), but 13.6% and 9.2%, respectively, after that (P less than .0001). That translated into adjusted hazard ratios of 0.45 for LADA, compared with type 2 diabetes, in the first 9 years (P less than .0001) and 1.25 beyond 9 years (P = .047). The incidence of retinopathy events was 5.3% for LADA and 9.6% for type 2 diabetes up to 9 years (P = .003), and 12.5% and 8.6% thereafter (P = .001). Nephropathy rates were similar in both groups at 1.3% or less.

“The lower risk of microvascular complications during the first years after the diagnosis of latent autoimmune diabetes needs further examination,” Dr. Maddaloni and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned that LADA is often misdiagnosed as a form of type 1 diabetes. “Therefore, latent autoimmune diabetes could be the right bench test for studying differences between autoimmune diabetes and type 2 diabetes, because of fewer disparities in age and disease duration than with the comparison of type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Didac Mauricio, MD, of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, credited Dr. Maddaloni and colleagues with presenting evidence “of major relevance” in an adequately powered study that provided “a robust conclusion” about the risk of microvascular complications in latent autoimmune diabetes.

Dr. Mauricio noted that the study adds to the literature that different subgroups of type 2 diabetes patients exist and highlights the distinct characteristics of latent autoimmune diabetes. In addition, it builds on a previous study by Dr. Maddaloni and coauthors that found cardiovascular disease outcomes did not differ between latent autoimmune and type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21:2115-22), he wrote. The research team’s most recent findings “emphasize the need for early identification of latent autoimmune disease,” he stated.

The findings also raise important questions about screening all patients for antibodies upon diagnosis of diabetes, he said. “I firmly believe that it is time to take action,” first, because antibody testing is likely cost-effective and cost-saving because it facilitates better-informed, more timely decisions early in the disease trajectory, and second, it has already been well documented that patients with latent autoimmune diabetes have a higher glycemic burden.

An alternative to early universal screening for antibodies would be to raise awareness, especially among general practitioners, about the importance of timely diagnosis of LADA, Dr. Mauricio added.

The study received funding from the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes Mentorship Program, supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Maddaloni disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and AstraZeneca. Another author disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. All the other authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Mauricio disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Ferrer, Janssen, Menarini, and URGO.
 

SOURCE: Maddaloni E et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 0.1016/S2213-8587(20)30003-6.

The risk for microvascular complications in adults with latent autoimmune diabetes increases the longer they have the disease, according a post hoc analysis of a large European database.

However, Ernesto Maddaloni, MD, of Sapienza University of Rome and University of Oxford (England), and colleagues noted that the risk is less than half that in patients with type 2 disease during the first several years after diagnosis but that, after 9 years, the risk curves cross over, and patients with latent autoimmune diabetes of adulthood (LADA) matriculate to a 25% greater risk microvascular complications than do their type 2 counterparts.

The results point to a need for tighter glycemic control in patients with latent autoimmune disease and “might have relevant implications for the understanding of the differential risk of complications between type 2 diabetes and autoimmune diabetes in general,” the researchers wrote online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology. They emphasized that the study represents the largest population of patients with latent autoimmune diabetes with the longest follow-up in a randomized controlled trial so far.

Diabetic microvascular complications are a major cause of end-stage renal disease and blindness in LADA, therefore, “implementing strict glycemic control from the time of diagnosis could reduce the later risk of microvascular complications in [these patients],” the authors wrote.

The researchers analyzed 30 years of data from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, focusing on 564 patients with LADA and 4,464 adults with type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was first occurrence of renal failure, death from renal disease, blindness in one eye, vitreous hemorrhage, or retinal laser treatment.

With a median follow-up of 17.3 years, 21% of all patients (1,041) developed microvascular complications, of which there were 65 renal events and 976 retinopathy events. Secondary outcomes were nephropathy and retinopathy.

The study measured incidence in 1,000 person-years and found that the incidence for the overall primary composite microvascular outcome was 5.3% for LADA and 10% for type 2 diabetes in the first 9 years after diagnosis (P = .0020), but 13.6% and 9.2%, respectively, after that (P less than .0001). That translated into adjusted hazard ratios of 0.45 for LADA, compared with type 2 diabetes, in the first 9 years (P less than .0001) and 1.25 beyond 9 years (P = .047). The incidence of retinopathy events was 5.3% for LADA and 9.6% for type 2 diabetes up to 9 years (P = .003), and 12.5% and 8.6% thereafter (P = .001). Nephropathy rates were similar in both groups at 1.3% or less.

“The lower risk of microvascular complications during the first years after the diagnosis of latent autoimmune diabetes needs further examination,” Dr. Maddaloni and colleagues wrote.

They cautioned that LADA is often misdiagnosed as a form of type 1 diabetes. “Therefore, latent autoimmune diabetes could be the right bench test for studying differences between autoimmune diabetes and type 2 diabetes, because of fewer disparities in age and disease duration than with the comparison of type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes,” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Didac Mauricio, MD, of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, credited Dr. Maddaloni and colleagues with presenting evidence “of major relevance” in an adequately powered study that provided “a robust conclusion” about the risk of microvascular complications in latent autoimmune diabetes.

