In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

In a real-world setting, full vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was more than 80% effective at reducing infection in people with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who were taking immunosuppressive medications.

The study, which examined postvaccine infection rates in a Veterans Affairs cohort, further validates the benefit of COVID-19 vaccines, particularly in a subgroup most at risk for having compromised immune systems. Furthermore, the findings “may serve to increase patient and provider willingness to pursue vaccination in these settings,” wrote study authors Nabeel Khan, MD, of the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center and Nadim Mahmud, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, both in Philadelphia. The report was published in Gastroenterology. In addition, the researchers said the findings “should provide positive reinforcement to IBD patients taking immunosuppressive agents who may otherwise be reluctant to receive vaccination.”

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns have been raised regarding the possible heightened risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with IBD and other diseases associated with immune system dysregulation. Despite these fears, patients with IBD appear to have comparable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection to that of the general population.

Pfizer’s BNT162b2 and Moderna’s RNA-1273 vaccines are the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. These vaccines have demonstrated over 90% efficacy for preventing infection and severe disease in late-stage trials; however, few trials have examined their pooled effectiveness in immunocompromised patients and those taking immunosuppressive therapies.

To address this gap, researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study that included 14,697 patients (median age, 68 years) from the Veterans Health Administration database who had been diagnosed with IBD before the start date of the administration’s vaccination program. A total of 7,321 patients in the cohort had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer (45.2%) or Moderna (54.8%) vaccines.

Approximately 61.8% of patients had ulcerative colitis, while the remaining patients had Crohn’s disease. In terms of medications, vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients in the study were exposed to mesalamine alone (54.9% vs. 54.6%), thiopurines (10.8% vs. 10.5%), anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic monotherapy (18.8% vs. 20.9%), vedolizumab (7.2% vs. 6.0%), ustekinumab (1.0% vs. 1.1%), tofacitinib (0.7% vs. 0.8%), methotrexate (2.3% vs. 2.0%%), and/or corticosteroids (6.8% vs. 5.6%).

A total of 3,561 patients who received the Moderna vaccine and 3,017 patients who received the Pfizer vaccine received both doses. The median time between each dose was 21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna.

Patients who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer comorbidities (P < .001). The majority of patients in the overall cohort were men (92.2%), a group identified as having a much greater risk of worse COVID-19–related outcomes.

Unvaccinated patients in the study had a higher rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the fully vaccinated group (1.34% vs. 0.11%, respectively) in follow-up data reported through April 20, 2021. Over a median follow-up duration of 20 days, researchers found 14 infections with SARS-CoV-2 (0.28%) in partially vaccinated individuals. Seven infections (0.11%) were reported in fully vaccinated individuals over a median 38-day follow-up period.

Compared with unvaccinated patients, full vaccination status was associated with a 69% reduction in the hazard ratio of infection (HR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.56; P < .001). Corresponding vaccine efficacy rates were 25.1% for partial vaccination and 80.4% for full vaccination.

There were no significant interactions between vaccination status and exposure to steroids (P =.64), mesalamine versus immunosuppressive agents (P =.46), or anti-TNFs with immunomodulators or steroids versus other therapies (P =.34). In addition, no difference was found in the association between vaccination status and infection for patients who received the Moderna versus the Pfizer vaccines (P =.09).

Unvaccinated individuals had the highest raw proportions of severe infection with the novel coronavirus (0.32%) and all-cause mortality (0.66%), compared with people who were partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated. In adjusted Cox regression analyses, there was no significant association between vaccination status and severe SARS-CoV-2 infection (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P = .18) or all-cause mortality (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, P =.11). The researchers wrote that, “future studies with larger sample size and/or longer follow-up are needed to evaluate this further.”

An important limitation of this study was the inclusion of mostly older men who were also predominantly White (80.4%). Ultimately, this population may limit the generalizability of the findings for women and patients of other races/ethnicities.

While the study received no financial support, Dr. Khan has received research grants from several pharmaceutical companies, but Dr. Mahmud disclosed no conflicts.

Jason Persoff, MD, SFHM, now a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and an amateur storm chaser, got a close look at how natural disasters can impact hospital care when a tornado destroyed St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Joplin, Mo., on May 22, 2011.

He and a colleague who had been following the storm responded to injuries on the highway before reporting for a long day’s service at the other hospital in Joplin, Freeman Hospital West, caring for patients transferred from St. John’s on an impromptu unit without access to their medical records.

“During my medical training, I had done emergency medicine as an EMT, so I was interested in how the system responds to emergencies,” he explained. “At Joplin I learned how it feels when the boots on the ground in a crisis are not connected to an incident command structure.” Another thing he learned was the essential role for hospitalists in a hospital’s response to a crisis – and thus the need to involve them well in advance in the hospital’s planning for future emergencies.

“Disaster preparation – when done right – helps you ‘herd cats’ in a crisis situation,” he said. “The tornado and its wake served as defining moments for me. I used them as the impetus to improve health care’s response to disasters.” Part of that commitment was to help hospitalists understand their part in emergency preparation.¹

Dr. Persoff is now the assistant medical director of emergency preparedness at University of Colorado Hospital. He also helped to create a position called physician support supervisor, which is filled by physicians who have held leadership positions in a hospital to help coordinate the disparate needs of all clinicians in a crisis and facilitate rapid response.²

But then along came the COVID pandemic – which in many locales around the world was unprecedented in scope. Dr. Persoff said his hospital was fairly well prepared, after a decade of engagement with emergency planning. It drew on experience with H1N1, also known as swine flu, and the Ebola virus, which killed 11,323 people, primarily in West Africa, from 2013 to 2016, as models. In a matter of days, the CU division of hospital medicine was able to modify and deploy its existing disaster plans to quickly respond to an influx of COVID patients.³

“Basically, what we set out to do was to treat COVID patients as if they were Ebola patients, cordoning them off in a small area of the hospital. That was naive of us,” he said. “We weren’t able to grasp the scale at the outset. It does defy the imagination – how the hospital could fill up with just one type of patient.”

What is disaster planning?

Emergency preparation for hospitals emerged as a recognized medical specialization in the 1970s. Initially it was largely considered the realm of emergency physicians, trauma services, or critical care doctors. Resources such as the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and similar groups recommend an all-hazards approach, a broad and flexible strategy for managing emergencies that could include natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, or wildfires – or human-caused events, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. The Joint Commission requires accredited hospitals to conduct several disaster drills annually.

The U.S. Hospital Preparedness Program was created in 2002 to enhance the ability of hospitals and health systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism attacks on civilians and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters and pandemics. It offers a foundation for national preparedness and a primary source of federal funding for health care system preparedness. The hospital, at the heart of the health care system, is expected to receive the injured and infected, because patients know they can obtain care there.

One of the fundamental tools for crisis response is the incident command system (ICS), which spells out how to quickly establish a command structure and assign responsibility for key tasks as well as overall leadership. The National Incident Management System organizes emergency management across all government levels and the private sector to ensure that the most pressing needs are met and precious resources are used without duplication. ICS is a standardized approach to command, control, and coordination of emergency response using a common hierarchy recognized across organizations, with advance training in how it should be deployed.
 

A crisis like never before

Nearly every hospital or health system goes through drills for an emergency, said Hassan Khouli, MD, chair of the department of critical care medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthor of an article in the journal Chest last year outlining 10 principles of emergency preparedness derived from its experience with the COVID pandemic.⁴ Some of these include: don’t wait; engage a variety of stakeholders; identify sources of truth; and prioritize hospital employees’ safety and well-being.

Part of the preparation is doing table-top exercises, with case scenarios or actual situations presented, working with clinicians on brainstorming and identifying opportunities for improvement, Dr. Khouli said. “These drills are so important, regardless of what the disaster turns out to be. We’ve done that over the years. We are a large health system, very process and detail oriented. Our emergency incident command structure was activated before we saw our first COVID patient,” he said.

“This was a crisis like never before, with huge amounts of uncertainty,” he noted. “But I believe the Cleveland Clinic system did very well, measured by outcomes such as surveys of health care teams across the system, which gave us reassuring results, and clinical outcomes with lower ICU and hospital mortality rates.”

Christopher Whinney, MD, SFHM, department chair of hospital medicine at Cleveland Clinic, said hospitalists worked hand in hand with the health system’s incident command structure and took responsibility for managing non-ICU COVID patients at six hospitals in the system.

“Hospitalists had a place at the table, and we collaborated well with incident command, enterprise redeployment committees, and emergency and critical care colleagues,” he noted. Hospitalists were on the leadership team for a number of planning meetings, and key stakeholders for bringing information back to their groups.

“First thing we did was to look at our workforce. The challenge was how to respond to up to a hundred COVID admissions per day – how to mobilize providers and build surge teams that incorporated primary care providers and medical trainees. We onboarded 200 providers to do hospital care within 60 days,” he said.

“We realized that communication with patients and families was a big part of the challenge, so we assigned people with good communication skills to fill this role. While we were fortunate not to get the terrible surges they had in other places, we felt we were prepared for the worst.”
 

Challenges of surge capacity

Every disaster is different, said Srikant Polepalli, MD, associate hospitalist medical director for Staten Island University Hospital in New York, part of the Northwell Health system. He brought the experience of being part of the response to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 to the COVID pandemic.

“Specifically for hospitalists, the biggest challenge is working on surge capacity for a sudden influx of patients,” he said. “But with Northwell as our umbrella, we can triage and load-balance to move patients from hospital to hospital as needed. With the pandemic, we started with one COVID unit and then expanded to fill the entire hospital.”

Dr. Polepalli was appointed medical director for a temporary field hospital installed at South Beach Psychiatric Center, also in Staten Island. “We were able to acquire help and bring in people ranging from hospitalists to ER physicians, travel nurses, operation managers and the National Guard. Our command center did a phenomenal job of allocating and obtaining resources. It helped to have a structure that was already established and to rely on the resources of the health system,” Dr. Polepalli said. Not every hospital has a structure like Northwell’s.

“We’re not out of the pandemic yet, but we’ll continue with disaster drills and planning,” he said. “We must continue to adapt and have converted our temporary facilities to COVID testing centers, antibody infusion centers, and vaccination centers.”

For Alfred Burger, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai’s Beth Israel campus in New York, hospital medicine, now in its maturing phase, is still feeling its way through hospital and health care system transformation.

“My group is an academic, multicampus hospitalist group employed by the hospital system. When I meet other hospitalists at SHM conferences, whether they come from privately owned, corporately owned, or contracted models, they vary widely in terms of how involved the hospitalists are in crisis planning and their ability to respond to crises. At large academic medical centers like ours, one or more doctors is tasked with being involved in preparing for the next disaster,” he said.

“I think we responded the best we could, although it was difficult as we lost many patients to COVID. We were trying to save lives using the tools we knew from treating pneumonias and other forms of acute inflammatory lung injuries. We used every bit of our training in situations where no one had the right answers. But disasters teach us how to be flexible and pivot on the fly, and what to do when things don’t go our way.”
 

What is disaster response?

Medical response to a disaster essentially boils down to three main things: stuff, staff, and space, Dr. Persoff said. Those are the cornerstones of an emergency plan.

“There is not a hazard that exists that you can’t take an all-hazards approach to dealing with fundamental realities on the ground. No plan can be comprehensive enough to deal with all the intricacies of an emergency. But many plans can have the bones of a response that will allow you to face adverse circumstances,” he said.

“We actually became quite efficient early on in the pandemic, able to adapt in the moment. We were able to build an effective bridge between workers on the ground and our incident command structure, which seemed to reduce a lot of stress and create situational awareness. We implemented ICS as soon as we heard that China was building a COVID hospital, back in February of 2020.”

When one thinks about mass trauma, such as a 747 crash, Dr. Persoff said, the need is to treat burn victims and trauma victims in large numbers. At that point, the ED downstairs is filled with medical patients. Hospital medicine can rapidly admit those patients to clear out room in the ED. Surgeons are also dedicated to rapidly treating those patients, but what about patients who are on the floor following their surgeries? Hospitalists can offer consultations or primary management so the surgeons can stay in the OR, and the same in the ICU, while safely discharging hospitalized patients in a timely manner to make room for incoming patients.

“The lessons of COVID have been hard-taught and hard-earned. No good plan survives contact with the enemy,” he said. “But I think we’ll be better prepared for the next pandemic.”

Maria Frank, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health who chairs SHM’s Disaster Management Special Interest Group, says she got the bug for disaster preparation during postresidency training as an internist in emergency medicine. “I’m also the medical director for our biocontainment unit, created for infections like Ebola.” SHM’s SIG, which has 150 members, is now writing a review article on disaster planning for the field.

“I got a call on Dec. 27, 2019, about this new pneumonia, and they said, ‘We don’t know what it is, but it’s a coronavirus,’” she recalled. “When I got off the phone, I said, ‘Let’s make sure our response plan works and we have enough of everything on hand.’” Dr. Frank said she was expecting something more like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). “When they called the public health emergency of international concern for COVID, I was at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meeting in Atlanta. It really wasn’t a surprise for us.”

All hospitals plan for disasters, although they use different names and have different levels of commitment, Dr. Frank said. What’s not consistent is the participation of hospitalists. “Even when a disaster is 100% trauma related, consider a hospital like mine that has at least four times as many hospitalists as surgeons at any given time. The hospitalists need to take overall management for the patients who aren’t actually in the operating room.”
 

Time to debrief

Dr. Frank recommends debriefing on the hospital’s and the hospitalist group’s experience with COVID. “Look at the biggest challenges your group faced. Was it staffing, or time off, or the need for day care? Was it burnout, lack of knowledge, lack of [personal protective equipment]?” Each hospital could use its own COVID experience to work on identifying the challenges and the problems, she said. “I’d encourage each department and division to do this exercise individually. Then come together to find common ground with other departments in the hospital.”

