Emergency Medicine

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among the many tolls inflicted on health care workers by COVID-19 is one that is not as easily measured as rates of death or disease, but is no less tangible: moral injury. This is the term by which we describe the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of high-stakes situations that lead to the betrayal or transgression of our own deeply held moral beliefs and values.

The current pandemic has provided innumerable such situations that can increase the risk for moral injury, whether we deal directly with patients infected by the coronavirus or not. Telling family members they cannot visit critically ill loved ones. Delaying code activities, even momentarily, to get fully protected with personal protective equipment. Seeing patients who have delayed their necessary or preventive care. Using video rather than touch to reassure people.

Knowing that we are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not stop our feelings of guilt. The longer this pandemic goes on, the more likely it is that these situations will begin to take a toll on us.

For most of us, being exposed to moral injuries is new; they have historically been most associated with severe traumatic wartime experiences. Soldiers, philosophers, and writers have described the ethical dilemmas inherent in war for as long as recorded history. But the use of this term is a more recent development, which the Moral Injury Project at Syracuse (N.Y.) University describes as probably originating in the Vietnam War–era writings of veteran and peace activist Camillo “Mac” Bica and psychiatrist Jonathan Shay. Examples of wartime events that have been thought to lead to moral injury include: causing the harm or death of civilians, knowingly but without alternatives, or accidentally; failing to provide medical aid to an injured civilian or service member; and following orders that were illegal, immoral, and/or against the rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions.

However, the occurrence of moral injuries in modern health care is increasingly being reported, primarily as an adverse effect of health care inefficiencies that can contribute to burnout. COVID-19 has now provided an array of additional stressors that can cause moral injuries among health care workers. A recent guidance document on moral injury published by the American Psychiatric Association noted that, in the context of a public health disaster, such as COVID-19, it is sometimes necessary to transition from ordinary standards of care to those more appropriate in a crisis, as in wartime. This forces us all to confront challenging questions for which there may be no clear answers, and to make “lose-lose” choices in which no one involved – patients, family, or clinicians – ends up feeling satisfied or even comfortable.

Moral injuries affect most of us as physicians, as well as our colleagues and families, during this unusual, painful, traumatic, and potentially lethal time. Our lives have been altered significantly, and for many, completely turned upside down by enormous sacrifices and tragic losses. Globally, physicians account for over half of healthcare worker deaths. In the United States alone, over 900 health care workers have died of COVID-19.

Most of us have felt the symptoms of moral injury: frustration, anger, disgust, guilt. A recent report describes three levels of stressors in health care occurring during the pandemic, which are not dissimilar to those wartime events described previously.

• Severe moral stressors, such as the denial of treatment to a COVID-19 patient owing to lack of resources, the inability to provide optimal care to non–COVID-19 patients for many reasons, and concern about passing COVID to loved ones.
• Moderate moral stressors, such as preventing visitors, especially to dying patients, triaging patients for healthcare services with inadequate information, and trying to solve the tension between the need for self-preservation and the need to treat.
• Lower-level but common moral challenges, especially in the community – for example, seeing others not protecting the community by hoarding food, gathering for large parties, and not social distancing or wearing masks. Such stressors lead to frustration and contempt, especially from healthcare workers making personal sacrifices and who may be at risk for infection caused by these behaviors.

Every one of us is affected by these stressors. I certainly am.

What are the outcomes? We know that moral injuries are a risk factor for the development of mental health problems and burnout, and not surprisingly we are seeing that mental health problems, suicidality, and substance use disorders have increased markedly during COVID-19, as recently detailed by the CDC.

• Acknowledge that you, like me, are affected by these stressors. This is not a secret, and you should not be ashamed of your feelings.
• Talk with your colleagues, loved ones, and friends about how you and they are affected. You are not alone. Encourage others to share their thoughts, stories, and feelings.
• Put this topic on your meeting and departmental agendas and discuss these moral issues openly with your colleagues. Allow sufficient time to engage in open dialogue.
• Work out ways of assisting those who are in high-risk situations, especially for moderate to severe injuries. Be supportive toward those affected.
• Modify policies and change rosters and rotate staff between high- and low-stress roles. Protect and support at-risk colleagues.
• Think about difficult ethical decisions in advance so they can be made by groups, not individuals, and certainly not “on the fly.”
• Keep everyone in your workplace constantly informed, especially of impending staff or equipment shortages.
• Maintain your inherent self-care and resilience with rest, good nutrition, sleep, exercise, love, caring, socialization, and work-life balance.
• Be prepared to access the many professional support services available in our community if you are intensely distressed or if the above suggestions are not enough.