Dr. Mauricio noted that the study adds to the literature that different subgroups of type 2 diabetes patients exist and highlights the distinct characteristics of latent autoimmune diabetes. In addition, it builds on a previous study by Dr. Maddaloni and coauthors that found cardiovascular disease outcomes did not differ between latent autoimmune and type 2 diabetes (Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21:2115-22), he wrote. The research team’s most recent findings “emphasize the need for early identification of latent autoimmune disease,” he stated.

The findings also raise important questions about screening all patients for antibodies upon diagnosis of diabetes, he said. “I firmly believe that it is time to take action,” first, because antibody testing is likely cost-effective and cost-saving because it facilitates better-informed, more timely decisions early in the disease trajectory, and second, it has already been well documented that patients with latent autoimmune diabetes have a higher glycemic burden.

An alternative to early universal screening for antibodies would be to raise awareness, especially among general practitioners, about the importance of timely diagnosis of LADA, Dr. Mauricio added.

The study received funding from the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes Mentorship Program, supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Maddaloni disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Abbott, and AstraZeneca. Another author disclosed financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk. All the other authors had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr. Mauricio disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NovoNordisk, Sanofi, Almirall, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Ferrer, Janssen, Menarini, and URGO.
 

SOURCE: Maddaloni E et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 0.1016/S2213-8587(20)30003-6.

Elderly adults with hypertension who are newly prescribed a calcium-channel blocker (CCB), compared to other antihypertensive agents, are at least twice as likely to be given a loop diuretic over the following months, a large cohort study suggests.

The likelihood remained elevated for as long as a year after the start of a CCB and was more pronounced when comparing CCBs to any other kind of medication.

“Our findings suggest that many older adults who begin taking a CCB may subsequently experience a prescribing cascade” when loop diuretics are prescribed for peripheral edema, a known CCB adverse effect, that is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, Rachel D. Savage, PhD, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Canada, told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology.

Edema caused by CCBs is caused by fluid redistribution, not overload, and “treating euvolemic individuals with a diuretic places them at increased risk of overdiuresis, leading to falls, urinary incontinence, acute kidney injury, electrolyte imbalances, and a cascade of other downstream consequences to which older adults are especially vulnerable,” explain Savage and coauthors of the analysis published online February 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

However, 1.4% of the cohort had been prescribed a loop diuretic, and 4.5% had been given any diuretic within 90 days after the start of CCBs. The corresponding rates were 0.7% and 3.4%, respectively, for patients who had started on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than a CCB.

Also, Savage observed, “the likelihood of being prescribed a loop diuretic following initiation of a CCB changed over time and was greatest 61 to 90 days postinitiation.” At that point, it was increased 2.4 times compared with initiation of an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in an adjusted analysis and increased almost 4 times compared with starting on any non-CCB agent.

Importantly, the actual prevalence of peripheral edema among those started on CCBs, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or any non-CCB medication was not available in the data sets.

However, “the main message for clinicians is to consider medication side effects as a potential cause for new symptoms when patients present. We also encourage patients to ask prescribers about whether new symptoms could be caused by a medication,” senior author Lisa M. McCarthy, PharmD, told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology.

“If a patient experiences peripheral edema while taking a CCB, we would encourage clinicians to consider whether the calcium-channel blocker is still necessary, whether it could be discontinued or the dose reduced, or whether the patient can be switched to another therapy,” she said.

Based on the current analysis, if the rate of CCB-induced peripheral edema is assumed to be 10%, which is consistent with the literature, then “potentially 7% to 14% of people who develop edema while taking a calcium channel blocker may then receive a loop diuretic,” an accompanying editorial notes.

“Patients with polypharmacy are at heightened risk of being exposed to [a] series of prescribing cascades if their current use of medications is not carefully discussed before the decision to add a new antihypertensive,” observe Timothy S. Anderson, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, and Michael A. Steinman, MD, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco.

“The initial prescribing cascade can set off many other negative consequences, including adverse drug events, potentially avoidable diagnostic testing, and hospitalizations,” the editorialists caution.

“Identifying prescribing cascades and their consequences is an important step to stem the tide of polypharmacy and inform deprescribing efforts.”

The analysis was based on administrative data from almost 340,000 adults in the community aged 66 years or older with hypertension and new drug prescriptions over 5 years ending in September 2016, the report notes. Their mean age was 74.5 years and 56.5% were women.

The data set included 41,086 patients who were newly prescribed a CCB; 66,494 who were newly prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB; and 231,439 newly prescribed any medication other than a CCB. The prescribed CCB was amlodipine in 79.6% of patients.

Although loop diuretics could possibly have been prescribed sometimes as a second-tier antihypertensive in the absence of peripheral edema, “we made efforts, through the design of our study, to limit this where possible,” Savage said in an interview.