This debriefing exercise isn’t just for doctors – it’s also for nurses, environmental services, security, and many other departments, she said. “COVID showed us how crisis response is a group effort. What will bring us together is to learn the challenges each of us faced. It was amazing to see hospitalists doing what they do best.” Post pandemic, hospitalists should also consider getting involved in research and publications, in order to share their lessons.

“One of the things we learned is that hospitalists are very versatile,” Dr. Frank added. But it’s also good for the group to have members specialize, for example, in biocontainment. “We are experts in discharging patients, in patient flow and operations, in coordinating complex medical care. So we would naturally take the lead in, for example, opening a geographic unit or collaborating with other specialists to create innovative models. That’s our job. It’s essential that we’re involved well in advance.”

COVID may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but there will be other disasters to come, she said. “If your hospital doesn’t have a disaster plan for hospitalists, get involved in establishing one. Each hospitalist group should have its own response plan. Talk to your peers at other hospitals, and get involved at the institutional level. I’m happy to share our plan; just contact me.” Readers can contact Dr. Frank at [email protected].
 

References

1. Persoff J et al. The role of hospital medicine in emergency preparedness: A framework for hospitalist leadership in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct;13(10):713-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3073.

2. Persoff J et al. Expanding the hospital incident command system with a physician-centric role during a pandemic: The role of the physician clinical support supervisor. J Hosp Adm. 2020;9(3):7-10. doi: 10.5430/jha.v9n3p7.

3. Bowden K et al. Harnessing the power of hospitalists in operational disaster planning: COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):273-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05952-6.

4. Orsini E et al. Lessons on outbreak preparedness from the Cleveland Clinic. Chest. 2020;158(5):2090-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.009.

Jason Persoff, MD, SFHM, now a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and an amateur storm chaser, got a close look at how natural disasters can impact hospital care when a tornado destroyed St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Joplin, Mo., on May 22, 2011.

He and a colleague who had been following the storm responded to injuries on the highway before reporting for a long day’s service at the other hospital in Joplin, Freeman Hospital West, caring for patients transferred from St. John’s on an impromptu unit without access to their medical records.

“During my medical training, I had done emergency medicine as an EMT, so I was interested in how the system responds to emergencies,” he explained. “At Joplin I learned how it feels when the boots on the ground in a crisis are not connected to an incident command structure.” Another thing he learned was the essential role for hospitalists in a hospital’s response to a crisis – and thus the need to involve them well in advance in the hospital’s planning for future emergencies.

“Disaster preparation – when done right – helps you ‘herd cats’ in a crisis situation,” he said. “The tornado and its wake served as defining moments for me. I used them as the impetus to improve health care’s response to disasters.” Part of that commitment was to help hospitalists understand their part in emergency preparation.¹

Dr. Persoff is now the assistant medical director of emergency preparedness at University of Colorado Hospital. He also helped to create a position called physician support supervisor, which is filled by physicians who have held leadership positions in a hospital to help coordinate the disparate needs of all clinicians in a crisis and facilitate rapid response.²

But then along came the COVID pandemic – which in many locales around the world was unprecedented in scope. Dr. Persoff said his hospital was fairly well prepared, after a decade of engagement with emergency planning. It drew on experience with H1N1, also known as swine flu, and the Ebola virus, which killed 11,323 people, primarily in West Africa, from 2013 to 2016, as models. In a matter of days, the CU division of hospital medicine was able to modify and deploy its existing disaster plans to quickly respond to an influx of COVID patients.³

“Basically, what we set out to do was to treat COVID patients as if they were Ebola patients, cordoning them off in a small area of the hospital. That was naive of us,” he said. “We weren’t able to grasp the scale at the outset. It does defy the imagination – how the hospital could fill up with just one type of patient.”

What is disaster planning?

Emergency preparation for hospitals emerged as a recognized medical specialization in the 1970s. Initially it was largely considered the realm of emergency physicians, trauma services, or critical care doctors. Resources such as the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and similar groups recommend an all-hazards approach, a broad and flexible strategy for managing emergencies that could include natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, or wildfires – or human-caused events, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. The Joint Commission requires accredited hospitals to conduct several disaster drills annually.

The U.S. Hospital Preparedness Program was created in 2002 to enhance the ability of hospitals and health systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism attacks on civilians and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters and pandemics. It offers a foundation for national preparedness and a primary source of federal funding for health care system preparedness. The hospital, at the heart of the health care system, is expected to receive the injured and infected, because patients know they can obtain care there.

One of the fundamental tools for crisis response is the incident command system (ICS), which spells out how to quickly establish a command structure and assign responsibility for key tasks as well as overall leadership. The National Incident Management System organizes emergency management across all government levels and the private sector to ensure that the most pressing needs are met and precious resources are used without duplication. ICS is a standardized approach to command, control, and coordination of emergency response using a common hierarchy recognized across organizations, with advance training in how it should be deployed.
 

A crisis like never before

Nearly every hospital or health system goes through drills for an emergency, said Hassan Khouli, MD, chair of the department of critical care medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthor of an article in the journal Chest last year outlining 10 principles of emergency preparedness derived from its experience with the COVID pandemic.⁴ Some of these include: don’t wait; engage a variety of stakeholders; identify sources of truth; and prioritize hospital employees’ safety and well-being.

Part of the preparation is doing table-top exercises, with case scenarios or actual situations presented, working with clinicians on brainstorming and identifying opportunities for improvement, Dr. Khouli said. “These drills are so important, regardless of what the disaster turns out to be. We’ve done that over the years. We are a large health system, very process and detail oriented. Our emergency incident command structure was activated before we saw our first COVID patient,” he said.

“This was a crisis like never before, with huge amounts of uncertainty,” he noted. “But I believe the Cleveland Clinic system did very well, measured by outcomes such as surveys of health care teams across the system, which gave us reassuring results, and clinical outcomes with lower ICU and hospital mortality rates.”

Christopher Whinney, MD, SFHM, department chair of hospital medicine at Cleveland Clinic, said hospitalists worked hand in hand with the health system’s incident command structure and took responsibility for managing non-ICU COVID patients at six hospitals in the system.

“Hospitalists had a place at the table, and we collaborated well with incident command, enterprise redeployment committees, and emergency and critical care colleagues,” he noted. Hospitalists were on the leadership team for a number of planning meetings, and key stakeholders for bringing information back to their groups.

“First thing we did was to look at our workforce. The challenge was how to respond to up to a hundred COVID admissions per day – how to mobilize providers and build surge teams that incorporated primary care providers and medical trainees. We onboarded 200 providers to do hospital care within 60 days,” he said.

“We realized that communication with patients and families was a big part of the challenge, so we assigned people with good communication skills to fill this role. While we were fortunate not to get the terrible surges they had in other places, we felt we were prepared for the worst.”
 

Challenges of surge capacity

Every disaster is different, said Srikant Polepalli, MD, associate hospitalist medical director for Staten Island University Hospital in New York, part of the Northwell Health system. He brought the experience of being part of the response to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 to the COVID pandemic.

“Specifically for hospitalists, the biggest challenge is working on surge capacity for a sudden influx of patients,” he said. “But with Northwell as our umbrella, we can triage and load-balance to move patients from hospital to hospital as needed. With the pandemic, we started with one COVID unit and then expanded to fill the entire hospital.”

Dr. Polepalli was appointed medical director for a temporary field hospital installed at South Beach Psychiatric Center, also in Staten Island. “We were able to acquire help and bring in people ranging from hospitalists to ER physicians, travel nurses, operation managers and the National Guard. Our command center did a phenomenal job of allocating and obtaining resources. It helped to have a structure that was already established and to rely on the resources of the health system,” Dr. Polepalli said. Not every hospital has a structure like Northwell’s.

“We’re not out of the pandemic yet, but we’ll continue with disaster drills and planning,” he said. “We must continue to adapt and have converted our temporary facilities to COVID testing centers, antibody infusion centers, and vaccination centers.”

For Alfred Burger, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai’s Beth Israel campus in New York, hospital medicine, now in its maturing phase, is still feeling its way through hospital and health care system transformation.

“My group is an academic, multicampus hospitalist group employed by the hospital system. When I meet other hospitalists at SHM conferences, whether they come from privately owned, corporately owned, or contracted models, they vary widely in terms of how involved the hospitalists are in crisis planning and their ability to respond to crises. At large academic medical centers like ours, one or more doctors is tasked with being involved in preparing for the next disaster,” he said.

“I think we responded the best we could, although it was difficult as we lost many patients to COVID. We were trying to save lives using the tools we knew from treating pneumonias and other forms of acute inflammatory lung injuries. We used every bit of our training in situations where no one had the right answers. But disasters teach us how to be flexible and pivot on the fly, and what to do when things don’t go our way.”
 

What is disaster response?

Medical response to a disaster essentially boils down to three main things: stuff, staff, and space, Dr. Persoff said. Those are the cornerstones of an emergency plan.

“There is not a hazard that exists that you can’t take an all-hazards approach to dealing with fundamental realities on the ground. No plan can be comprehensive enough to deal with all the intricacies of an emergency. But many plans can have the bones of a response that will allow you to face adverse circumstances,” he said.

“We actually became quite efficient early on in the pandemic, able to adapt in the moment. We were able to build an effective bridge between workers on the ground and our incident command structure, which seemed to reduce a lot of stress and create situational awareness. We implemented ICS as soon as we heard that China was building a COVID hospital, back in February of 2020.”

When one thinks about mass trauma, such as a 747 crash, Dr. Persoff said, the need is to treat burn victims and trauma victims in large numbers. At that point, the ED downstairs is filled with medical patients. Hospital medicine can rapidly admit those patients to clear out room in the ED. Surgeons are also dedicated to rapidly treating those patients, but what about patients who are on the floor following their surgeries? Hospitalists can offer consultations or primary management so the surgeons can stay in the OR, and the same in the ICU, while safely discharging hospitalized patients in a timely manner to make room for incoming patients.

“The lessons of COVID have been hard-taught and hard-earned. No good plan survives contact with the enemy,” he said. “But I think we’ll be better prepared for the next pandemic.”

Maria Frank, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health who chairs SHM’s Disaster Management Special Interest Group, says she got the bug for disaster preparation during postresidency training as an internist in emergency medicine. “I’m also the medical director for our biocontainment unit, created for infections like Ebola.” SHM’s SIG, which has 150 members, is now writing a review article on disaster planning for the field.

“I got a call on Dec. 27, 2019, about this new pneumonia, and they said, ‘We don’t know what it is, but it’s a coronavirus,’” she recalled. “When I got off the phone, I said, ‘Let’s make sure our response plan works and we have enough of everything on hand.’” Dr. Frank said she was expecting something more like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). “When they called the public health emergency of international concern for COVID, I was at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meeting in Atlanta. It really wasn’t a surprise for us.”

All hospitals plan for disasters, although they use different names and have different levels of commitment, Dr. Frank said. What’s not consistent is the participation of hospitalists. “Even when a disaster is 100% trauma related, consider a hospital like mine that has at least four times as many hospitalists as surgeons at any given time. The hospitalists need to take overall management for the patients who aren’t actually in the operating room.”
 

Time to debrief

Dr. Frank recommends debriefing on the hospital’s and the hospitalist group’s experience with COVID. “Look at the biggest challenges your group faced. Was it staffing, or time off, or the need for day care? Was it burnout, lack of knowledge, lack of [personal protective equipment]?” Each hospital could use its own COVID experience to work on identifying the challenges and the problems, she said. “I’d encourage each department and division to do this exercise individually. Then come together to find common ground with other departments in the hospital.”

This debriefing exercise isn’t just for doctors – it’s also for nurses, environmental services, security, and many other departments, she said. “COVID showed us how crisis response is a group effort. What will bring us together is to learn the challenges each of us faced. It was amazing to see hospitalists doing what they do best.” Post pandemic, hospitalists should also consider getting involved in research and publications, in order to share their lessons.

“One of the things we learned is that hospitalists are very versatile,” Dr. Frank added. But it’s also good for the group to have members specialize, for example, in biocontainment. “We are experts in discharging patients, in patient flow and operations, in coordinating complex medical care. So we would naturally take the lead in, for example, opening a geographic unit or collaborating with other specialists to create innovative models. That’s our job. It’s essential that we’re involved well in advance.”

COVID may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but there will be other disasters to come, she said. “If your hospital doesn’t have a disaster plan for hospitalists, get involved in establishing one. Each hospitalist group should have its own response plan. Talk to your peers at other hospitals, and get involved at the institutional level. I’m happy to share our plan; just contact me.” Readers can contact Dr. Frank at [email protected].
 

References

1. Persoff J et al. The role of hospital medicine in emergency preparedness: A framework for hospitalist leadership in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct;13(10):713-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3073.

2. Persoff J et al. Expanding the hospital incident command system with a physician-centric role during a pandemic: The role of the physician clinical support supervisor. J Hosp Adm. 2020;9(3):7-10. doi: 10.5430/jha.v9n3p7.

3. Bowden K et al. Harnessing the power of hospitalists in operational disaster planning: COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):273-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05952-6.

4. Orsini E et al. Lessons on outbreak preparedness from the Cleveland Clinic. Chest. 2020;158(5):2090-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.009.

Jason Persoff, MD, SFHM, now a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and an amateur storm chaser, got a close look at how natural disasters can impact hospital care when a tornado destroyed St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Joplin, Mo., on May 22, 2011.

He and a colleague who had been following the storm responded to injuries on the highway before reporting for a long day’s service at the other hospital in Joplin, Freeman Hospital West, caring for patients transferred from St. John’s on an impromptu unit without access to their medical records.

“During my medical training, I had done emergency medicine as an EMT, so I was interested in how the system responds to emergencies,” he explained. “At Joplin I learned how it feels when the boots on the ground in a crisis are not connected to an incident command structure.” Another thing he learned was the essential role for hospitalists in a hospital’s response to a crisis – and thus the need to involve them well in advance in the hospital’s planning for future emergencies.