Remember, we are in this together and will find strength in each other. This too will pass.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Start most patients newly diagnosed with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on the disorder’s four foundational drug regimens all at once, all on the day the diagnosis is made, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.

Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).

This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:

“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.

Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.

The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.

“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.

The challenge of prescribing inertia

The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.

The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
 

Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life

One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.

Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.

In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.

“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
 

New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake

“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.

He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.

The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”

EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.

[email protected]

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.

The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.

Viewers underwhelmed

“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.

However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”

Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI

There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.

“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Pragmatic trial design

LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.

“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.

Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.

“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
 

What else was shown?

“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.

Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”

Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.

There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.

“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.

Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.

There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.

The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Neither diabetes per se nor hyperglycemia appear to impair the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that a COVID-19 vaccine would be just as effective in people with diabetes as in those without, new research finds.

Results from a study involving 480 patients with confirmed COVID-19 seen at an Italian hospital between February 25 and April 19 were published online October 8 in Diabetologia by Vito Lampasona, MD, and colleagues.

Antibody responses against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens among the 27% of patients with COVID-19 and diabetes (preexisting and newly diagnosed) were similar with regard to timing, titers, and classes to those of patients with COVID-19 and without diabetes, and the results did not differ by glucose levels.

Moreover, positivity for immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) was associated with improved survival regardless of diabetes status.

And as previously shown, high blood glucose levels were strongly associated with greater COVID-19 mortality even in those without diabetes.

This is the first study of the immunologic humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with hyperglycemia, the authors say.

“The immunological response to a future SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be assessed when the vaccine becomes available. However, our data allow a cautious optimism regarding effective immunization in individuals with diabetes, as well as in the general population,” wrote Dr. Lampasona of San Raffaele Diabetes Research Institute, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele in Milan, and colleagues.
 

Diabetes and hyperglycemia worsen COVID-19 outcomes

The investigators analyzed the presence of three types of antibody to multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens in 509 participants: IgG, which is evidence of past infection; IgM, which indicates more recent or current infection; and IgA, which is involved in the mucosal immune response, for example, in the nose where the virus enters the body.

Overall, 452 (88.8%) patients were hospitalized, 79 (15.5%) patients were admitted to intensive care, and 93 (18.3%) patients died during follow-up.

Of the 139 patients with diabetes, 90 (17.7% of the study cohort) already had a diagnosis of diabetes, and 49 (9.6%) were newly diagnosed.

Those with diabetes were older, had a higher body mass index (BMI), and were more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. As has been previously reported for diabetes and COVID-19, diabetes was also associated with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers, hypercoagulopathy, leukocytosis, and neutrophilia.

In multivariate analysis, diabetes status (hazard ratio, 2.32; P = .001), mean fasting plasma glucose (P < .001), and glucose variability (P = .002) were all independently associated with increased mortality and ICU admission. And fasting plasma glucose was associated with increased mortality risk even among those without diabetes (P < .001).
 

Antibody response similar in patients with and without diabetes

The humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with diabetes was present and superimposable in terms of timing and antibody titers to that of patients without diabetes, with marginal differences, and was not influenced by glucose levels.

After adjustment for sex, age, and diabetes status and stratification by symptom duration at time of sampling, the development of SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies was associated with improved survival, with an HR for time to death of 0.4 (P = .002).

“Of the measured antibody responses, positivity for IgG against the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD was predictive of survival rate, both in the presence or absence of diabetes,” the authors stressed, with similar HRs for those with diabetes (0.37; P = .013) and without diabetes (0.43; P = .038).

These data confirm “the relevance for patient survival rate of the specific antigen response against spike RBD even in the presence of diabetes, and it underlines how the mechanism explaining the worse clinical outcome in patients with diabetes is unrelated to the antibody response,” they explain.

They added, “This, together with evidence that increased blood glucose levels do predict a poor prognosis even in nondiabetic individuals and the association with increased levels of inflammatory biomarkers and hypercoagulopathy, as well as leukocytosis and neutrophilia, support the speculation that glucose per se could be an independent biological negative factor, acting as a direct regulator of innate immunity.”