For example, the focus was on loop diuretics, which aren’t generally recommended for blood-pressure lowering. Also, patients with heart failure and those with a recent history of diuretic or other antihypertensive medication use had been excluded, she said.

“As such, our cohort comprised individuals with new-onset or milder hypertension for whom diuretics would unlikely to be prescribed as part of guideline-based hypertension management.”

Although amlodipine was the most commonly prescribed CCB, the potential for a prescribing cascade seemed to be a class effect and to apply at a range of dosages.

That was unexpected, McCarthy observed, because “peripheral edema occurs more commonly in people taking dihydropyridine CCBs, like amlodipine, compared to non–dihydropyridine CCBs, such as verapamil and diltiazem.”

Savage, McCarthy, their coauthors, and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Elderly adults with hypertension who are newly prescribed a calcium-channel blocker (CCB), compared to other antihypertensive agents, are at least twice as likely to be given a loop diuretic over the following months, a large cohort study suggests.

The likelihood remained elevated for as long as a year after the start of a CCB and was more pronounced when comparing CCBs to any other kind of medication.

“Our findings suggest that many older adults who begin taking a CCB may subsequently experience a prescribing cascade” when loop diuretics are prescribed for peripheral edema, a known CCB adverse effect, that is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, Rachel D. Savage, PhD, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Canada, told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology.

Edema caused by CCBs is caused by fluid redistribution, not overload, and “treating euvolemic individuals with a diuretic places them at increased risk of overdiuresis, leading to falls, urinary incontinence, acute kidney injury, electrolyte imbalances, and a cascade of other downstream consequences to which older adults are especially vulnerable,” explain Savage and coauthors of the analysis published online February 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

However, 1.4% of the cohort had been prescribed a loop diuretic, and 4.5% had been given any diuretic within 90 days after the start of CCBs. The corresponding rates were 0.7% and 3.4%, respectively, for patients who had started on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than a CCB.

Also, Savage observed, “the likelihood of being prescribed a loop diuretic following initiation of a CCB changed over time and was greatest 61 to 90 days postinitiation.” At that point, it was increased 2.4 times compared with initiation of an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in an adjusted analysis and increased almost 4 times compared with starting on any non-CCB agent.

Importantly, the actual prevalence of peripheral edema among those started on CCBs, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or any non-CCB medication was not available in the data sets.

However, “the main message for clinicians is to consider medication side effects as a potential cause for new symptoms when patients present. We also encourage patients to ask prescribers about whether new symptoms could be caused by a medication,” senior author Lisa M. McCarthy, PharmD, told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology.

“If a patient experiences peripheral edema while taking a CCB, we would encourage clinicians to consider whether the calcium-channel blocker is still necessary, whether it could be discontinued or the dose reduced, or whether the patient can be switched to another therapy,” she said.

Based on the current analysis, if the rate of CCB-induced peripheral edema is assumed to be 10%, which is consistent with the literature, then “potentially 7% to 14% of people who develop edema while taking a calcium channel blocker may then receive a loop diuretic,” an accompanying editorial notes.

“Patients with polypharmacy are at heightened risk of being exposed to [a] series of prescribing cascades if their current use of medications is not carefully discussed before the decision to add a new antihypertensive,” observe Timothy S. Anderson, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, and Michael A. Steinman, MD, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco.

“The initial prescribing cascade can set off many other negative consequences, including adverse drug events, potentially avoidable diagnostic testing, and hospitalizations,” the editorialists caution.

“Identifying prescribing cascades and their consequences is an important step to stem the tide of polypharmacy and inform deprescribing efforts.”

The analysis was based on administrative data from almost 340,000 adults in the community aged 66 years or older with hypertension and new drug prescriptions over 5 years ending in September 2016, the report notes. Their mean age was 74.5 years and 56.5% were women.

The data set included 41,086 patients who were newly prescribed a CCB; 66,494 who were newly prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB; and 231,439 newly prescribed any medication other than a CCB. The prescribed CCB was amlodipine in 79.6% of patients.

Although loop diuretics could possibly have been prescribed sometimes as a second-tier antihypertensive in the absence of peripheral edema, “we made efforts, through the design of our study, to limit this where possible,” Savage said in an interview.

For example, the focus was on loop diuretics, which aren’t generally recommended for blood-pressure lowering. Also, patients with heart failure and those with a recent history of diuretic or other antihypertensive medication use had been excluded, she said.

“As such, our cohort comprised individuals with new-onset or milder hypertension for whom diuretics would unlikely to be prescribed as part of guideline-based hypertension management.”

Although amlodipine was the most commonly prescribed CCB, the potential for a prescribing cascade seemed to be a class effect and to apply at a range of dosages.

That was unexpected, McCarthy observed, because “peripheral edema occurs more commonly in people taking dihydropyridine CCBs, like amlodipine, compared to non–dihydropyridine CCBs, such as verapamil and diltiazem.”