“Disaster preparation – when done right – helps you ‘herd cats’ in a crisis situation,” he said. “The tornado and its wake served as defining moments for me. I used them as the impetus to improve health care’s response to disasters.” Part of that commitment was to help hospitalists understand their part in emergency preparation.¹

Dr. Persoff is now the assistant medical director of emergency preparedness at University of Colorado Hospital. He also helped to create a position called physician support supervisor, which is filled by physicians who have held leadership positions in a hospital to help coordinate the disparate needs of all clinicians in a crisis and facilitate rapid response.²

But then along came the COVID pandemic – which in many locales around the world was unprecedented in scope. Dr. Persoff said his hospital was fairly well prepared, after a decade of engagement with emergency planning. It drew on experience with H1N1, also known as swine flu, and the Ebola virus, which killed 11,323 people, primarily in West Africa, from 2013 to 2016, as models. In a matter of days, the CU division of hospital medicine was able to modify and deploy its existing disaster plans to quickly respond to an influx of COVID patients.³

“Basically, what we set out to do was to treat COVID patients as if they were Ebola patients, cordoning them off in a small area of the hospital. That was naive of us,” he said. “We weren’t able to grasp the scale at the outset. It does defy the imagination – how the hospital could fill up with just one type of patient.”

What is disaster planning?

Emergency preparation for hospitals emerged as a recognized medical specialization in the 1970s. Initially it was largely considered the realm of emergency physicians, trauma services, or critical care doctors. Resources such as the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and similar groups recommend an all-hazards approach, a broad and flexible strategy for managing emergencies that could include natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, or wildfires – or human-caused events, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. The Joint Commission requires accredited hospitals to conduct several disaster drills annually.

The U.S. Hospital Preparedness Program was created in 2002 to enhance the ability of hospitals and health systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism attacks on civilians and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters and pandemics. It offers a foundation for national preparedness and a primary source of federal funding for health care system preparedness. The hospital, at the heart of the health care system, is expected to receive the injured and infected, because patients know they can obtain care there.

One of the fundamental tools for crisis response is the incident command system (ICS), which spells out how to quickly establish a command structure and assign responsibility for key tasks as well as overall leadership. The National Incident Management System organizes emergency management across all government levels and the private sector to ensure that the most pressing needs are met and precious resources are used without duplication. ICS is a standardized approach to command, control, and coordination of emergency response using a common hierarchy recognized across organizations, with advance training in how it should be deployed.
 

A crisis like never before

Nearly every hospital or health system goes through drills for an emergency, said Hassan Khouli, MD, chair of the department of critical care medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthor of an article in the journal Chest last year outlining 10 principles of emergency preparedness derived from its experience with the COVID pandemic.⁴ Some of these include: don’t wait; engage a variety of stakeholders; identify sources of truth; and prioritize hospital employees’ safety and well-being.

Part of the preparation is doing table-top exercises, with case scenarios or actual situations presented, working with clinicians on brainstorming and identifying opportunities for improvement, Dr. Khouli said. “These drills are so important, regardless of what the disaster turns out to be. We’ve done that over the years. We are a large health system, very process and detail oriented. Our emergency incident command structure was activated before we saw our first COVID patient,” he said.

“This was a crisis like never before, with huge amounts of uncertainty,” he noted. “But I believe the Cleveland Clinic system did very well, measured by outcomes such as surveys of health care teams across the system, which gave us reassuring results, and clinical outcomes with lower ICU and hospital mortality rates.”

Christopher Whinney, MD, SFHM, department chair of hospital medicine at Cleveland Clinic, said hospitalists worked hand in hand with the health system’s incident command structure and took responsibility for managing non-ICU COVID patients at six hospitals in the system.

“Hospitalists had a place at the table, and we collaborated well with incident command, enterprise redeployment committees, and emergency and critical care colleagues,” he noted. Hospitalists were on the leadership team for a number of planning meetings, and key stakeholders for bringing information back to their groups.

“First thing we did was to look at our workforce. The challenge was how to respond to up to a hundred COVID admissions per day – how to mobilize providers and build surge teams that incorporated primary care providers and medical trainees. We onboarded 200 providers to do hospital care within 60 days,” he said.

“We realized that communication with patients and families was a big part of the challenge, so we assigned people with good communication skills to fill this role. While we were fortunate not to get the terrible surges they had in other places, we felt we were prepared for the worst.”
 

Challenges of surge capacity

Every disaster is different, said Srikant Polepalli, MD, associate hospitalist medical director for Staten Island University Hospital in New York, part of the Northwell Health system. He brought the experience of being part of the response to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 to the COVID pandemic.

“Specifically for hospitalists, the biggest challenge is working on surge capacity for a sudden influx of patients,” he said. “But with Northwell as our umbrella, we can triage and load-balance to move patients from hospital to hospital as needed. With the pandemic, we started with one COVID unit and then expanded to fill the entire hospital.”

Dr. Polepalli was appointed medical director for a temporary field hospital installed at South Beach Psychiatric Center, also in Staten Island. “We were able to acquire help and bring in people ranging from hospitalists to ER physicians, travel nurses, operation managers and the National Guard. Our command center did a phenomenal job of allocating and obtaining resources. It helped to have a structure that was already established and to rely on the resources of the health system,” Dr. Polepalli said. Not every hospital has a structure like Northwell’s.

“We’re not out of the pandemic yet, but we’ll continue with disaster drills and planning,” he said. “We must continue to adapt and have converted our temporary facilities to COVID testing centers, antibody infusion centers, and vaccination centers.”

For Alfred Burger, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai’s Beth Israel campus in New York, hospital medicine, now in its maturing phase, is still feeling its way through hospital and health care system transformation.

“My group is an academic, multicampus hospitalist group employed by the hospital system. When I meet other hospitalists at SHM conferences, whether they come from privately owned, corporately owned, or contracted models, they vary widely in terms of how involved the hospitalists are in crisis planning and their ability to respond to crises. At large academic medical centers like ours, one or more doctors is tasked with being involved in preparing for the next disaster,” he said.

“I think we responded the best we could, although it was difficult as we lost many patients to COVID. We were trying to save lives using the tools we knew from treating pneumonias and other forms of acute inflammatory lung injuries. We used every bit of our training in situations where no one had the right answers. But disasters teach us how to be flexible and pivot on the fly, and what to do when things don’t go our way.”
 

What is disaster response?

Medical response to a disaster essentially boils down to three main things: stuff, staff, and space, Dr. Persoff said. Those are the cornerstones of an emergency plan.

“There is not a hazard that exists that you can’t take an all-hazards approach to dealing with fundamental realities on the ground. No plan can be comprehensive enough to deal with all the intricacies of an emergency. But many plans can have the bones of a response that will allow you to face adverse circumstances,” he said.

“We actually became quite efficient early on in the pandemic, able to adapt in the moment. We were able to build an effective bridge between workers on the ground and our incident command structure, which seemed to reduce a lot of stress and create situational awareness. We implemented ICS as soon as we heard that China was building a COVID hospital, back in February of 2020.”

When one thinks about mass trauma, such as a 747 crash, Dr. Persoff said, the need is to treat burn victims and trauma victims in large numbers. At that point, the ED downstairs is filled with medical patients. Hospital medicine can rapidly admit those patients to clear out room in the ED. Surgeons are also dedicated to rapidly treating those patients, but what about patients who are on the floor following their surgeries? Hospitalists can offer consultations or primary management so the surgeons can stay in the OR, and the same in the ICU, while safely discharging hospitalized patients in a timely manner to make room for incoming patients.

“The lessons of COVID have been hard-taught and hard-earned. No good plan survives contact with the enemy,” he said. “But I think we’ll be better prepared for the next pandemic.”

Maria Frank, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health who chairs SHM’s Disaster Management Special Interest Group, says she got the bug for disaster preparation during postresidency training as an internist in emergency medicine. “I’m also the medical director for our biocontainment unit, created for infections like Ebola.” SHM’s SIG, which has 150 members, is now writing a review article on disaster planning for the field.

“I got a call on Dec. 27, 2019, about this new pneumonia, and they said, ‘We don’t know what it is, but it’s a coronavirus,’” she recalled. “When I got off the phone, I said, ‘Let’s make sure our response plan works and we have enough of everything on hand.’” Dr. Frank said she was expecting something more like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). “When they called the public health emergency of international concern for COVID, I was at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meeting in Atlanta. It really wasn’t a surprise for us.”

All hospitals plan for disasters, although they use different names and have different levels of commitment, Dr. Frank said. What’s not consistent is the participation of hospitalists. “Even when a disaster is 100% trauma related, consider a hospital like mine that has at least four times as many hospitalists as surgeons at any given time. The hospitalists need to take overall management for the patients who aren’t actually in the operating room.”
 

Time to debrief

Dr. Frank recommends debriefing on the hospital’s and the hospitalist group’s experience with COVID. “Look at the biggest challenges your group faced. Was it staffing, or time off, or the need for day care? Was it burnout, lack of knowledge, lack of [personal protective equipment]?” Each hospital could use its own COVID experience to work on identifying the challenges and the problems, she said. “I’d encourage each department and division to do this exercise individually. Then come together to find common ground with other departments in the hospital.”

This debriefing exercise isn’t just for doctors – it’s also for nurses, environmental services, security, and many other departments, she said. “COVID showed us how crisis response is a group effort. What will bring us together is to learn the challenges each of us faced. It was amazing to see hospitalists doing what they do best.” Post pandemic, hospitalists should also consider getting involved in research and publications, in order to share their lessons.

“One of the things we learned is that hospitalists are very versatile,” Dr. Frank added. But it’s also good for the group to have members specialize, for example, in biocontainment. “We are experts in discharging patients, in patient flow and operations, in coordinating complex medical care. So we would naturally take the lead in, for example, opening a geographic unit or collaborating with other specialists to create innovative models. That’s our job. It’s essential that we’re involved well in advance.”

COVID may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but there will be other disasters to come, she said. “If your hospital doesn’t have a disaster plan for hospitalists, get involved in establishing one. Each hospitalist group should have its own response plan. Talk to your peers at other hospitals, and get involved at the institutional level. I’m happy to share our plan; just contact me.” Readers can contact Dr. Frank at [email protected].
 

References

1. Persoff J et al. The role of hospital medicine in emergency preparedness: A framework for hospitalist leadership in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct;13(10):713-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3073.

2. Persoff J et al. Expanding the hospital incident command system with a physician-centric role during a pandemic: The role of the physician clinical support supervisor. J Hosp Adm. 2020;9(3):7-10. doi: 10.5430/jha.v9n3p7.

3. Bowden K et al. Harnessing the power of hospitalists in operational disaster planning: COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):273-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05952-6.

4. Orsini E et al. Lessons on outbreak preparedness from the Cleveland Clinic. Chest. 2020;158(5):2090-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.009.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce in early August that new data shows people vaccinated against COVID-19 who become infected with the Delta variant can spread it and infect others, the New York Times reported on July 29.

The revelation is one reason the agency reversed course this week and said fully vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks in many cases.

The new findings also are a reversal from what scientists had believed to be true about other variants of the virus, the New York Times said. The bottom line is that the CDC data shows people with so-called breakthrough cases of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they do not show symptoms.

ABC News reported earlier on Jul 29 that the CDC’s updated mask guidance followed an outbreak on Cape Cod, where crowds gathered for the Fourth of July.

As of July 29, 882 people were tied to the outbreak centered in Provincetown, Mass. Of those who live in Massachusetts, 74% were unvaccinated. ABC said the majority were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce in early August that new data shows people vaccinated against COVID-19 who become infected with the Delta variant can spread it and infect others, the New York Times reported on July 29.

The revelation is one reason the agency reversed course this week and said fully vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks in many cases.

The new findings also are a reversal from what scientists had believed to be true about other variants of the virus, the New York Times said. The bottom line is that the CDC data shows people with so-called breakthrough cases of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they do not show symptoms.

ABC News reported earlier on Jul 29 that the CDC’s updated mask guidance followed an outbreak on Cape Cod, where crowds gathered for the Fourth of July.

As of July 29, 882 people were tied to the outbreak centered in Provincetown, Mass. Of those who live in Massachusetts, 74% were unvaccinated. ABC said the majority were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to announce in early August that new data shows people vaccinated against COVID-19 who become infected with the Delta variant can spread it and infect others, the New York Times reported on July 29.

The revelation is one reason the agency reversed course this week and said fully vaccinated people should go back to wearing masks in many cases.

The new findings also are a reversal from what scientists had believed to be true about other variants of the virus, the New York Times said. The bottom line is that the CDC data shows people with so-called breakthrough cases of the Delta variant may be just as contagious as unvaccinated people, even if they do not show symptoms.

ABC News reported earlier on Jul 29 that the CDC’s updated mask guidance followed an outbreak on Cape Cod, where crowds gathered for the Fourth of July.

As of July 29, 882 people were tied to the outbreak centered in Provincetown, Mass. Of those who live in Massachusetts, 74% were unvaccinated. ABC said the majority were showing symptoms of COVID-19.

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

Anifrolumab, an inhibitor of type 1 interferons, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are receiving standard therapy, according to a statement released Aug. 2 from its manufacturer, AstraZeneca.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab will be marketed as Saphnelo. It is a fully human monoclonal antibody against subunit 1 of the type 1 interferon receptor, and its approval represents the only new treatment approved for patients with SLE in a decade. The recommended dosage is 300 mg as an intravenous infusion over a 30-minute period every 4 weeks, according to its prescribing information, and it will be sold in a single-dose vial containing 300 mg/2 mL (150 mg/mL).

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Increased type I interferon (IFN) signaling is associated with increased disease activity in patients with SLE, and the option of a type I IFN receptor antagonist may allow physicians to treat patients with fewer corticosteroids, according to the statement.

The approval was based on data from three trials. The TULIP (Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway) phase 3 research included two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. The TULIP trials each enrolled seropositive patients with moderate to severe active disease despite standard-of-care therapy (SOC), which included oral corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants (methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil). All patients met American College of Rheumatology criteria and had an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K of 6 or greater, as well as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index scoring showing one or more organ systems with grade A involvement or two or more with grade B. Both trials required stable SOC therapy throughout the study except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients who were receiving 10 mg/day or more of prednisone or its equivalent at study entry.