“The observed increased severity and mortality risk of COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with hyperglycemia was not the result of an impaired humoral response against SARS-CoV-2.”

“RBD IgG positivity was associated with a remarkable protective effect, allowing for a cautious optimism about the efficacy of future vaccines against SARS-COV-2 in people with diabetes,” they reiterated.

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip appears to be a safe, effective, and life-saving new treatment for severe acute mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to MI in surgical noncandidates, even when accompanied by cardiogenic shock, according to data from the international IREMMI registry.

“Cardiogenic shock, when adequately supported, does not seem to influence short- and mid-term outcomes, so the development of cardiogenic shock should not preclude percutaneous mitral valve repair in this scenario,” Rodrigo Estevez-Loureiro, MD, PhD, said in presenting the IREMMI (International Registry of MitraClip in Acute Myocardial Infarction) findings reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

Commentators hailed the prospective IREMMI data as potentially practice changing in light of the dire prognosis of such patients when surgery is deemed unacceptably high risk because medical management, the traditionally the only alternative, has a 30-day mortality of up to 50%.

Severe acute MR occurs in an estimated 3% of acute MIs, and in roughly 10% of patients who present with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). The impact of intervening with the MitraClip in an effort to correct the acute MR arising from MI with CS has previously been addressed only in sparse case reports. The new IREMMI study is easily the largest dataset to date detailing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro of Alvaro Cunqueiro Hospital in Vigo, Spain, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

He reported on 93 consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation for acute MR arising in the setting of MI, including 50 patients in CS at the time of the procedure. All 93 patients had been turned down by their surgical team because of extreme surgical risk. Three-quarters of the MIs showed ST-segment elevation. Only six patients had a papillary muscle rupture; in the rest, the mechanism of acute MR involved left ventricular global remodeling associated with mitral valve leaflet tethering. Percutaneous valve repair was performed at 18 expert valvular heart centers in the United States, Canada, Israel, and five European countries.
 

Procedural success

Time from MI to MitraClip implantation averaged 24 days in the CS patients and 33 days in the comparator arm without CS.

“These patients had been turned down for surgery, so the attending physicians generally followed a strategy of trying to cool them down with mechanical circulatory support and vasopressors. MitraClip wasn’t an option at the beginning, but after two or three failed weanings from all the possible therapies, then MitraClip becomes an option. This is one of the reasons why the time lapse between MI and the clip is so large,” the cardiologist explained.

Procedural success rates were similar in the two groups: 90% in those with CS and 93% in those without. However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the CS patients: 143 minutes versus 83 minutes in the patients without CS.

At baseline, 86% of the CS group had grade 4+ MR, similar to the 79% rate in the non-CS patients. Postprocedurally, 60% of the CS group were MR grade 0/1 and 34% were grade 2, comparable to the rates of 65% and 23% in the non-CS group.

At 3 months’ follow-up, 83.4% of the CS group had MR grade 2 or less, again not significantly different from the 90.5% rate in non-CS patients. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure was also similar: 39.6 mm Hg in the CS patients, 44 mm Hg in those without. While everyone was New York Heart Association functional class IV preprocedurally, 79.5% of the CS group were NYHA class I or II at 3 months, not significantly different from the 86.5% prevalence in the comparator arm.
 

Longer-term clinical outcomes

At a median follow-up of 7 months, the composite primary clinical outcome composed of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization did not differ between the two groups: a 28% rate in the CS group and 25.6% in non-CS patients. All-cause mortality occurred in 16% with CS and 9.3% without, again not a significant difference.

In a Cox regression analysis, neither surgical risk score, patient age, left ventricular geometry, nor CS was independently associated with the primary composite endpoint. Indeed, the only independent predictor of freedom from mortality or heart failure readmission at follow-up was procedural success, which is very much a function of the experience of the heart team, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro continued.

Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD, who comoderated the late-breaking clinical science session, was wowed by the IREMMI results.

“The mortality rates, I can tell you, compared to traditional surgical series of acute MR in the face of ACS [acute cardiogenic shock] are very, very respectable,” commented Dr. Borger, director of the cardiac surgery clinic at the Leipzig (Ger.) University Heart Center.