Savage, McCarthy, their coauthors, and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Elderly adults with hypertension who are newly prescribed a calcium-channel blocker (CCB), compared to other antihypertensive agents, are at least twice as likely to be given a loop diuretic over the following months, a large cohort study suggests.

The likelihood remained elevated for as long as a year after the start of a CCB and was more pronounced when comparing CCBs to any other kind of medication.

“Our findings suggest that many older adults who begin taking a CCB may subsequently experience a prescribing cascade” when loop diuretics are prescribed for peripheral edema, a known CCB adverse effect, that is misinterpreted as a new medical condition, Rachel D. Savage, PhD, Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, Canada, told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology.

Edema caused by CCBs is caused by fluid redistribution, not overload, and “treating euvolemic individuals with a diuretic places them at increased risk of overdiuresis, leading to falls, urinary incontinence, acute kidney injury, electrolyte imbalances, and a cascade of other downstream consequences to which older adults are especially vulnerable,” explain Savage and coauthors of the analysis published online February 24 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

However, 1.4% of the cohort had been prescribed a loop diuretic, and 4.5% had been given any diuretic within 90 days after the start of CCBs. The corresponding rates were 0.7% and 3.4%, respectively, for patients who had started on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) rather than a CCB.

Also, Savage observed, “the likelihood of being prescribed a loop diuretic following initiation of a CCB changed over time and was greatest 61 to 90 days postinitiation.” At that point, it was increased 2.4 times compared with initiation of an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in an adjusted analysis and increased almost 4 times compared with starting on any non-CCB agent.

Importantly, the actual prevalence of peripheral edema among those started on CCBs, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or any non-CCB medication was not available in the data sets.

However, “the main message for clinicians is to consider medication side effects as a potential cause for new symptoms when patients present. We also encourage patients to ask prescribers about whether new symptoms could be caused by a medication,” senior author Lisa M. McCarthy, PharmD, told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology.

“If a patient experiences peripheral edema while taking a CCB, we would encourage clinicians to consider whether the calcium-channel blocker is still necessary, whether it could be discontinued or the dose reduced, or whether the patient can be switched to another therapy,” she said.

Based on the current analysis, if the rate of CCB-induced peripheral edema is assumed to be 10%, which is consistent with the literature, then “potentially 7% to 14% of people who develop edema while taking a calcium channel blocker may then receive a loop diuretic,” an accompanying editorial notes.

“Patients with polypharmacy are at heightened risk of being exposed to [a] series of prescribing cascades if their current use of medications is not carefully discussed before the decision to add a new antihypertensive,” observe Timothy S. Anderson, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, and Michael A. Steinman, MD, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco.

“The initial prescribing cascade can set off many other negative consequences, including adverse drug events, potentially avoidable diagnostic testing, and hospitalizations,” the editorialists caution.

“Identifying prescribing cascades and their consequences is an important step to stem the tide of polypharmacy and inform deprescribing efforts.”

The analysis was based on administrative data from almost 340,000 adults in the community aged 66 years or older with hypertension and new drug prescriptions over 5 years ending in September 2016, the report notes. Their mean age was 74.5 years and 56.5% were women.

The data set included 41,086 patients who were newly prescribed a CCB; 66,494 who were newly prescribed an ACE inhibitor or ARB; and 231,439 newly prescribed any medication other than a CCB. The prescribed CCB was amlodipine in 79.6% of patients.

Although loop diuretics could possibly have been prescribed sometimes as a second-tier antihypertensive in the absence of peripheral edema, “we made efforts, through the design of our study, to limit this where possible,” Savage said in an interview.

For example, the focus was on loop diuretics, which aren’t generally recommended for blood-pressure lowering. Also, patients with heart failure and those with a recent history of diuretic or other antihypertensive medication use had been excluded, she said.

“As such, our cohort comprised individuals with new-onset or milder hypertension for whom diuretics would unlikely to be prescribed as part of guideline-based hypertension management.”

Although amlodipine was the most commonly prescribed CCB, the potential for a prescribing cascade seemed to be a class effect and to apply at a range of dosages.

That was unexpected, McCarthy observed, because “peripheral edema occurs more commonly in people taking dihydropyridine CCBs, like amlodipine, compared to non–dihydropyridine CCBs, such as verapamil and diltiazem.”

Savage, McCarthy, their coauthors, and the editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LOS ANGELES – The safety advantage that has already coaxed U.S. interventional cardiologists to switch many of their routine catheterizations from femoral-artery entry in the groin to a radial-artery approach through a patient’s wrist is now prompting a similar shift among U.S. interventional neurologists, who are increasingly pivoting to transradial access when performing many neurovascular procedures.

“It’s growing dramatically in U.S. practice. It may be hype, but there is big excitement. We are still in an assessment mode, but the adoption rate has been high,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said in an interview during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The big advantage [of transradial catheterization entry] is elimination of groin complications, some of which can be pretty bad. Is it safe for the brain? It’s probably okay, but that needs more study,” said Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology at Emory University and director of the Neurovascular Service at the Grady Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center in Atlanta.