TULIP-1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of SLE Responder Index (SRI) at 52 weeks, but investigators determined after the trial that some patients taking anifrolumab had been inappropriately labeled as nonresponders because the trial automatically required any patient who used a restricted drug, including NSAIDs, to be classified as a nonresponder even if they used the medication for something unrelated to SLE. When these rules were amended in a post hoc analysis, differences between the groups treated with anifrolumab and placebo widened in secondary endpoints for oral corticosteroid dose reduction, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Severity Index response, and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response.

The TULIP-2 trial included 362 patients who received a fixed dose of 300 mg anifrolumab or a placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. In this study, anifrolumab patients showed significant improvement in disease activity on the BICLA scale, compared with placebo patients. The BICLA response was 47.8% in patients taking anifrolumab and 31.5% in placebo-treated patients (P = .001).

In the MUSE phase 2 trial, 305 adults with SLE were randomized to a fixed-dose intravenous infusion of 300 mg or 1,000 mg of anifrolumab or a placebo every 4 weeks, plus SOC, for 48 weeks. Patients in this study showed significant improvement on either dose, compared with placebo.

The results from the MUSE trial were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology Nov. 7, 2016, followed by the TULIP-1 trial in The Lancet Rheumatology Nov. 11, 2019, and the TULIP-2 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 16, 2020.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in all three studies were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, infusion-related reactions, herpes zoster, and cough. Infusion-related reactions in the trials were similar in anifrolumab and placebo patients, and included headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness.

Anifrolumab has not been evaluated in patients with severe active lupus nephritis or severe active central nervous system lupus and is not recommended for these patients, according to the statement.

AstraZeneca said in its statement that anifrolumab is also under regulatory review in Japan and the European Union, and it continues to evaluate anifrolumab in patients with SLE in a long-term extension phase 3 trial and a phase 3 trial assessing subcutaneous delivery. The company said it “is exploring the potential of Saphnelo in a variety of diseases where type I IFN plays a key role, including lupus nephritis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and myositis.”

Anifrolumab, an inhibitor of type 1 interferons, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are receiving standard therapy, according to a statement released Aug. 2 from its manufacturer, AstraZeneca.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab will be marketed as Saphnelo. It is a fully human monoclonal antibody against subunit 1 of the type 1 interferon receptor, and its approval represents the only new treatment approved for patients with SLE in a decade. The recommended dosage is 300 mg as an intravenous infusion over a 30-minute period every 4 weeks, according to its prescribing information, and it will be sold in a single-dose vial containing 300 mg/2 mL (150 mg/mL).

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Increased type I interferon (IFN) signaling is associated with increased disease activity in patients with SLE, and the option of a type I IFN receptor antagonist may allow physicians to treat patients with fewer corticosteroids, according to the statement.

The approval was based on data from three trials. The TULIP (Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway) phase 3 research included two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. The TULIP trials each enrolled seropositive patients with moderate to severe active disease despite standard-of-care therapy (SOC), which included oral corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants (methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil). All patients met American College of Rheumatology criteria and had an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K of 6 or greater, as well as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index scoring showing one or more organ systems with grade A involvement or two or more with grade B. Both trials required stable SOC therapy throughout the study except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients who were receiving 10 mg/day or more of prednisone or its equivalent at study entry.

TULIP-1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of SLE Responder Index (SRI) at 52 weeks, but investigators determined after the trial that some patients taking anifrolumab had been inappropriately labeled as nonresponders because the trial automatically required any patient who used a restricted drug, including NSAIDs, to be classified as a nonresponder even if they used the medication for something unrelated to SLE. When these rules were amended in a post hoc analysis, differences between the groups treated with anifrolumab and placebo widened in secondary endpoints for oral corticosteroid dose reduction, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Severity Index response, and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response.

The TULIP-2 trial included 362 patients who received a fixed dose of 300 mg anifrolumab or a placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. In this study, anifrolumab patients showed significant improvement in disease activity on the BICLA scale, compared with placebo patients. The BICLA response was 47.8% in patients taking anifrolumab and 31.5% in placebo-treated patients (P = .001).

In the MUSE phase 2 trial, 305 adults with SLE were randomized to a fixed-dose intravenous infusion of 300 mg or 1,000 mg of anifrolumab or a placebo every 4 weeks, plus SOC, for 48 weeks. Patients in this study showed significant improvement on either dose, compared with placebo.

The results from the MUSE trial were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology Nov. 7, 2016, followed by the TULIP-1 trial in The Lancet Rheumatology Nov. 11, 2019, and the TULIP-2 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 16, 2020.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in all three studies were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, infusion-related reactions, herpes zoster, and cough. Infusion-related reactions in the trials were similar in anifrolumab and placebo patients, and included headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness.

Anifrolumab has not been evaluated in patients with severe active lupus nephritis or severe active central nervous system lupus and is not recommended for these patients, according to the statement.

AstraZeneca said in its statement that anifrolumab is also under regulatory review in Japan and the European Union, and it continues to evaluate anifrolumab in patients with SLE in a long-term extension phase 3 trial and a phase 3 trial assessing subcutaneous delivery. The company said it “is exploring the potential of Saphnelo in a variety of diseases where type I IFN plays a key role, including lupus nephritis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and myositis.”

Anifrolumab, an inhibitor of type 1 interferons, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who are receiving standard therapy, according to a statement released Aug. 2 from its manufacturer, AstraZeneca.

Courtesy AstraZeneca

Anifrolumab will be marketed as Saphnelo. It is a fully human monoclonal antibody against subunit 1 of the type 1 interferon receptor, and its approval represents the only new treatment approved for patients with SLE in a decade. The recommended dosage is 300 mg as an intravenous infusion over a 30-minute period every 4 weeks, according to its prescribing information, and it will be sold in a single-dose vial containing 300 mg/2 mL (150 mg/mL).

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

Increased type I interferon (IFN) signaling is associated with increased disease activity in patients with SLE, and the option of a type I IFN receptor antagonist may allow physicians to treat patients with fewer corticosteroids, according to the statement.

The approval was based on data from three trials. The TULIP (Treatment of Uncontrolled Lupus via the Interferon Pathway) phase 3 research included two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, TULIP-1 and TULIP-2. The TULIP trials each enrolled seropositive patients with moderate to severe active disease despite standard-of-care therapy (SOC), which included oral corticosteroids, antimalarials, and immunosuppressants (methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate mofetil). All patients met American College of Rheumatology criteria and had an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI)-2K of 6 or greater, as well as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index scoring showing one or more organ systems with grade A involvement or two or more with grade B. Both trials required stable SOC therapy throughout the study except for mandatory attempts at oral corticosteroid tapering for patients who were receiving 10 mg/day or more of prednisone or its equivalent at study entry.

TULIP-1 failed to meet its primary endpoint of SLE Responder Index (SRI) at 52 weeks, but investigators determined after the trial that some patients taking anifrolumab had been inappropriately labeled as nonresponders because the trial automatically required any patient who used a restricted drug, including NSAIDs, to be classified as a nonresponder even if they used the medication for something unrelated to SLE. When these rules were amended in a post hoc analysis, differences between the groups treated with anifrolumab and placebo widened in secondary endpoints for oral corticosteroid dose reduction, Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Severity Index response, and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response.

The TULIP-2 trial included 362 patients who received a fixed dose of 300 mg anifrolumab or a placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 48 weeks. In this study, anifrolumab patients showed significant improvement in disease activity on the BICLA scale, compared with placebo patients. The BICLA response was 47.8% in patients taking anifrolumab and 31.5% in placebo-treated patients (P = .001).

In the MUSE phase 2 trial, 305 adults with SLE were randomized to a fixed-dose intravenous infusion of 300 mg or 1,000 mg of anifrolumab or a placebo every 4 weeks, plus SOC, for 48 weeks. Patients in this study showed significant improvement on either dose, compared with placebo.

The results from the MUSE trial were published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology Nov. 7, 2016, followed by the TULIP-1 trial in The Lancet Rheumatology Nov. 11, 2019, and the TULIP-2 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine Jan. 16, 2020.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in all three studies were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, bronchitis, infusion-related reactions, herpes zoster, and cough. Infusion-related reactions in the trials were similar in anifrolumab and placebo patients, and included headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and dizziness.

Anifrolumab has not been evaluated in patients with severe active lupus nephritis or severe active central nervous system lupus and is not recommended for these patients, according to the statement.

AstraZeneca said in its statement that anifrolumab is also under regulatory review in Japan and the European Union, and it continues to evaluate anifrolumab in patients with SLE in a long-term extension phase 3 trial and a phase 3 trial assessing subcutaneous delivery. The company said it “is exploring the potential of Saphnelo in a variety of diseases where type I IFN plays a key role, including lupus nephritis, cutaneous lupus erythematosus, and myositis.”

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Dr. Gandhi), and the School of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India (Drs. Gandhi and Tiwari).

Objective: Calculation of HEART score to (1) stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and to predict the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and (2) demonstrate feasibility of HEART score in our local settings.

Design: A prospective cohort study of patients with a chief complaint of chest pain concerning for acute coronary syndrome.

Setting: Participants were recruited from the emergency department (ED) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center and a resource-limited setting in Mumbai, India.

Participants: We evaluated 141 patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED and stratified them using the HEART score. To assess patients’ progress, a follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED.

Measurements: The primary outcomes were a risk stratification, 6-week occurrence of MACE, and performance of unscheduled revascularization or stress testing. The secondary outcomes were discharge or death.

Results: The 141 participants were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups: 67 (47.52%), 44 (31.21%), and 30 (21.28%), respectively. The 6-week incidence of MACE in each category was 1.49%, 18.18%, and 90%, respectively. An acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Overall, 98.5% of low-risk patients and 93.33% of high-risk patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge; therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrated reduced health care utilization. All the survey respondents found the HEART score to be feasible. The patient characteristics and risk profile of the patients with and without MACE demonstrated that: patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke.

Conclusion: The HEART score seems to be a useful tool for risk stratification and a reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and can therefore be used for triage.

Keywords: chest pain; emergency department; HEART score; acute coronary syndrome; major adverse cardiac events; myocardial infarction; revascularization.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have epidemic proportions worldwide. Globally, in 2012, CVD led to 17.5 million deaths,^1,2 with more than 75% of them occurring in developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, where mortality from CHD is rapidly declining, it is increasing in developing countries.^1,3 Current estimates from epidemiologic studies from various parts of India indicate the prevalence of CHD in India to be between 7% and 13% in urban populations and 2% and 7% in rural populations.⁴

Premature mortality in terms of years of life lost because of CVD in India increased by 59% over a 20-year span, from 23.2 million in 1990 to 37 million in 2010.⁵ Studies conducted in Mumbai (Mumbai Cohort Study) reported very high CVD mortality rates, approaching 500 per 100 000 for men and 250 per 100 000 for women.^6,7 However, to the best of our knowledge, in the Indian population, there are minimal data on utilization of a triage score, such as the HEART score, in chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED) in a resource-limited setting.

The most common reason for admitting patients to the ED is chest pain.⁸ There are various cardiac and noncardiac etiologies of chest pain presentation. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be ruled out first in every patient presenting with chest pain. However, 80% of patients with ACS have no clear diagnostic features on presentation.⁹ The timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with ACS improves their prognosis. Therefore, clinicians tend to start each patient on ACS treatment to reduce the risk, which often leads to increased costs due to unnecessary, time-consuming diagnostic procedures that may place burdens on both the health care system and the patient.¹⁰

Several risk-stratifying tools have been developed in the last few years. Both the GRACE and TIMI risk scores have been designed for risk stratification of patients with proven ACS and not for the chest pain population at the ED.¹¹ Some of these tools are applicable to patients with all types of chest pain presenting to the ED, such as the Manchester Triage System. Other, more selective systems are devoted to the risk stratification of suspected ACS in the ED. One is the HEART score.¹²

The first study on the HEART score—an acronym that stands for History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin—was done by Backus et al, who proved that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which allows clinicians to stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk and to guide their clinical decision-making accordingly. It was developed to provide clinicians with a simple, reliable predictor of cardiac risk on the basis of the lowest score of 0 (very low-risk) up to a score of 10 (very high-risk).

We studied the clinical performance of the HEART score in patients with chest pain, focusing on the efficacy and safety of rapidly identifying patients at risk of MACE. We aimed to determine (1) whether the HEART score is a reliable predictor of outcomes of chest pain patients presenting to the ED; (2) whether the score is feasible in our local settings; and (3) whether it describes the risk profile of patients with and without MACE.

Methods

Setting

Participants were recruited from the ED of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a municipal teaching hospital in Mumbai. The study institute is a tertiary care academic medical center located in Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is a resource-limited setting serving urban, suburban, and rural populations. Participants requiring urgent attention are first seen by a casualty officer and then referred to the emergency ward. Here, the physician on duty evaluates them and decides on admission to the various wards, like the general ward, medical intensive care unit (ICU), coronary care unit (CCU), etc. The specialist’s opinion may also be obtained before admission. Critically ill patients are initially admitted to the emergency ward and stabilized before being shifted to other areas of the hospital.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years and older presenting with symptoms of acute chest pain or suspected ACS were stratified by priority using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score. Only patients presenting to the ED were eligible for the study. Informed consent from the patient or next of kin was mandatory for participation in the study.

Patients were determined ineligible for the following reasons: a clear cause for chest pain other than ACS (eg, trauma, diagnosed aortic dissection), persisting or recurrent chest pain caused by rheumatic diseases or cancer (a terminal illness), pregnancy, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, or incomplete data.