“Extremely impressive,” agreed discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon and valve scientist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. He posed a practical question: “Should we take from this presentation that patients should be stabilized with something like ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or Impella [left ventricular assist device], then transferred to an expert center for the procedure?”

“I think that the stabilization is essential in the patients with cardiogenic shock,” Dr. Estevez-Loureiro replied. “Unlike with surgery, it’s very difficult to establish a MitraClip procedure in a couple of hours in the middle of the night. You have to stabilize them and then treat for shock with ECMO, Impella, or both. I think they should be transferred to a center than can deliver the best treatment. In centers with less experience, patients can be put on mechanical support and transferred to an expert valve center, not only for MitraClip implantation, but for discussion of all the treatment possibilities, including surgery.”

At a press conference in which Dr. Estevez-Loureiro presented highlights of the IREMMI study, discussant Dee Dee Wang, MD, said the international coinvestigators “need to be applauded” for this study.

“Having these outcomes is incredible,” declared Dr. Wang, a structural heart disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

While this is an observational study, it’s a high-quality dataset with excellent methodology. And conducting a randomized trial in patients with such high surgical risk scores – the CS group had an average EuroSCORE II of 21 – would be extremely difficult, according to the cardiologist.

Dr. Estevez-Loureiro reported receiving research grants from Abbott and serving as a consultant to that company as well as Boston Scientific.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Estevez-Loureiro, R. TCT 2020, LBCS session IV.

Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip appears to be a safe, effective, and life-saving new treatment for severe acute mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to MI in surgical noncandidates, even when accompanied by cardiogenic shock, according to data from the international IREMMI registry.

“Cardiogenic shock, when adequately supported, does not seem to influence short- and mid-term outcomes, so the development of cardiogenic shock should not preclude percutaneous mitral valve repair in this scenario,” Rodrigo Estevez-Loureiro, MD, PhD, said in presenting the IREMMI (International Registry of MitraClip in Acute Myocardial Infarction) findings reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

Commentators hailed the prospective IREMMI data as potentially practice changing in light of the dire prognosis of such patients when surgery is deemed unacceptably high risk because medical management, the traditionally the only alternative, has a 30-day mortality of up to 50%.

Severe acute MR occurs in an estimated 3% of acute MIs, and in roughly 10% of patients who present with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). The impact of intervening with the MitraClip in an effort to correct the acute MR arising from MI with CS has previously been addressed only in sparse case reports. The new IREMMI study is easily the largest dataset to date detailing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro of Alvaro Cunqueiro Hospital in Vigo, Spain, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

He reported on 93 consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation for acute MR arising in the setting of MI, including 50 patients in CS at the time of the procedure. All 93 patients had been turned down by their surgical team because of extreme surgical risk. Three-quarters of the MIs showed ST-segment elevation. Only six patients had a papillary muscle rupture; in the rest, the mechanism of acute MR involved left ventricular global remodeling associated with mitral valve leaflet tethering. Percutaneous valve repair was performed at 18 expert valvular heart centers in the United States, Canada, Israel, and five European countries.
 

Procedural success

Time from MI to MitraClip implantation averaged 24 days in the CS patients and 33 days in the comparator arm without CS.

“These patients had been turned down for surgery, so the attending physicians generally followed a strategy of trying to cool them down with mechanical circulatory support and vasopressors. MitraClip wasn’t an option at the beginning, but after two or three failed weanings from all the possible therapies, then MitraClip becomes an option. This is one of the reasons why the time lapse between MI and the clip is so large,” the cardiologist explained.

Procedural success rates were similar in the two groups: 90% in those with CS and 93% in those without. However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the CS patients: 143 minutes versus 83 minutes in the patients without CS.

At baseline, 86% of the CS group had grade 4+ MR, similar to the 79% rate in the non-CS patients. Postprocedurally, 60% of the CS group were MR grade 0/1 and 34% were grade 2, comparable to the rates of 65% and 23% in the non-CS group.

At 3 months’ follow-up, 83.4% of the CS group had MR grade 2 or less, again not significantly different from the 90.5% rate in non-CS patients. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure was also similar: 39.6 mm Hg in the CS patients, 44 mm Hg in those without. While everyone was New York Heart Association functional class IV preprocedurally, 79.5% of the CS group were NYHA class I or II at 3 months, not significantly different from the 86.5% prevalence in the comparator arm.
 