His uncertainty stems from the more difficult route taken to advance a catheter from the wrist into brain vessels, a maneuver that requires significant manipulation of the catheter tip, unlike the path from the right radial artery into the heart’s arteries, a “straight shot,” he explained. To reach the brain’s vasculature, the tip must execute a spin “that may scrape small emboli from the arch or arteries, so we need to look at this a little more carefully.” Ideally in a prospective, randomized study, he said. “We need to see whether the burden of [magnetic resonance] lesions is any higher when you go through the radial [artery].”

Some of the first-reported, large-scale U.S. experiences using a radial-artery approach for various neurovascular procedures, including a few thrombectomy cases, came in a series of 1,272 patients treated at any of four U.S. centers during July 2018 to June 2019, a period when the neurovascular staffs at all four centers transitioned from primarily using femoral-artery access to using radial access as their default mode. During the 12-month transition period, overall use of radial access at all four centers rose from roughly a quarter of all neurovascular interventions during July to September 2018 to closer to 80% by April to June 2019, Eyad Almallouhi, MD, reported at the conference.

During the entire 12 months, the operators ran up a 94% rate of successfully completed procedures using radial access, a rate that rose from about 88% during the first quarter to roughly 95% success during the fourth quarter tracked, said Dr. Almallouhi, a neurologist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. The rate of crossover from what began as a transradial procedure but switched to transfemoral was just under 6% overall, with a nearly 14% crossover rate during the first quarter that then dropped to around 5% for the rest of the transition year. Crossovers for interventional procedures throughout the study year occurred at a 12% rate, while crossovers for diagnostic procedures occurred at a 5% clip throughout the entire year.

None of the transradial patients had a major access-site complication, and minor complications occurred in less than 2% of the patients, including 11 with a forearm hematoma, 6 with forearm pain, and 5 with oozing at their access site. The absence of any major access-site complications among the transradial-access patients in this series contrasts with a recent report of a 1.7% rate of major complications secondary to femoral-artery access for mechanical thrombectomy in a combined analysis of data from seven published studies that included 660 thrombectomy procedures (Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6423). The other three centers that participated in the study Dr. Almallouhi presented were the University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and the University of Pittsburgh.

Of the 1,272 total procedures studied, 83% were diagnostic procedures, which had an overall 95% success rate, and 17% were interventional procedures, which had a success rate of 89%. The interventional transradial procedures included 62 primary coilings of aneurysms, 44 stent-assisted aneurysm coilings, 40 patients who underwent a flow diversion, 21 balloon-assisted aneurysm coilings, and 24 patients who underwent stroke thrombectomy.

The size of the devices commonly used for thrombectomy are often too large to allow for radial-artery access, noted Dr. Nogueira. For urgent interventions like thrombectomy “we use balloon-guided catheters that are large-bore and don’t fit well in the radial,” he said, although thrombectomy via the radial artery without a balloon-guided catheter is possible for clots located in the basilar artery. Last year, researchers in Germany reported using a balloon-guided catheter to perform mechanical thrombectomy via the radial artery (Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct 1;25[5]:508-10). But it’s a different story for elective, diagnostic procedures. “I have moved most of these to transradial,” Dr. Nogueira said. He and his coauthors summarized the case for transradial access for cerebral angiography in a recent review; in addition to enhanced safety they cited other advantages including improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost because of a shorter length of stay (Interv Cardiol Clin. 2020 Jan;9[1]:75-86).

Despite his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of other neurointerventionalists for the transradial approach, other stroke neurologists have been more cautious and slower to shift away from the femoral approach. “Our experience has been that for most cases it’s a bit more challenging to access the cervical vessels from the radial artery than from the traditional femoral approach. For arches with complex anatomy, however, the transradial approach can be of benefit in some cases, depending on the angles that need to be traversed,” commented Jeremy Payne, MD, director of the Banner Center for Neurovascular Medicine and medical director of the Banner—University Medical Center Phoenix Comprehensive Stroke Program. Dr. Payne highlighted that, while he is not an interventionalist himself, he and his interventional staff have regularly discussed the transradial option.

“In the cardiology literature the radial approach has been very successful, with better overall safety than the traditional femoral approach. Largely this seems to do with the anatomy of the aortic arch. It’s simply a more direct approach to the coronaries via the right radial artery; getting the wire into the correct vessel is significantly more difficult the more acute the angle it has to traverse,” such as when the target is an intracerebral vessel, Dr. Payne said in an interview.

“Our experience in the past 6 months has been about 25% transradial for some of our procedures, mainly diagnostic angiograms. We don’t find any difference in safety, however, as our transfemoral procedures are already very safe. One of the benefits of a transradial approach has been that a closure device may not be needed, with fewer vascular complications at the access site, such as fistula formation. We use ultrasound for access, and have not seen a difference in those approaches at all so far. One might argue that using ultrasound to establish access would slow us down, but so far our fastest case start-to-recanalization time in an acute stroke this year was 6 minutes, so speed does not appear to be a limiting issue. Another concern overall for transradial access is the potential limitation in the tools we may be able to deploy, given the smaller size of the vessel. It is reassuring [in the report from Dr. Almallouhi] that a variety of cases were successfully completed via this approach. However, fewer than 2% of their cases [24 patients] were apparently emergent, acute strokes, lending no specific support to that context. I do not expect that to change based on this paper,” Dr. Payne concluded.