Study design

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients arriving at the tertiary care hospital with a chief complaint of “chest pain” concerning for ACS. All participants provided witnessed written informed consent. Patients were screened over approximately a 3-month period, from July 2019 to October 2019, after acquiring approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Any patient who was admitted to the ED due to chest pain, prehospital referrals based on a physician’s suspicions of a heart condition, and previous medical treatment due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) was eligible. All patients were stratified by priority in our ED using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score—and were followed up by phone within 6 weeks after presenting to the ED, to assess their progress.

We conducted our study to determine the importance of calculating the HEART score in each patient, which will help to correctly place them into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for clinically important, irreversible adverse cardiac events and guide the clinical decision-making. Patients with low risk will avoid costly tests and hospital admissions, thus decreasing the cost of treatment and ensuring timely discharge from the ED. Patients with high risk will be treated immediately, to possibly prevent a life-threatening, ACS-related incident. Thus, the HEART score will serve as a quick and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and help clinicians to make accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices in uncertain situations.

HEART score

The total number of points for History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, and Troponin was noted as the HEART score (Table 1).

For this study, the patient’s history and ECGs were interpreted by internal medicine attending physicians in the ED. The ECG taken in the emergency room was reviewed and classified, and a copy of the admission ECG was added to the file. The recommendation for patients with a HEART score in a particular range was evaluated. Notably, those with a score of 3 or lower led to a recommendation of reassurance and early discharge. Those with a HEART score in the intermediate range (4-6) were admitted to the hospital for further clinical observation and testing, whereas a high HEART score (7-10) led to admission for intensive monitoring and early intervention. In the analysis of HEART score data, we only used those patients having records for all 5 parameters, excluding patients without an ECG or troponin test.

Results

Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined based on Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.¹³ Coronary revascularization was defined as angioplasty with or without stent placement or coronary artery bypass surgery.¹⁴ Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was defined as any therapeutic catheter intervention in the coronary arteries. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was defined as any cardiac surgery in which coronary arteries were operated on.

The primary outcomes in this study were the (1) risk stratification of chest pain patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk categories; (2) incidence of a MACE within 6 weeks of initial presentation. MACE consists of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), PCI, CABG, coronary angiography revealing procedurally correctable stenosis managed conservatively, and death due to any cause.

Our secondary outcomes were discharge or death due to any cause within 6 weeks after presentation.

Follow-up

Within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED, a follow-up phone call was placed to assess the patient’s progress. The follow-up focused on the endpoint of MACE, comprising all-cause death, MI, and revascularization. No patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

We aimed to find a difference in the 6-week MACE between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the HEART score. The prevalence of CHD in India is 10%,⁴ and assuming an α of 0.05, we needed a sample of 141 patients from the ED patient population. Continuous variables were presented by mean (SD), and categorical variables as percentages. We used t test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison of means for continuous variables, χ² for categorical variables, and Fisher’s exact test for comparison of the categorical variables. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

We evaluated 141 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain concerning for ACS during the study period, from July 2019 to October 2019. Patients were 57.54 (13.13) years of age. The male to female distribution was 85 to 56. Other patient characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Primary outcomes

The risk stratification of the HEART score in chest pain patients and the incidence of 6-week MACE are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

The distribution of the HEART score’s 5 elements in the groups with or without MACE endpoints is shown in Table 5. Notice the significant differences between the groups. A follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after the presentation to the ED to assess the patient’s progress. The 6-week follow-up call data are included in Table 6.

Of 141 patients, 36 patients (25.53%) were diagnosed with MACE within 6 weeks of presentation. An AMI was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%). Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent PCI, and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent CABG. The rest of the patients were treated with medications only.

Myocardial infarction—An AMI was diagnosed in 24 of the 141 patients (17.02%). Twenty-one of those already had positive markers on admission (apparently, these AMI had started before their arrival to the emergency room). One AMI occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male, and another occurred 10 days after discharge. A further AMI occurred 2 weeks after discharge. All 3 patients belonged to the intermediate-risk group.

Revascularization—Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%). Revascularization was performed in 19 patients (13.48%), of which 15 were PCIs (10.64%) and 4 were CABGs (2.84%).

Mortality—One patient died from the study population. He was a 72-year-old male who died 14 days after admission. He had a HEART score of 8.

Among the 67 low-risk patients:

• MACE: Coronary angiography was performed in 1 patient (1.49%). Among the 67 patients in the low-risk category, there was no cases of AMI or deaths. The remaining 66 patients (98.51%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• General practitioner (GP) visits/readmissions following discharge: Two of 67 patients (2.99%) had GP visits following discharge, of which 1 was uneventful. The other patient, a 64-year-old male, was readmitted due to a recurrent history of chest pain and underwent coronary angiography.

Among the 44 intermediate-risk patients:

• MACE: Of the 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) who had coronary angiography, 3 patients (6.82%) had AMI, of which 1 occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male. Two patients had AMI following discharge. There were no deaths. Overall, 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Three of 44 patients (6.82%) had repeated visits following discharge. One was a GP visit that was uneventful. The remaining 2 patients were diagnosed with AMI and readmitted following discharge. One AMI occurred 10 days after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 6; another occurred 2 weeks after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 5.

Among the 30 high-risk patients:

• MACE: Twenty-three of 30 patients (76.67%) underwent coronary angiography. One patient died 5 days after discharge. The patient had a HEART score of 8. Most patients however, had an uneventful recovery following discharge (28, 93.33%).
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Five of 30 patients (16.67%) had repeated visits following discharge. Two were uneventful. Two patients had a history of recurrent chest pain that resolved on Sorbitrate. One patient was readmitted 2 weeks following discharge due to a complication: a left ventricular clot was found. The patient had a HEART score of 10.

Secondary outcome—Overall, 140 of 141 patients were discharged. One patient died: a 72-year-old male with a HEART score of 8.

Feasibility—To determine the ease and feasibility of performing a HEART score in chest pain patients presenting to the ED, a survey was distributed to the internal medicine physicians in the ED. In the survey, the Likert scale was used to rate the ease of utilizing the HEART score and whether the physicians found it feasible to use it for risk stratification of their chest pain patients. A total of 12 of 15 respondents (80%) found it “easy” to use. Of the remaining 3 respondents, 2 (13.33%) rated the HEART score “very easy” to use, while 1 (6.66%) considered it “difficult” to work with. None of the respondents said that it was not feasible to perform a HEART score in the ED.

Risk factors for reaching an endpoint:

We compared risk profiles between the patient groups with and without an endpoint. The group of patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males than the group of patients without MACE. Moreover, they also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke. These also showed a significant association with MACE. Obesity was not included in our risk factors as we did not have data collected to measure body mass index. Results are represented in Table 7.

Discussion

Our study described a patient population presenting to an ED with chest pain as their primary complaint. The results of this prospective study confirm that the HEART score is an excellent system to triage chest pain patients. It provides the clinician with a reliable predictor of the outcome (MACE) after the patient’s arrival, based on available clinical data and in a resource-limited setting like ours.

Cardiovascular epidemiology studies indicate that this has become a significant public health problem in India.¹ Several risk scores for ACS have been published in European and American guidelines. However, in the Indian population, minimal data are available on utilization of such a triage score (HEART score) in chest pain patients in the ED in a resource-limited setting, to the best of our knowledge. In India, only 1 such study is reported,¹⁵ at the Sundaram Medical Foundation, a 170-bed community hospital in Chennai. In this study, 13 of 14 patients (92.86%) with a high HEART score had MACE, indicating a sensitivity of 92.86%; in the 44 patients with a low HEART score, 1 patient (2.22%) had MACE, indicating a specificity of 97.78%; and in the 28 patients with a moderate HEART score, 12 patients (42.86%) had MACE.  

In looking for the optimal risk-stratifying system for chest pain patients, we analyzed the HEART score. The first study on the HEART score was done Backus et al, proving that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score had good discriminatory power, too. The C statistic for the HEART score for ACS occurrence shows a value of 0.83. This signifies a good-to-excellent ability to stratify all-cause chest pain patients in the ED for their risk of MACE. The application of the HEART score to our patient population demonstrated that the majority of the patients belonged to the low-risk category, as reported in the first cohort study that applied the HEART score.⁸ The relationship between the HEART score category and occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks showed a curve with 3 different patterns, corresponding to the 3 risk categories defined in the literature.^11,12 The risk stratification of chest pain patients using the 3 categories (0-3, 4-6, 7-10) identified MACE with an incidence similar to the multicenter study of Backus et al,^10,11 but with a greater risk of MACE in the high-risk category (Figure).

Thus, our study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the established cut-off scores of 4 and 7 are shown in Table 8. The patients in the low-risk category, corresponding to a score < 4, had a very high negative predictive value, thus identifying a small-risk population. The patients in the high-risk category (score ≥ 7) showed a high positive predictive value, allowing the identification of a high-risk population, even in patients with more atypical presentations. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians to make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events.^11,12

Our study tested the efficacy of the HEART score pathway in helping clinicians make smart diagnostic and therapeutic choices. It confirmed that the HEART score was accurate in predicting the short-term incidence of MACE, thus stratifying patients according to their risk severity. In our study, 67 of 141 patients (47.52%) had low-risk HEART scores, and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 1.49%. We omitted the diagnostic and treatment evaluation for patients in the low-risk category and moved onto discharge. Overall, 66 of 67 patients (98.51%) in the low-risk category had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Only 2 of 67 these patients (2.99%) of patients had health care utilization following discharge. Therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrates reduced health care utilization. Previous studies have shown similar results.^9,12,14,16 For instance, in a prospective study conducted in the Netherlands, low-risk patients representing 36.4% of the total were found to have a low MACE rate (1.7%).⁹ These low-risk patients were categorized as appropriate and safe for ED discharge without additional cardiac evaluation or inpatient admission.⁹ Another retrospective study in Portugal,¹² and one in Chennai, India,¹⁵ found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 2.00% and 2.22%, respectively. The results of the first HEART Pathway Randomized Control Trial¹⁴ showed that the HEART score pathway reduces health care utilization (cardiac testing, hospitalization, and hospital length of stay). The study also showed that these gains occurred without any of the patients that were identified for early discharge, suffering from MACE at 30 days, or secondary increase in cardiac-related hospitalizations. Similar results were obtained by a randomized trial conducted in North Carolina¹⁷ that also demonstrated a reduction in objective cardiac testing, a doubling of the rate of early discharge from the ED, and a reduced length of stay by half a day. Another study using a modified HEART score also demonstrated that when low-risk patients are evaluated with cardiac testing, the likelihood for false positives is high.¹⁶ Hoffman et al also reported that patients randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) received > 2.5 times more radiation exposure.¹⁶ Thus, low-risk patients may be safely discharged without the need for stress testing or CCTA.

In our study, 30 out of 141 patients (21.28%) had high-risk HEART scores (7-10), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 90%. Based on the pathway leading to inpatient admission and intensive treatment, 23 of 30 patients (76.67%) patients in our study underwent coronary angiography and further therapeutic treatment. In the high-risk category, 28 of 30 patients (93.33%) patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Previous studies have shown similar results. A retrospective study in Portugal showed that 76.9% of the high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE.¹² In a study in the Netherlands,⁹ 72.7% of high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE. Therefore, a HEART score of ≥ 7 in patients implies early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary, without noninvasive treatment preceding it.⁸

In terms of intermediate risk, in our study 44 of 141 patients (31.21%) patients had an intermediate-risk HEART score (4-6), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 18.18%. Based on the pathway, they were kept in the observation ward on admission. In our study, 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) underwent coronary angiography and further treatment; 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge. In a prospective study in the Netherlands, 46.1% of patients with an intermediate score had a 6-week MACE incidence of 16.6%.¹⁰ Similarly, in another retrospective study in Portugal, the incidence of 6-week MACE in intermediate-risk patients (36.7%) was found to be 15.6%.¹² Therefore, in patients with a HEART score of 4-6 points, immediate discharge is not an option, as this figure indicates a risk of 18.18% for an adverse outcome. These patients should be admitted for clinical observation, treated as an ACS awaiting final diagnosis, and subjected to noninvasive investigations, such as repeated troponin. Using the HEART score as guidance in the treatment of chest pain patients will benefit patients on both sides of the spectrum.^11,12

Our sample presented a male predominance, a wide range of age, and a mean age similar to that of previous studies.^12.16 Some risk factors, we found, can increase significantly the odds of chest pain being of cardiovascular origin, such as male gender, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia. Other studies also reported similar findings.^8,12,16 Risk factors for premature CHD have been quantified in the case-control INTERHEART study.¹ In the INTERHEART study, 8 common risk factors explained > 90% of AMIs in South Asian and Indian patients. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, smoking or tobacco use, known hypertension, known diabetes, abdominal obesity, physical inactivity, low fruit and vegetable intake, and psychosocial stress.¹ Regarding the feasibility of treating physicians using the HEART score in the ED, we observed that, based on the Likert scale, 80% of survey respondents found it easy to use, and 100% found it feasible in the ED.

However, there were certain limitations to our study. It involved a single academic medical center and a small sample size, which limit generalizability of the findings. In addition, troponin levels are not calculated at our institution, as it is a resource-limited setting; therefore, we used a positive and negative as +2 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion

The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome of patients with chest pain after arrival to the ED and can be used for triage. For patients with low HEART scores (0-3), short-term MACE can be excluded with greater than 98% certainty. In these patients, one may consider reserved treatment and discharge policies that may also reduce health care utilization. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10), the high risk of MACE (90%) may indicate early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events. Age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors may also be considered in the assessment of patients. This study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE.

Corresponding author: Smrati Bajpai Tiwari, MD, DNB, FAIMER, Department of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Acharya Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Dr. Gandhi), and the School of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India (Drs. Gandhi and Tiwari).

Objective: Calculation of HEART score to (1) stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and to predict the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and (2) demonstrate feasibility of HEART score in our local settings.

Design: A prospective cohort study of patients with a chief complaint of chest pain concerning for acute coronary syndrome.

Setting: Participants were recruited from the emergency department (ED) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center and a resource-limited setting in Mumbai, India.