Longer-term clinical outcomes

At a median follow-up of 7 months, the composite primary clinical outcome composed of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization did not differ between the two groups: a 28% rate in the CS group and 25.6% in non-CS patients. All-cause mortality occurred in 16% with CS and 9.3% without, again not a significant difference.

In a Cox regression analysis, neither surgical risk score, patient age, left ventricular geometry, nor CS was independently associated with the primary composite endpoint. Indeed, the only independent predictor of freedom from mortality or heart failure readmission at follow-up was procedural success, which is very much a function of the experience of the heart team, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro continued.

Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD, who comoderated the late-breaking clinical science session, was wowed by the IREMMI results.

“The mortality rates, I can tell you, compared to traditional surgical series of acute MR in the face of ACS [acute cardiogenic shock] are very, very respectable,” commented Dr. Borger, director of the cardiac surgery clinic at the Leipzig (Ger.) University Heart Center.

“Extremely impressive,” agreed discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon and valve scientist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. He posed a practical question: “Should we take from this presentation that patients should be stabilized with something like ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or Impella [left ventricular assist device], then transferred to an expert center for the procedure?”

“I think that the stabilization is essential in the patients with cardiogenic shock,” Dr. Estevez-Loureiro replied. “Unlike with surgery, it’s very difficult to establish a MitraClip procedure in a couple of hours in the middle of the night. You have to stabilize them and then treat for shock with ECMO, Impella, or both. I think they should be transferred to a center than can deliver the best treatment. In centers with less experience, patients can be put on mechanical support and transferred to an expert valve center, not only for MitraClip implantation, but for discussion of all the treatment possibilities, including surgery.”

At a press conference in which Dr. Estevez-Loureiro presented highlights of the IREMMI study, discussant Dee Dee Wang, MD, said the international coinvestigators “need to be applauded” for this study.

“Having these outcomes is incredible,” declared Dr. Wang, a structural heart disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

While this is an observational study, it’s a high-quality dataset with excellent methodology. And conducting a randomized trial in patients with such high surgical risk scores – the CS group had an average EuroSCORE II of 21 – would be extremely difficult, according to the cardiologist.

Dr. Estevez-Loureiro reported receiving research grants from Abbott and serving as a consultant to that company as well as Boston Scientific.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Estevez-Loureiro, R. TCT 2020, LBCS session IV.

Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip appears to be a safe, effective, and life-saving new treatment for severe acute mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to MI in surgical noncandidates, even when accompanied by cardiogenic shock, according to data from the international IREMMI registry.

“Cardiogenic shock, when adequately supported, does not seem to influence short- and mid-term outcomes, so the development of cardiogenic shock should not preclude percutaneous mitral valve repair in this scenario,” Rodrigo Estevez-Loureiro, MD, PhD, said in presenting the IREMMI (International Registry of MitraClip in Acute Myocardial Infarction) findings reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

Commentators hailed the prospective IREMMI data as potentially practice changing in light of the dire prognosis of such patients when surgery is deemed unacceptably high risk because medical management, the traditionally the only alternative, has a 30-day mortality of up to 50%.

Severe acute MR occurs in an estimated 3% of acute MIs, and in roughly 10% of patients who present with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). The impact of intervening with the MitraClip in an effort to correct the acute MR arising from MI with CS has previously been addressed only in sparse case reports. The new IREMMI study is easily the largest dataset to date detailing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro of Alvaro Cunqueiro Hospital in Vigo, Spain, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

He reported on 93 consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation for acute MR arising in the setting of MI, including 50 patients in CS at the time of the procedure. All 93 patients had been turned down by their surgical team because of extreme surgical risk. Three-quarters of the MIs showed ST-segment elevation. Only six patients had a papillary muscle rupture; in the rest, the mechanism of acute MR involved left ventricular global remodeling associated with mitral valve leaflet tethering. Percutaneous valve repair was performed at 18 expert valvular heart centers in the United States, Canada, Israel, and five European countries.
 

Procedural success

Time from MI to MitraClip implantation averaged 24 days in the CS patients and 33 days in the comparator arm without CS.

“These patients had been turned down for surgery, so the attending physicians generally followed a strategy of trying to cool them down with mechanical circulatory support and vasopressors. MitraClip wasn’t an option at the beginning, but after two or three failed weanings from all the possible therapies, then MitraClip becomes an option. This is one of the reasons why the time lapse between MI and the clip is so large,” the cardiologist explained.