“It is not clear to me that transradial neurointervention will change much. We have excellent safety data for the femoral approach, a proven track record of efficacy, and for most patients it seems to afford a somewhat wider range of tools that can be deployed, with simpler anatomy for accessing the cervical vessels in most arches. It is reassuring that the results reported by Dr. Almallouhi did not suggest negative outcomes, and as such I suspect the transradial approach at least gives us an additional option in a minority of patients. We have seen in the past 5-10 years an explosion of tools for the endovascular treatment of stroke; transradial access represents another potential strategy that appears so far to be safe,” Dr. Payne said.

Drs. Nogueira, Almallouhi, and Payne had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Almallouhi E et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A64.

LOS ANGELES – The safety advantage that has already coaxed U.S. interventional cardiologists to switch many of their routine catheterizations from femoral-artery entry in the groin to a radial-artery approach through a patient’s wrist is now prompting a similar shift among U.S. interventional neurologists, who are increasingly pivoting to transradial access when performing many neurovascular procedures.

“It’s growing dramatically in U.S. practice. It may be hype, but there is big excitement. We are still in an assessment mode, but the adoption rate has been high,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said in an interview during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The big advantage [of transradial catheterization entry] is elimination of groin complications, some of which can be pretty bad. Is it safe for the brain? It’s probably okay, but that needs more study,” said Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology at Emory University and director of the Neurovascular Service at the Grady Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center in Atlanta.

His uncertainty stems from the more difficult route taken to advance a catheter from the wrist into brain vessels, a maneuver that requires significant manipulation of the catheter tip, unlike the path from the right radial artery into the heart’s arteries, a “straight shot,” he explained. To reach the brain’s vasculature, the tip must execute a spin “that may scrape small emboli from the arch or arteries, so we need to look at this a little more carefully.” Ideally in a prospective, randomized study, he said. “We need to see whether the burden of [magnetic resonance] lesions is any higher when you go through the radial [artery].”

Some of the first-reported, large-scale U.S. experiences using a radial-artery approach for various neurovascular procedures, including a few thrombectomy cases, came in a series of 1,272 patients treated at any of four U.S. centers during July 2018 to June 2019, a period when the neurovascular staffs at all four centers transitioned from primarily using femoral-artery access to using radial access as their default mode. During the 12-month transition period, overall use of radial access at all four centers rose from roughly a quarter of all neurovascular interventions during July to September 2018 to closer to 80% by April to June 2019, Eyad Almallouhi, MD, reported at the conference.

During the entire 12 months, the operators ran up a 94% rate of successfully completed procedures using radial access, a rate that rose from about 88% during the first quarter to roughly 95% success during the fourth quarter tracked, said Dr. Almallouhi, a neurologist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. The rate of crossover from what began as a transradial procedure but switched to transfemoral was just under 6% overall, with a nearly 14% crossover rate during the first quarter that then dropped to around 5% for the rest of the transition year. Crossovers for interventional procedures throughout the study year occurred at a 12% rate, while crossovers for diagnostic procedures occurred at a 5% clip throughout the entire year.

None of the transradial patients had a major access-site complication, and minor complications occurred in less than 2% of the patients, including 11 with a forearm hematoma, 6 with forearm pain, and 5 with oozing at their access site. The absence of any major access-site complications among the transradial-access patients in this series contrasts with a recent report of a 1.7% rate of major complications secondary to femoral-artery access for mechanical thrombectomy in a combined analysis of data from seven published studies that included 660 thrombectomy procedures (Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6423). The other three centers that participated in the study Dr. Almallouhi presented were the University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and the University of Pittsburgh.

Of the 1,272 total procedures studied, 83% were diagnostic procedures, which had an overall 95% success rate, and 17% were interventional procedures, which had a success rate of 89%. The interventional transradial procedures included 62 primary coilings of aneurysms, 44 stent-assisted aneurysm coilings, 40 patients who underwent a flow diversion, 21 balloon-assisted aneurysm coilings, and 24 patients who underwent stroke thrombectomy.

The size of the devices commonly used for thrombectomy are often too large to allow for radial-artery access, noted Dr. Nogueira. For urgent interventions like thrombectomy “we use balloon-guided catheters that are large-bore and don’t fit well in the radial,” he said, although thrombectomy via the radial artery without a balloon-guided catheter is possible for clots located in the basilar artery. Last year, researchers in Germany reported using a balloon-guided catheter to perform mechanical thrombectomy via the radial artery (Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct 1;25[5]:508-10). But it’s a different story for elective, diagnostic procedures. “I have moved most of these to transradial,” Dr. Nogueira said. He and his coauthors summarized the case for transradial access for cerebral angiography in a recent review; in addition to enhanced safety they cited other advantages including improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost because of a shorter length of stay (Interv Cardiol Clin. 2020 Jan;9[1]:75-86).