Participants: We evaluated 141 patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED and stratified them using the HEART score. To assess patients’ progress, a follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED.

Measurements: The primary outcomes were a risk stratification, 6-week occurrence of MACE, and performance of unscheduled revascularization or stress testing. The secondary outcomes were discharge or death.

Results: The 141 participants were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups: 67 (47.52%), 44 (31.21%), and 30 (21.28%), respectively. The 6-week incidence of MACE in each category was 1.49%, 18.18%, and 90%, respectively. An acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Overall, 98.5% of low-risk patients and 93.33% of high-risk patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge; therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrated reduced health care utilization. All the survey respondents found the HEART score to be feasible. The patient characteristics and risk profile of the patients with and without MACE demonstrated that: patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke.

Conclusion: The HEART score seems to be a useful tool for risk stratification and a reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and can therefore be used for triage.

Keywords: chest pain; emergency department; HEART score; acute coronary syndrome; major adverse cardiac events; myocardial infarction; revascularization.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have epidemic proportions worldwide. Globally, in 2012, CVD led to 17.5 million deaths,^1,2 with more than 75% of them occurring in developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, where mortality from CHD is rapidly declining, it is increasing in developing countries.^1,3 Current estimates from epidemiologic studies from various parts of India indicate the prevalence of CHD in India to be between 7% and 13% in urban populations and 2% and 7% in rural populations.⁴

Premature mortality in terms of years of life lost because of CVD in India increased by 59% over a 20-year span, from 23.2 million in 1990 to 37 million in 2010.⁵ Studies conducted in Mumbai (Mumbai Cohort Study) reported very high CVD mortality rates, approaching 500 per 100 000 for men and 250 per 100 000 for women.^6,7 However, to the best of our knowledge, in the Indian population, there are minimal data on utilization of a triage score, such as the HEART score, in chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED) in a resource-limited setting.

The most common reason for admitting patients to the ED is chest pain.⁸ There are various cardiac and noncardiac etiologies of chest pain presentation. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be ruled out first in every patient presenting with chest pain. However, 80% of patients with ACS have no clear diagnostic features on presentation.⁹ The timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with ACS improves their prognosis. Therefore, clinicians tend to start each patient on ACS treatment to reduce the risk, which often leads to increased costs due to unnecessary, time-consuming diagnostic procedures that may place burdens on both the health care system and the patient.¹⁰

Several risk-stratifying tools have been developed in the last few years. Both the GRACE and TIMI risk scores have been designed for risk stratification of patients with proven ACS and not for the chest pain population at the ED.¹¹ Some of these tools are applicable to patients with all types of chest pain presenting to the ED, such as the Manchester Triage System. Other, more selective systems are devoted to the risk stratification of suspected ACS in the ED. One is the HEART score.¹²

The first study on the HEART score—an acronym that stands for History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin—was done by Backus et al, who proved that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which allows clinicians to stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk and to guide their clinical decision-making accordingly. It was developed to provide clinicians with a simple, reliable predictor of cardiac risk on the basis of the lowest score of 0 (very low-risk) up to a score of 10 (very high-risk).

We studied the clinical performance of the HEART score in patients with chest pain, focusing on the efficacy and safety of rapidly identifying patients at risk of MACE. We aimed to determine (1) whether the HEART score is a reliable predictor of outcomes of chest pain patients presenting to the ED; (2) whether the score is feasible in our local settings; and (3) whether it describes the risk profile of patients with and without MACE.

Methods

Setting

Participants were recruited from the ED of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a municipal teaching hospital in Mumbai. The study institute is a tertiary care academic medical center located in Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is a resource-limited setting serving urban, suburban, and rural populations. Participants requiring urgent attention are first seen by a casualty officer and then referred to the emergency ward. Here, the physician on duty evaluates them and decides on admission to the various wards, like the general ward, medical intensive care unit (ICU), coronary care unit (CCU), etc. The specialist’s opinion may also be obtained before admission. Critically ill patients are initially admitted to the emergency ward and stabilized before being shifted to other areas of the hospital.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years and older presenting with symptoms of acute chest pain or suspected ACS were stratified by priority using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score. Only patients presenting to the ED were eligible for the study. Informed consent from the patient or next of kin was mandatory for participation in the study.

Patients were determined ineligible for the following reasons: a clear cause for chest pain other than ACS (eg, trauma, diagnosed aortic dissection), persisting or recurrent chest pain caused by rheumatic diseases or cancer (a terminal illness), pregnancy, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, or incomplete data.

Study design

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients arriving at the tertiary care hospital with a chief complaint of “chest pain” concerning for ACS. All participants provided witnessed written informed consent. Patients were screened over approximately a 3-month period, from July 2019 to October 2019, after acquiring approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Any patient who was admitted to the ED due to chest pain, prehospital referrals based on a physician’s suspicions of a heart condition, and previous medical treatment due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) was eligible. All patients were stratified by priority in our ED using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score—and were followed up by phone within 6 weeks after presenting to the ED, to assess their progress.

We conducted our study to determine the importance of calculating the HEART score in each patient, which will help to correctly place them into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for clinically important, irreversible adverse cardiac events and guide the clinical decision-making. Patients with low risk will avoid costly tests and hospital admissions, thus decreasing the cost of treatment and ensuring timely discharge from the ED. Patients with high risk will be treated immediately, to possibly prevent a life-threatening, ACS-related incident. Thus, the HEART score will serve as a quick and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and help clinicians to make accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices in uncertain situations.

HEART score

The total number of points for History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, and Troponin was noted as the HEART score (Table 1).

For this study, the patient’s history and ECGs were interpreted by internal medicine attending physicians in the ED. The ECG taken in the emergency room was reviewed and classified, and a copy of the admission ECG was added to the file. The recommendation for patients with a HEART score in a particular range was evaluated. Notably, those with a score of 3 or lower led to a recommendation of reassurance and early discharge. Those with a HEART score in the intermediate range (4-6) were admitted to the hospital for further clinical observation and testing, whereas a high HEART score (7-10) led to admission for intensive monitoring and early intervention. In the analysis of HEART score data, we only used those patients having records for all 5 parameters, excluding patients without an ECG or troponin test.

Results

Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined based on Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.¹³ Coronary revascularization was defined as angioplasty with or without stent placement or coronary artery bypass surgery.¹⁴ Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was defined as any therapeutic catheter intervention in the coronary arteries. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was defined as any cardiac surgery in which coronary arteries were operated on.

The primary outcomes in this study were the (1) risk stratification of chest pain patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk categories; (2) incidence of a MACE within 6 weeks of initial presentation. MACE consists of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), PCI, CABG, coronary angiography revealing procedurally correctable stenosis managed conservatively, and death due to any cause.

Our secondary outcomes were discharge or death due to any cause within 6 weeks after presentation.

Follow-up

Within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED, a follow-up phone call was placed to assess the patient’s progress. The follow-up focused on the endpoint of MACE, comprising all-cause death, MI, and revascularization. No patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

We aimed to find a difference in the 6-week MACE between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the HEART score. The prevalence of CHD in India is 10%,⁴ and assuming an α of 0.05, we needed a sample of 141 patients from the ED patient population. Continuous variables were presented by mean (SD), and categorical variables as percentages. We used t test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison of means for continuous variables, χ² for categorical variables, and Fisher’s exact test for comparison of the categorical variables. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

We evaluated 141 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain concerning for ACS during the study period, from July 2019 to October 2019. Patients were 57.54 (13.13) years of age. The male to female distribution was 85 to 56. Other patient characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Primary outcomes

The risk stratification of the HEART score in chest pain patients and the incidence of 6-week MACE are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

The distribution of the HEART score’s 5 elements in the groups with or without MACE endpoints is shown in Table 5. Notice the significant differences between the groups. A follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after the presentation to the ED to assess the patient’s progress. The 6-week follow-up call data are included in Table 6.

Of 141 patients, 36 patients (25.53%) were diagnosed with MACE within 6 weeks of presentation. An AMI was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%). Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent PCI, and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent CABG. The rest of the patients were treated with medications only.

Myocardial infarction—An AMI was diagnosed in 24 of the 141 patients (17.02%). Twenty-one of those already had positive markers on admission (apparently, these AMI had started before their arrival to the emergency room). One AMI occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male, and another occurred 10 days after discharge. A further AMI occurred 2 weeks after discharge. All 3 patients belonged to the intermediate-risk group.

Revascularization—Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%). Revascularization was performed in 19 patients (13.48%), of which 15 were PCIs (10.64%) and 4 were CABGs (2.84%).

Mortality—One patient died from the study population. He was a 72-year-old male who died 14 days after admission. He had a HEART score of 8.

Among the 67 low-risk patients:

• MACE: Coronary angiography was performed in 1 patient (1.49%). Among the 67 patients in the low-risk category, there was no cases of AMI or deaths. The remaining 66 patients (98.51%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• General practitioner (GP) visits/readmissions following discharge: Two of 67 patients (2.99%) had GP visits following discharge, of which 1 was uneventful. The other patient, a 64-year-old male, was readmitted due to a recurrent history of chest pain and underwent coronary angiography.

Among the 44 intermediate-risk patients:

• MACE: Of the 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) who had coronary angiography, 3 patients (6.82%) had AMI, of which 1 occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male. Two patients had AMI following discharge. There were no deaths. Overall, 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Three of 44 patients (6.82%) had repeated visits following discharge. One was a GP visit that was uneventful. The remaining 2 patients were diagnosed with AMI and readmitted following discharge. One AMI occurred 10 days after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 6; another occurred 2 weeks after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 5.

Among the 30 high-risk patients:

• MACE: Twenty-three of 30 patients (76.67%) underwent coronary angiography. One patient died 5 days after discharge. The patient had a HEART score of 8. Most patients however, had an uneventful recovery following discharge (28, 93.33%).
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Five of 30 patients (16.67%) had repeated visits following discharge. Two were uneventful. Two patients had a history of recurrent chest pain that resolved on Sorbitrate. One patient was readmitted 2 weeks following discharge due to a complication: a left ventricular clot was found. The patient had a HEART score of 10.

Secondary outcome—Overall, 140 of 141 patients were discharged. One patient died: a 72-year-old male with a HEART score of 8.

Feasibility—To determine the ease and feasibility of performing a HEART score in chest pain patients presenting to the ED, a survey was distributed to the internal medicine physicians in the ED. In the survey, the Likert scale was used to rate the ease of utilizing the HEART score and whether the physicians found it feasible to use it for risk stratification of their chest pain patients. A total of 12 of 15 respondents (80%) found it “easy” to use. Of the remaining 3 respondents, 2 (13.33%) rated the HEART score “very easy” to use, while 1 (6.66%) considered it “difficult” to work with. None of the respondents said that it was not feasible to perform a HEART score in the ED.

Risk factors for reaching an endpoint:

We compared risk profiles between the patient groups with and without an endpoint. The group of patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males than the group of patients without MACE. Moreover, they also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke. These also showed a significant association with MACE. Obesity was not included in our risk factors as we did not have data collected to measure body mass index. Results are represented in Table 7.

Discussion

Our study described a patient population presenting to an ED with chest pain as their primary complaint. The results of this prospective study confirm that the HEART score is an excellent system to triage chest pain patients. It provides the clinician with a reliable predictor of the outcome (MACE) after the patient’s arrival, based on available clinical data and in a resource-limited setting like ours.

Cardiovascular epidemiology studies indicate that this has become a significant public health problem in India.¹ Several risk scores for ACS have been published in European and American guidelines. However, in the Indian population, minimal data are available on utilization of such a triage score (HEART score) in chest pain patients in the ED in a resource-limited setting, to the best of our knowledge. In India, only 1 such study is reported,¹⁵ at the Sundaram Medical Foundation, a 170-bed community hospital in Chennai. In this study, 13 of 14 patients (92.86%) with a high HEART score had MACE, indicating a sensitivity of 92.86%; in the 44 patients with a low HEART score, 1 patient (2.22%) had MACE, indicating a specificity of 97.78%; and in the 28 patients with a moderate HEART score, 12 patients (42.86%) had MACE.  

In looking for the optimal risk-stratifying system for chest pain patients, we analyzed the HEART score. The first study on the HEART score was done Backus et al, proving that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score had good discriminatory power, too. The C statistic for the HEART score for ACS occurrence shows a value of 0.83. This signifies a good-to-excellent ability to stratify all-cause chest pain patients in the ED for their risk of MACE. The application of the HEART score to our patient population demonstrated that the majority of the patients belonged to the low-risk category, as reported in the first cohort study that applied the HEART score.⁸ The relationship between the HEART score category and occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks showed a curve with 3 different patterns, corresponding to the 3 risk categories defined in the literature.^11,12 The risk stratification of chest pain patients using the 3 categories (0-3, 4-6, 7-10) identified MACE with an incidence similar to the multicenter study of Backus et al,^10,11 but with a greater risk of MACE in the high-risk category (Figure).