Procedural success rates were similar in the two groups: 90% in those with CS and 93% in those without. However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the CS patients: 143 minutes versus 83 minutes in the patients without CS.

At baseline, 86% of the CS group had grade 4+ MR, similar to the 79% rate in the non-CS patients. Postprocedurally, 60% of the CS group were MR grade 0/1 and 34% were grade 2, comparable to the rates of 65% and 23% in the non-CS group.

At 3 months’ follow-up, 83.4% of the CS group had MR grade 2 or less, again not significantly different from the 90.5% rate in non-CS patients. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure was also similar: 39.6 mm Hg in the CS patients, 44 mm Hg in those without. While everyone was New York Heart Association functional class IV preprocedurally, 79.5% of the CS group were NYHA class I or II at 3 months, not significantly different from the 86.5% prevalence in the comparator arm.
 

Longer-term clinical outcomes

At a median follow-up of 7 months, the composite primary clinical outcome composed of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization did not differ between the two groups: a 28% rate in the CS group and 25.6% in non-CS patients. All-cause mortality occurred in 16% with CS and 9.3% without, again not a significant difference.

In a Cox regression analysis, neither surgical risk score, patient age, left ventricular geometry, nor CS was independently associated with the primary composite endpoint. Indeed, the only independent predictor of freedom from mortality or heart failure readmission at follow-up was procedural success, which is very much a function of the experience of the heart team, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro continued.

Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD, who comoderated the late-breaking clinical science session, was wowed by the IREMMI results.

“The mortality rates, I can tell you, compared to traditional surgical series of acute MR in the face of ACS [acute cardiogenic shock] are very, very respectable,” commented Dr. Borger, director of the cardiac surgery clinic at the Leipzig (Ger.) University Heart Center.

“Extremely impressive,” agreed discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon and valve scientist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. He posed a practical question: “Should we take from this presentation that patients should be stabilized with something like ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or Impella [left ventricular assist device], then transferred to an expert center for the procedure?”

“I think that the stabilization is essential in the patients with cardiogenic shock,” Dr. Estevez-Loureiro replied. “Unlike with surgery, it’s very difficult to establish a MitraClip procedure in a couple of hours in the middle of the night. You have to stabilize them and then treat for shock with ECMO, Impella, or both. I think they should be transferred to a center than can deliver the best treatment. In centers with less experience, patients can be put on mechanical support and transferred to an expert valve center, not only for MitraClip implantation, but for discussion of all the treatment possibilities, including surgery.”

At a press conference in which Dr. Estevez-Loureiro presented highlights of the IREMMI study, discussant Dee Dee Wang, MD, said the international coinvestigators “need to be applauded” for this study.

“Having these outcomes is incredible,” declared Dr. Wang, a structural heart disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.

While this is an observational study, it’s a high-quality dataset with excellent methodology. And conducting a randomized trial in patients with such high surgical risk scores – the CS group had an average EuroSCORE II of 21 – would be extremely difficult, according to the cardiologist.

Dr. Estevez-Loureiro reported receiving research grants from Abbott and serving as a consultant to that company as well as Boston Scientific.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Estevez-Loureiro, R. TCT 2020, LBCS session IV.

Intravascular lithotripsy proved highly effective, safe, and user friendly as an adjunct to stenting for severely calcified coronary lesions at 30 days of follow-up in the pivotal Disrupt CAD III study aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.

The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.

Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.

“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.

Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.

This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.

Key outcomes

The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.

The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.

The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm².

Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.

At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.

Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.

“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
 

The reaction

At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.

“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.

Intravascular lithotripsy proved highly effective, safe, and user friendly as an adjunct to stenting for severely calcified coronary lesions at 30 days of follow-up in the pivotal Disrupt CAD III study aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.

The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.

Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.

“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.

Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.

This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.

Key outcomes

The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.

The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.

The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm².

Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.

At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.

Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.

“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
 

The reaction

At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.

“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.

Intravascular lithotripsy proved highly effective, safe, and user friendly as an adjunct to stenting for severely calcified coronary lesions at 30 days of follow-up in the pivotal Disrupt CAD III study aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.

The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.

Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.

Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.

“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.

Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.

This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.