Despite his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of other neurointerventionalists for the transradial approach, other stroke neurologists have been more cautious and slower to shift away from the femoral approach. “Our experience has been that for most cases it’s a bit more challenging to access the cervical vessels from the radial artery than from the traditional femoral approach. For arches with complex anatomy, however, the transradial approach can be of benefit in some cases, depending on the angles that need to be traversed,” commented Jeremy Payne, MD, director of the Banner Center for Neurovascular Medicine and medical director of the Banner—University Medical Center Phoenix Comprehensive Stroke Program. Dr. Payne highlighted that, while he is not an interventionalist himself, he and his interventional staff have regularly discussed the transradial option.

“In the cardiology literature the radial approach has been very successful, with better overall safety than the traditional femoral approach. Largely this seems to do with the anatomy of the aortic arch. It’s simply a more direct approach to the coronaries via the right radial artery; getting the wire into the correct vessel is significantly more difficult the more acute the angle it has to traverse,” such as when the target is an intracerebral vessel, Dr. Payne said in an interview.

“Our experience in the past 6 months has been about 25% transradial for some of our procedures, mainly diagnostic angiograms. We don’t find any difference in safety, however, as our transfemoral procedures are already very safe. One of the benefits of a transradial approach has been that a closure device may not be needed, with fewer vascular complications at the access site, such as fistula formation. We use ultrasound for access, and have not seen a difference in those approaches at all so far. One might argue that using ultrasound to establish access would slow us down, but so far our fastest case start-to-recanalization time in an acute stroke this year was 6 minutes, so speed does not appear to be a limiting issue. Another concern overall for transradial access is the potential limitation in the tools we may be able to deploy, given the smaller size of the vessel. It is reassuring [in the report from Dr. Almallouhi] that a variety of cases were successfully completed via this approach. However, fewer than 2% of their cases [24 patients] were apparently emergent, acute strokes, lending no specific support to that context. I do not expect that to change based on this paper,” Dr. Payne concluded.

“It is not clear to me that transradial neurointervention will change much. We have excellent safety data for the femoral approach, a proven track record of efficacy, and for most patients it seems to afford a somewhat wider range of tools that can be deployed, with simpler anatomy for accessing the cervical vessels in most arches. It is reassuring that the results reported by Dr. Almallouhi did not suggest negative outcomes, and as such I suspect the transradial approach at least gives us an additional option in a minority of patients. We have seen in the past 5-10 years an explosion of tools for the endovascular treatment of stroke; transradial access represents another potential strategy that appears so far to be safe,” Dr. Payne said.

Drs. Nogueira, Almallouhi, and Payne had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Almallouhi E et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A64.

LOS ANGELES – The safety advantage that has already coaxed U.S. interventional cardiologists to switch many of their routine catheterizations from femoral-artery entry in the groin to a radial-artery approach through a patient’s wrist is now prompting a similar shift among U.S. interventional neurologists, who are increasingly pivoting to transradial access when performing many neurovascular procedures.

“It’s growing dramatically in U.S. practice. It may be hype, but there is big excitement. We are still in an assessment mode, but the adoption rate has been high,” Raul G. Nogueira, MD, said in an interview during the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The big advantage [of transradial catheterization entry] is elimination of groin complications, some of which can be pretty bad. Is it safe for the brain? It’s probably okay, but that needs more study,” said Dr. Nogueira, professor of neurology at Emory University and director of the Neurovascular Service at the Grady Marcus Stroke and Neuroscience Center in Atlanta.

His uncertainty stems from the more difficult route taken to advance a catheter from the wrist into brain vessels, a maneuver that requires significant manipulation of the catheter tip, unlike the path from the right radial artery into the heart’s arteries, a “straight shot,” he explained. To reach the brain’s vasculature, the tip must execute a spin “that may scrape small emboli from the arch or arteries, so we need to look at this a little more carefully.” Ideally in a prospective, randomized study, he said. “We need to see whether the burden of [magnetic resonance] lesions is any higher when you go through the radial [artery].”

Some of the first-reported, large-scale U.S. experiences using a radial-artery approach for various neurovascular procedures, including a few thrombectomy cases, came in a series of 1,272 patients treated at any of four U.S. centers during July 2018 to June 2019, a period when the neurovascular staffs at all four centers transitioned from primarily using femoral-artery access to using radial access as their default mode. During the 12-month transition period, overall use of radial access at all four centers rose from roughly a quarter of all neurovascular interventions during July to September 2018 to closer to 80% by April to June 2019, Eyad Almallouhi, MD, reported at the conference.