Thus, our study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the established cut-off scores of 4 and 7 are shown in Table 8. The patients in the low-risk category, corresponding to a score < 4, had a very high negative predictive value, thus identifying a small-risk population. The patients in the high-risk category (score ≥ 7) showed a high positive predictive value, allowing the identification of a high-risk population, even in patients with more atypical presentations. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians to make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events.^11,12

Our study tested the efficacy of the HEART score pathway in helping clinicians make smart diagnostic and therapeutic choices. It confirmed that the HEART score was accurate in predicting the short-term incidence of MACE, thus stratifying patients according to their risk severity. In our study, 67 of 141 patients (47.52%) had low-risk HEART scores, and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 1.49%. We omitted the diagnostic and treatment evaluation for patients in the low-risk category and moved onto discharge. Overall, 66 of 67 patients (98.51%) in the low-risk category had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Only 2 of 67 these patients (2.99%) of patients had health care utilization following discharge. Therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrates reduced health care utilization. Previous studies have shown similar results.^9,12,14,16 For instance, in a prospective study conducted in the Netherlands, low-risk patients representing 36.4% of the total were found to have a low MACE rate (1.7%).⁹ These low-risk patients were categorized as appropriate and safe for ED discharge without additional cardiac evaluation or inpatient admission.⁹ Another retrospective study in Portugal,¹² and one in Chennai, India,¹⁵ found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 2.00% and 2.22%, respectively. The results of the first HEART Pathway Randomized Control Trial¹⁴ showed that the HEART score pathway reduces health care utilization (cardiac testing, hospitalization, and hospital length of stay). The study also showed that these gains occurred without any of the patients that were identified for early discharge, suffering from MACE at 30 days, or secondary increase in cardiac-related hospitalizations. Similar results were obtained by a randomized trial conducted in North Carolina¹⁷ that also demonstrated a reduction in objective cardiac testing, a doubling of the rate of early discharge from the ED, and a reduced length of stay by half a day. Another study using a modified HEART score also demonstrated that when low-risk patients are evaluated with cardiac testing, the likelihood for false positives is high.¹⁶ Hoffman et al also reported that patients randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) received > 2.5 times more radiation exposure.¹⁶ Thus, low-risk patients may be safely discharged without the need for stress testing or CCTA.

In our study, 30 out of 141 patients (21.28%) had high-risk HEART scores (7-10), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 90%. Based on the pathway leading to inpatient admission and intensive treatment, 23 of 30 patients (76.67%) patients in our study underwent coronary angiography and further therapeutic treatment. In the high-risk category, 28 of 30 patients (93.33%) patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Previous studies have shown similar results. A retrospective study in Portugal showed that 76.9% of the high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE.¹² In a study in the Netherlands,⁹ 72.7% of high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE. Therefore, a HEART score of ≥ 7 in patients implies early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary, without noninvasive treatment preceding it.⁸

In terms of intermediate risk, in our study 44 of 141 patients (31.21%) patients had an intermediate-risk HEART score (4-6), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 18.18%. Based on the pathway, they were kept in the observation ward on admission. In our study, 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) underwent coronary angiography and further treatment; 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge. In a prospective study in the Netherlands, 46.1% of patients with an intermediate score had a 6-week MACE incidence of 16.6%.¹⁰ Similarly, in another retrospective study in Portugal, the incidence of 6-week MACE in intermediate-risk patients (36.7%) was found to be 15.6%.¹² Therefore, in patients with a HEART score of 4-6 points, immediate discharge is not an option, as this figure indicates a risk of 18.18% for an adverse outcome. These patients should be admitted for clinical observation, treated as an ACS awaiting final diagnosis, and subjected to noninvasive investigations, such as repeated troponin. Using the HEART score as guidance in the treatment of chest pain patients will benefit patients on both sides of the spectrum.^11,12

Our sample presented a male predominance, a wide range of age, and a mean age similar to that of previous studies.^12.16 Some risk factors, we found, can increase significantly the odds of chest pain being of cardiovascular origin, such as male gender, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia. Other studies also reported similar findings.^8,12,16 Risk factors for premature CHD have been quantified in the case-control INTERHEART study.¹ In the INTERHEART study, 8 common risk factors explained > 90% of AMIs in South Asian and Indian patients. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, smoking or tobacco use, known hypertension, known diabetes, abdominal obesity, physical inactivity, low fruit and vegetable intake, and psychosocial stress.¹ Regarding the feasibility of treating physicians using the HEART score in the ED, we observed that, based on the Likert scale, 80% of survey respondents found it easy to use, and 100% found it feasible in the ED.

However, there were certain limitations to our study. It involved a single academic medical center and a small sample size, which limit generalizability of the findings. In addition, troponin levels are not calculated at our institution, as it is a resource-limited setting; therefore, we used a positive and negative as +2 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion

The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome of patients with chest pain after arrival to the ED and can be used for triage. For patients with low HEART scores (0-3), short-term MACE can be excluded with greater than 98% certainty. In these patients, one may consider reserved treatment and discharge policies that may also reduce health care utilization. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10), the high risk of MACE (90%) may indicate early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events. Age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors may also be considered in the assessment of patients. This study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE.

Corresponding author: Smrati Bajpai Tiwari, MD, DNB, FAIMER, Department of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Acharya Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Dr. Gandhi), and the School of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India (Drs. Gandhi and Tiwari).

Objective: Calculation of HEART score to (1) stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and to predict the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and (2) demonstrate feasibility of HEART score in our local settings.

Design: A prospective cohort study of patients with a chief complaint of chest pain concerning for acute coronary syndrome.

Setting: Participants were recruited from the emergency department (ED) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center and a resource-limited setting in Mumbai, India.

Participants: We evaluated 141 patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED and stratified them using the HEART score. To assess patients’ progress, a follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED.

Measurements: The primary outcomes were a risk stratification, 6-week occurrence of MACE, and performance of unscheduled revascularization or stress testing. The secondary outcomes were discharge or death.

Results: The 141 participants were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups: 67 (47.52%), 44 (31.21%), and 30 (21.28%), respectively. The 6-week incidence of MACE in each category was 1.49%, 18.18%, and 90%, respectively. An acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Overall, 98.5% of low-risk patients and 93.33% of high-risk patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge; therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrated reduced health care utilization. All the survey respondents found the HEART score to be feasible. The patient characteristics and risk profile of the patients with and without MACE demonstrated that: patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke.

Conclusion: The HEART score seems to be a useful tool for risk stratification and a reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and can therefore be used for triage.

Keywords: chest pain; emergency department; HEART score; acute coronary syndrome; major adverse cardiac events; myocardial infarction; revascularization.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have epidemic proportions worldwide. Globally, in 2012, CVD led to 17.5 million deaths,^1,2 with more than 75% of them occurring in developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, where mortality from CHD is rapidly declining, it is increasing in developing countries.^1,3 Current estimates from epidemiologic studies from various parts of India indicate the prevalence of CHD in India to be between 7% and 13% in urban populations and 2% and 7% in rural populations.⁴

Premature mortality in terms of years of life lost because of CVD in India increased by 59% over a 20-year span, from 23.2 million in 1990 to 37 million in 2010.⁵ Studies conducted in Mumbai (Mumbai Cohort Study) reported very high CVD mortality rates, approaching 500 per 100 000 for men and 250 per 100 000 for women.^6,7 However, to the best of our knowledge, in the Indian population, there are minimal data on utilization of a triage score, such as the HEART score, in chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED) in a resource-limited setting.

The most common reason for admitting patients to the ED is chest pain.⁸ There are various cardiac and noncardiac etiologies of chest pain presentation. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be ruled out first in every patient presenting with chest pain. However, 80% of patients with ACS have no clear diagnostic features on presentation.⁹ The timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with ACS improves their prognosis. Therefore, clinicians tend to start each patient on ACS treatment to reduce the risk, which often leads to increased costs due to unnecessary, time-consuming diagnostic procedures that may place burdens on both the health care system and the patient.¹⁰

Several risk-stratifying tools have been developed in the last few years. Both the GRACE and TIMI risk scores have been designed for risk stratification of patients with proven ACS and not for the chest pain population at the ED.¹¹ Some of these tools are applicable to patients with all types of chest pain presenting to the ED, such as the Manchester Triage System. Other, more selective systems are devoted to the risk stratification of suspected ACS in the ED. One is the HEART score.¹²

The first study on the HEART score—an acronym that stands for History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin—was done by Backus et al, who proved that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which allows clinicians to stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk and to guide their clinical decision-making accordingly. It was developed to provide clinicians with a simple, reliable predictor of cardiac risk on the basis of the lowest score of 0 (very low-risk) up to a score of 10 (very high-risk).

We studied the clinical performance of the HEART score in patients with chest pain, focusing on the efficacy and safety of rapidly identifying patients at risk of MACE. We aimed to determine (1) whether the HEART score is a reliable predictor of outcomes of chest pain patients presenting to the ED; (2) whether the score is feasible in our local settings; and (3) whether it describes the risk profile of patients with and without MACE.

Methods

Setting

Participants were recruited from the ED of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a municipal teaching hospital in Mumbai. The study institute is a tertiary care academic medical center located in Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is a resource-limited setting serving urban, suburban, and rural populations. Participants requiring urgent attention are first seen by a casualty officer and then referred to the emergency ward. Here, the physician on duty evaluates them and decides on admission to the various wards, like the general ward, medical intensive care unit (ICU), coronary care unit (CCU), etc. The specialist’s opinion may also be obtained before admission. Critically ill patients are initially admitted to the emergency ward and stabilized before being shifted to other areas of the hospital.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years and older presenting with symptoms of acute chest pain or suspected ACS were stratified by priority using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score. Only patients presenting to the ED were eligible for the study. Informed consent from the patient or next of kin was mandatory for participation in the study.

Patients were determined ineligible for the following reasons: a clear cause for chest pain other than ACS (eg, trauma, diagnosed aortic dissection), persisting or recurrent chest pain caused by rheumatic diseases or cancer (a terminal illness), pregnancy, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, or incomplete data.

Study design

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients arriving at the tertiary care hospital with a chief complaint of “chest pain” concerning for ACS. All participants provided witnessed written informed consent. Patients were screened over approximately a 3-month period, from July 2019 to October 2019, after acquiring approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Any patient who was admitted to the ED due to chest pain, prehospital referrals based on a physician’s suspicions of a heart condition, and previous medical treatment due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) was eligible. All patients were stratified by priority in our ED using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score—and were followed up by phone within 6 weeks after presenting to the ED, to assess their progress.

We conducted our study to determine the importance of calculating the HEART score in each patient, which will help to correctly place them into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for clinically important, irreversible adverse cardiac events and guide the clinical decision-making. Patients with low risk will avoid costly tests and hospital admissions, thus decreasing the cost of treatment and ensuring timely discharge from the ED. Patients with high risk will be treated immediately, to possibly prevent a life-threatening, ACS-related incident. Thus, the HEART score will serve as a quick and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and help clinicians to make accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices in uncertain situations.

HEART score

The total number of points for History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, and Troponin was noted as the HEART score (Table 1).

For this study, the patient’s history and ECGs were interpreted by internal medicine attending physicians in the ED. The ECG taken in the emergency room was reviewed and classified, and a copy of the admission ECG was added to the file. The recommendation for patients with a HEART score in a particular range was evaluated. Notably, those with a score of 3 or lower led to a recommendation of reassurance and early discharge. Those with a HEART score in the intermediate range (4-6) were admitted to the hospital for further clinical observation and testing, whereas a high HEART score (7-10) led to admission for intensive monitoring and early intervention. In the analysis of HEART score data, we only used those patients having records for all 5 parameters, excluding patients without an ECG or troponin test.

Results

Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined based on Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.¹³ Coronary revascularization was defined as angioplasty with or without stent placement or coronary artery bypass surgery.¹⁴ Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was defined as any therapeutic catheter intervention in the coronary arteries. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was defined as any cardiac surgery in which coronary arteries were operated on.

The primary outcomes in this study were the (1) risk stratification of chest pain patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk categories; (2) incidence of a MACE within 6 weeks of initial presentation. MACE consists of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), PCI, CABG, coronary angiography revealing procedurally correctable stenosis managed conservatively, and death due to any cause.

Our secondary outcomes were discharge or death due to any cause within 6 weeks after presentation.

Follow-up

Within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED, a follow-up phone call was placed to assess the patient’s progress. The follow-up focused on the endpoint of MACE, comprising all-cause death, MI, and revascularization. No patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

We aimed to find a difference in the 6-week MACE between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the HEART score. The prevalence of CHD in India is 10%,⁴ and assuming an α of 0.05, we needed a sample of 141 patients from the ED patient population. Continuous variables were presented by mean (SD), and categorical variables as percentages. We used t test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison of means for continuous variables, χ² for categorical variables, and Fisher’s exact test for comparison of the categorical variables. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

We evaluated 141 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain concerning for ACS during the study period, from July 2019 to October 2019. Patients were 57.54 (13.13) years of age. The male to female distribution was 85 to 56. Other patient characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Primary outcomes

The risk stratification of the HEART score in chest pain patients and the incidence of 6-week MACE are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

The distribution of the HEART score’s 5 elements in the groups with or without MACE endpoints is shown in Table 5. Notice the significant differences between the groups. A follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after the presentation to the ED to assess the patient’s progress. The 6-week follow-up call data are included in Table 6.

Of 141 patients, 36 patients (25.53%) were diagnosed with MACE within 6 weeks of presentation. An AMI was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%). Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent PCI, and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent CABG. The rest of the patients were treated with medications only.

Myocardial infarction—An AMI was diagnosed in 24 of the 141 patients (17.02%). Twenty-one of those already had positive markers on admission (apparently, these AMI had started before their arrival to the emergency room). One AMI occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male, and another occurred 10 days after discharge. A further AMI occurred 2 weeks after discharge. All 3 patients belonged to the intermediate-risk group.

Revascularization—Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%). Revascularization was performed in 19 patients (13.48%), of which 15 were PCIs (10.64%) and 4 were CABGs (2.84%).

Mortality—One patient died from the study population. He was a 72-year-old male who died 14 days after admission. He had a HEART score of 8.

Among the 67 low-risk patients:

• MACE: Coronary angiography was performed in 1 patient (1.49%). Among the 67 patients in the low-risk category, there was no cases of AMI or deaths. The remaining 66 patients (98.51%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• General practitioner (GP) visits/readmissions following discharge: Two of 67 patients (2.99%) had GP visits following discharge, of which 1 was uneventful. The other patient, a 64-year-old male, was readmitted due to a recurrent history of chest pain and underwent coronary angiography.