Key outcomes

The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.

The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.

The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm².

Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.

At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.

Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.

“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
 

The reaction

At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.

“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.

The recall of extended-release metformin continues this month as 76 more lots have been flagged for a possible cancer-causing ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the latest recall, involving Marksans Pharma Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries products, on Oct. 5. It involves the 500-mg and 700-mg tablets. More than 175 different drug combinations have been recalled since late May.

Consumers can see all the recalled metformin products at this FDA website. The agency says that immediate-release metformin does not appear to have the same contamination problem.

The FDA has been investigating the presence of nitrosamines, known to be possible carcinogens, in the popular diabetes medications since December, when they were first discovered in drugs in other countries. The agency said this month they still do not know the source of nitrosamines in the medications.

The investigation and subsequent recalls follow similar ones for contamination of popular heartburn and blood pressure drugs also for nitrosamines, such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

The FDA says patients taking metformin products that have been recalled should continue taking the medication until a doctor or pharmacist gives them a replacement or a different treatment option. It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking the medication without first talking to their doctor.

The agency has asked drug manufacturers to test products before batches are released into the market. The companies must tell the FDA if any product shows levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable limit.

The risk from nitrosamines is not clear. The FDA says they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The recall of extended-release metformin continues this month as 76 more lots have been flagged for a possible cancer-causing ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the latest recall, involving Marksans Pharma Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries products, on Oct. 5. It involves the 500-mg and 700-mg tablets. More than 175 different drug combinations have been recalled since late May.

Consumers can see all the recalled metformin products at this FDA website. The agency says that immediate-release metformin does not appear to have the same contamination problem.

The FDA has been investigating the presence of nitrosamines, known to be possible carcinogens, in the popular diabetes medications since December, when they were first discovered in drugs in other countries. The agency said this month they still do not know the source of nitrosamines in the medications.

The investigation and subsequent recalls follow similar ones for contamination of popular heartburn and blood pressure drugs also for nitrosamines, such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

The FDA says patients taking metformin products that have been recalled should continue taking the medication until a doctor or pharmacist gives them a replacement or a different treatment option. It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking the medication without first talking to their doctor.

The agency has asked drug manufacturers to test products before batches are released into the market. The companies must tell the FDA if any product shows levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable limit.

The risk from nitrosamines is not clear. The FDA says they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The recall of extended-release metformin continues this month as 76 more lots have been flagged for a possible cancer-causing ingredient.

The Food and Drug Administration announced the latest recall, involving Marksans Pharma Limited and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries products, on Oct. 5. It involves the 500-mg and 700-mg tablets. More than 175 different drug combinations have been recalled since late May.

Consumers can see all the recalled metformin products at this FDA website. The agency says that immediate-release metformin does not appear to have the same contamination problem.

The FDA has been investigating the presence of nitrosamines, known to be possible carcinogens, in the popular diabetes medications since December, when they were first discovered in drugs in other countries. The agency said this month they still do not know the source of nitrosamines in the medications.

The investigation and subsequent recalls follow similar ones for contamination of popular heartburn and blood pressure drugs also for nitrosamines, such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).

The FDA says patients taking metformin products that have been recalled should continue taking the medication until a doctor or pharmacist gives them a replacement or a different treatment option. It could be dangerous for patients with type 2 diabetes to stop taking the medication without first talking to their doctor.

The agency has asked drug manufacturers to test products before batches are released into the market. The companies must tell the FDA if any product shows levels of nitrosamines above the acceptable limit.

The risk from nitrosamines is not clear. The FDA says they may increase the risk of cancer in people who are exposed to high levels over a long period of time, “but we do not anticipate that shorter-term exposure at levels above the acceptable intake limit would lead to an increase in the risk of cancer.”
 

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).

Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.

Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.

Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.

The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.

COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).

They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.

Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.

Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).

But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).

Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.

“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”

Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.

During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.

“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”

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

Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).

Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.

Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.

Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.

The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.

COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).

They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.

Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.

Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).

But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).

Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.

“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”

Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.

During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.

“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”

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

Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).

Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.

Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.

Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.

The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.

COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).

They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.

Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.

Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).

But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).

Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.

“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”

Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.

During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.

“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.

“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.

Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.

Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.

Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.

The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.

After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:

• CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
• Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
• All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).

“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.

Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.

Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.

“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.

“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.

The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.

In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”

She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.

“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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