During the entire 12 months, the operators ran up a 94% rate of successfully completed procedures using radial access, a rate that rose from about 88% during the first quarter to roughly 95% success during the fourth quarter tracked, said Dr. Almallouhi, a neurologist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. The rate of crossover from what began as a transradial procedure but switched to transfemoral was just under 6% overall, with a nearly 14% crossover rate during the first quarter that then dropped to around 5% for the rest of the transition year. Crossovers for interventional procedures throughout the study year occurred at a 12% rate, while crossovers for diagnostic procedures occurred at a 5% clip throughout the entire year.

None of the transradial patients had a major access-site complication, and minor complications occurred in less than 2% of the patients, including 11 with a forearm hematoma, 6 with forearm pain, and 5 with oozing at their access site. The absence of any major access-site complications among the transradial-access patients in this series contrasts with a recent report of a 1.7% rate of major complications secondary to femoral-artery access for mechanical thrombectomy in a combined analysis of data from seven published studies that included 660 thrombectomy procedures (Am J Neuroradiol. 2019 Feb. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6423). The other three centers that participated in the study Dr. Almallouhi presented were the University of Miami, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and the University of Pittsburgh.

Of the 1,272 total procedures studied, 83% were diagnostic procedures, which had an overall 95% success rate, and 17% were interventional procedures, which had a success rate of 89%. The interventional transradial procedures included 62 primary coilings of aneurysms, 44 stent-assisted aneurysm coilings, 40 patients who underwent a flow diversion, 21 balloon-assisted aneurysm coilings, and 24 patients who underwent stroke thrombectomy.

The size of the devices commonly used for thrombectomy are often too large to allow for radial-artery access, noted Dr. Nogueira. For urgent interventions like thrombectomy “we use balloon-guided catheters that are large-bore and don’t fit well in the radial,” he said, although thrombectomy via the radial artery without a balloon-guided catheter is possible for clots located in the basilar artery. Last year, researchers in Germany reported using a balloon-guided catheter to perform mechanical thrombectomy via the radial artery (Interv Neuroradiol. 2019 Oct 1;25[5]:508-10). But it’s a different story for elective, diagnostic procedures. “I have moved most of these to transradial,” Dr. Nogueira said. He and his coauthors summarized the case for transradial access for cerebral angiography in a recent review; in addition to enhanced safety they cited other advantages including improved patient satisfaction and reduced cost because of a shorter length of stay (Interv Cardiol Clin. 2020 Jan;9[1]:75-86).

Despite his enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of other neurointerventionalists for the transradial approach, other stroke neurologists have been more cautious and slower to shift away from the femoral approach. “Our experience has been that for most cases it’s a bit more challenging to access the cervical vessels from the radial artery than from the traditional femoral approach. For arches with complex anatomy, however, the transradial approach can be of benefit in some cases, depending on the angles that need to be traversed,” commented Jeremy Payne, MD, director of the Banner Center for Neurovascular Medicine and medical director of the Banner—University Medical Center Phoenix Comprehensive Stroke Program. Dr. Payne highlighted that, while he is not an interventionalist himself, he and his interventional staff have regularly discussed the transradial option.

“In the cardiology literature the radial approach has been very successful, with better overall safety than the traditional femoral approach. Largely this seems to do with the anatomy of the aortic arch. It’s simply a more direct approach to the coronaries via the right radial artery; getting the wire into the correct vessel is significantly more difficult the more acute the angle it has to traverse,” such as when the target is an intracerebral vessel, Dr. Payne said in an interview.

“Our experience in the past 6 months has been about 25% transradial for some of our procedures, mainly diagnostic angiograms. We don’t find any difference in safety, however, as our transfemoral procedures are already very safe. One of the benefits of a transradial approach has been that a closure device may not be needed, with fewer vascular complications at the access site, such as fistula formation. We use ultrasound for access, and have not seen a difference in those approaches at all so far. One might argue that using ultrasound to establish access would slow us down, but so far our fastest case start-to-recanalization time in an acute stroke this year was 6 minutes, so speed does not appear to be a limiting issue. Another concern overall for transradial access is the potential limitation in the tools we may be able to deploy, given the smaller size of the vessel. It is reassuring [in the report from Dr. Almallouhi] that a variety of cases were successfully completed via this approach. However, fewer than 2% of their cases [24 patients] were apparently emergent, acute strokes, lending no specific support to that context. I do not expect that to change based on this paper,” Dr. Payne concluded.

“It is not clear to me that transradial neurointervention will change much. We have excellent safety data for the femoral approach, a proven track record of efficacy, and for most patients it seems to afford a somewhat wider range of tools that can be deployed, with simpler anatomy for accessing the cervical vessels in most arches. It is reassuring that the results reported by Dr. Almallouhi did not suggest negative outcomes, and as such I suspect the transradial approach at least gives us an additional option in a minority of patients. We have seen in the past 5-10 years an explosion of tools for the endovascular treatment of stroke; transradial access represents another potential strategy that appears so far to be safe,” Dr. Payne said.

Drs. Nogueira, Almallouhi, and Payne had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Almallouhi E et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A64.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

[email protected]

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.