Among the 44 intermediate-risk patients:

• MACE: Of the 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) who had coronary angiography, 3 patients (6.82%) had AMI, of which 1 occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male. Two patients had AMI following discharge. There were no deaths. Overall, 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Three of 44 patients (6.82%) had repeated visits following discharge. One was a GP visit that was uneventful. The remaining 2 patients were diagnosed with AMI and readmitted following discharge. One AMI occurred 10 days after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 6; another occurred 2 weeks after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 5.

Among the 30 high-risk patients:

• MACE: Twenty-three of 30 patients (76.67%) underwent coronary angiography. One patient died 5 days after discharge. The patient had a HEART score of 8. Most patients however, had an uneventful recovery following discharge (28, 93.33%).
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Five of 30 patients (16.67%) had repeated visits following discharge. Two were uneventful. Two patients had a history of recurrent chest pain that resolved on Sorbitrate. One patient was readmitted 2 weeks following discharge due to a complication: a left ventricular clot was found. The patient had a HEART score of 10.

Secondary outcome—Overall, 140 of 141 patients were discharged. One patient died: a 72-year-old male with a HEART score of 8.

Feasibility—To determine the ease and feasibility of performing a HEART score in chest pain patients presenting to the ED, a survey was distributed to the internal medicine physicians in the ED. In the survey, the Likert scale was used to rate the ease of utilizing the HEART score and whether the physicians found it feasible to use it for risk stratification of their chest pain patients. A total of 12 of 15 respondents (80%) found it “easy” to use. Of the remaining 3 respondents, 2 (13.33%) rated the HEART score “very easy” to use, while 1 (6.66%) considered it “difficult” to work with. None of the respondents said that it was not feasible to perform a HEART score in the ED.

Risk factors for reaching an endpoint:

We compared risk profiles between the patient groups with and without an endpoint. The group of patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males than the group of patients without MACE. Moreover, they also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke. These also showed a significant association with MACE. Obesity was not included in our risk factors as we did not have data collected to measure body mass index. Results are represented in Table 7.

Discussion

Our study described a patient population presenting to an ED with chest pain as their primary complaint. The results of this prospective study confirm that the HEART score is an excellent system to triage chest pain patients. It provides the clinician with a reliable predictor of the outcome (MACE) after the patient’s arrival, based on available clinical data and in a resource-limited setting like ours.

Cardiovascular epidemiology studies indicate that this has become a significant public health problem in India.¹ Several risk scores for ACS have been published in European and American guidelines. However, in the Indian population, minimal data are available on utilization of such a triage score (HEART score) in chest pain patients in the ED in a resource-limited setting, to the best of our knowledge. In India, only 1 such study is reported,¹⁵ at the Sundaram Medical Foundation, a 170-bed community hospital in Chennai. In this study, 13 of 14 patients (92.86%) with a high HEART score had MACE, indicating a sensitivity of 92.86%; in the 44 patients with a low HEART score, 1 patient (2.22%) had MACE, indicating a specificity of 97.78%; and in the 28 patients with a moderate HEART score, 12 patients (42.86%) had MACE.  

In looking for the optimal risk-stratifying system for chest pain patients, we analyzed the HEART score. The first study on the HEART score was done Backus et al, proving that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score had good discriminatory power, too. The C statistic for the HEART score for ACS occurrence shows a value of 0.83. This signifies a good-to-excellent ability to stratify all-cause chest pain patients in the ED for their risk of MACE. The application of the HEART score to our patient population demonstrated that the majority of the patients belonged to the low-risk category, as reported in the first cohort study that applied the HEART score.⁸ The relationship between the HEART score category and occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks showed a curve with 3 different patterns, corresponding to the 3 risk categories defined in the literature.^11,12 The risk stratification of chest pain patients using the 3 categories (0-3, 4-6, 7-10) identified MACE with an incidence similar to the multicenter study of Backus et al,^10,11 but with a greater risk of MACE in the high-risk category (Figure).

Thus, our study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the established cut-off scores of 4 and 7 are shown in Table 8. The patients in the low-risk category, corresponding to a score < 4, had a very high negative predictive value, thus identifying a small-risk population. The patients in the high-risk category (score ≥ 7) showed a high positive predictive value, allowing the identification of a high-risk population, even in patients with more atypical presentations. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians to make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events.^11,12

Our study tested the efficacy of the HEART score pathway in helping clinicians make smart diagnostic and therapeutic choices. It confirmed that the HEART score was accurate in predicting the short-term incidence of MACE, thus stratifying patients according to their risk severity. In our study, 67 of 141 patients (47.52%) had low-risk HEART scores, and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 1.49%. We omitted the diagnostic and treatment evaluation for patients in the low-risk category and moved onto discharge. Overall, 66 of 67 patients (98.51%) in the low-risk category had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Only 2 of 67 these patients (2.99%) of patients had health care utilization following discharge. Therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrates reduced health care utilization. Previous studies have shown similar results.^9,12,14,16 For instance, in a prospective study conducted in the Netherlands, low-risk patients representing 36.4% of the total were found to have a low MACE rate (1.7%).⁹ These low-risk patients were categorized as appropriate and safe for ED discharge without additional cardiac evaluation or inpatient admission.⁹ Another retrospective study in Portugal,¹² and one in Chennai, India,¹⁵ found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 2.00% and 2.22%, respectively. The results of the first HEART Pathway Randomized Control Trial¹⁴ showed that the HEART score pathway reduces health care utilization (cardiac testing, hospitalization, and hospital length of stay). The study also showed that these gains occurred without any of the patients that were identified for early discharge, suffering from MACE at 30 days, or secondary increase in cardiac-related hospitalizations. Similar results were obtained by a randomized trial conducted in North Carolina¹⁷ that also demonstrated a reduction in objective cardiac testing, a doubling of the rate of early discharge from the ED, and a reduced length of stay by half a day. Another study using a modified HEART score also demonstrated that when low-risk patients are evaluated with cardiac testing, the likelihood for false positives is high.¹⁶ Hoffman et al also reported that patients randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) received > 2.5 times more radiation exposure.¹⁶ Thus, low-risk patients may be safely discharged without the need for stress testing or CCTA.

In our study, 30 out of 141 patients (21.28%) had high-risk HEART scores (7-10), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 90%. Based on the pathway leading to inpatient admission and intensive treatment, 23 of 30 patients (76.67%) patients in our study underwent coronary angiography and further therapeutic treatment. In the high-risk category, 28 of 30 patients (93.33%) patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Previous studies have shown similar results. A retrospective study in Portugal showed that 76.9% of the high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE.¹² In a study in the Netherlands,⁹ 72.7% of high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE. Therefore, a HEART score of ≥ 7 in patients implies early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary, without noninvasive treatment preceding it.⁸

In terms of intermediate risk, in our study 44 of 141 patients (31.21%) patients had an intermediate-risk HEART score (4-6), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 18.18%. Based on the pathway, they were kept in the observation ward on admission. In our study, 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) underwent coronary angiography and further treatment; 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge. In a prospective study in the Netherlands, 46.1% of patients with an intermediate score had a 6-week MACE incidence of 16.6%.¹⁰ Similarly, in another retrospective study in Portugal, the incidence of 6-week MACE in intermediate-risk patients (36.7%) was found to be 15.6%.¹² Therefore, in patients with a HEART score of 4-6 points, immediate discharge is not an option, as this figure indicates a risk of 18.18% for an adverse outcome. These patients should be admitted for clinical observation, treated as an ACS awaiting final diagnosis, and subjected to noninvasive investigations, such as repeated troponin. Using the HEART score as guidance in the treatment of chest pain patients will benefit patients on both sides of the spectrum.^11,12

Our sample presented a male predominance, a wide range of age, and a mean age similar to that of previous studies.^12.16 Some risk factors, we found, can increase significantly the odds of chest pain being of cardiovascular origin, such as male gender, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia. Other studies also reported similar findings.^8,12,16 Risk factors for premature CHD have been quantified in the case-control INTERHEART study.¹ In the INTERHEART study, 8 common risk factors explained > 90% of AMIs in South Asian and Indian patients. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, smoking or tobacco use, known hypertension, known diabetes, abdominal obesity, physical inactivity, low fruit and vegetable intake, and psychosocial stress.¹ Regarding the feasibility of treating physicians using the HEART score in the ED, we observed that, based on the Likert scale, 80% of survey respondents found it easy to use, and 100% found it feasible in the ED.

However, there were certain limitations to our study. It involved a single academic medical center and a small sample size, which limit generalizability of the findings. In addition, troponin levels are not calculated at our institution, as it is a resource-limited setting; therefore, we used a positive and negative as +2 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion

The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome of patients with chest pain after arrival to the ED and can be used for triage. For patients with low HEART scores (0-3), short-term MACE can be excluded with greater than 98% certainty. In these patients, one may consider reserved treatment and discharge policies that may also reduce health care utilization. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10), the high risk of MACE (90%) may indicate early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events. Age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors may also be considered in the assessment of patients. This study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE.

Corresponding author: Smrati Bajpai Tiwari, MD, DNB, FAIMER, Department of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Acharya Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India; [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

An incidental diagnosis of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in stroke-free individuals should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, according to the authors of a study identifying risk factors and vascular event risk in asymptomatic ICAS.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

That conclusion emerged from data collected on more than 1,000 stroke-free participants in NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Study), a trial that prospectively followed participants who underwent a brain magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) during 2003-2008.

In ICAS patients with stenosis of at least 70%, even with aggressive medical therapy, the annual stroke recurrence rate is 10%-20% in those with occlusions and at least three or more vascular risk factors. This high rate of recurrent vascular events in patients with stroke caused by ICAS warrants greater focus on primary prevention and targeted interventions for stroke-free individuals at highest risk for ICAS-related events, the investigators concluded.
 

Identify high-risk ICAS

Using NOMAS data, the investigators, led by Jose Gutierrez, MD, MPH, tested the hypothesis that stroke-free subjects at high risk of stroke and vascular events could be identified through the presence of asymptomatic ICAS. NOMAS is an ongoing, population-based epidemiologic study among randomly selected people with home telephones living in northern Manhattan.

During 2003-2008, investigators invited participants who were at least 50 years old, stroke free, and without contraindications to undergo brain MRA. The 1,211 study members were followed annually via telephone and in-person adjudication of events. A control group of 79 patients with no MRA was also identified with similar rates of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and current smoking.

Mean age was about 71 years (59% female, 65% Hispanic, 45% any stenosis). At the time of MRA, 78% had hypertension, 25% had diabetes, 81% had hypercholesterolemia, and 11% were current smokers.

Researchers rated stenoses in 11 brain arteries as 0, with no stenosis; 1, with less than 50% stenosis or luminal irregularities; 2, 50%-69% stenosis; and 3, at least 70% stenosis or flow gap. Outcomes included vascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardioembolic stroke, intracranial artery disease stroke (which combined intracranial small and large artery disease strokes), and any vascular events (defined as a composite of vascular death, any stroke, or MI).
 

Greater stenosis denotes higher risk

Analysis found ICAS to be associated with older age (odds ratio, 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04), hypertension duration (OR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), higher number of glucose-lowering drugs (OR, 1.64 per each medication; 95% CI, 1.24-2.15), and HDL cholesterol(OR, 0.96 per mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Event risk was greater among participants with ICAS of at least 70% (5.5% annual risk of vascular events; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; compared with those with no ICAS), the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Furthermore, 80% of incident strokes initially classified as small artery disease occurred among individuals with evidence of any degree of ICAS at their baseline MRI, the investigators noted. They found also that individuals with ICAS who had a primary care physician at the time of their initial MRI had a lower risk of events. Frequent primary care visits, they observed, might imply greater control of risk factors and other unmeasured confounders, such as health literacy, health care trust, access, and availability.
 

Incidental ICAS should trigger vascular assessment

An incidental diagnosis of ICAS in stroke-free subjects should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, the investigators concluded. They commented also that prophylaxis of first-ever stroke at this asymptomatic stage “may magnify the societal benefits of vascular prevention and decrease stroke-related disability and vascular death in our communities.”

“The big gap in our knowledge,” Tanya N. Turan, MD, professor of neurology at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, wrote in an accompanying editorial “is understanding the pathophysiological triggers for an asymptomatic stenosis to become a high-risk symptomatic stenosis. Until that question is answered, screening for asymptomatic ICAS is unlikely to change management among patients with known vascular risk factors.” In an interview, she observed further that “MRI plaque imaging could be a useful research tool to see if certain plaque features in an asymptomatic lesion are high risk for causing stroke. If that were proven, then it would make more sense to screen for ICAS and develop specific therapeutic strategies targeting high-risk asymptomatic plaque.”
 

Focus on recurrent stroke misplaced

Dr. Gutierrez said in an interview: “In the stroke world, most of what we do focuses on preventing recurrent stroke. Nonetheless, three-fourths of strokes in this country are new strokes, so to me it doesn’t make much sense to spend most of our efforts and attention to prevent the smallest fractions of strokes that occur in our society.”

He stressed that “the first immediate application of our results is that if people having a brain MRA for other reasons are found to have incidental, and therefore asymptomatic, ICAS, then they should be aggressively treated for vascular risk factors.” Secondly, “we hope to identify the patients at the highest risk of prevalent ICAS before they have a stroke. Among them, a brain MRI/MRA evaluating the phenotype would determine how aggressively to treat LDL.”

Dr. Gutierrez, professor of neurology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that educating patients of their underlying high risk of events may have the effect of engaging them more in their own care. “There is evidence that actually showing people scans increases compliance and health literacy. It’s not yet standard of care, but we hope our future projects will help advance the field in the primary prevention direction,” he said.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

An incidental diagnosis of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in stroke-free individuals should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, according to the authors of a study identifying risk factors and vascular event risk in asymptomatic ICAS.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

That conclusion emerged from data collected on more than 1,000 stroke-free participants in NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Study), a trial that prospectively followed participants who underwent a brain magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) during 2003-2008.

In ICAS patients with stenosis of at least 70%, even with aggressive medical therapy, the annual stroke recurrence rate is 10%-20% in those with occlusions and at least three or more vascular risk factors. This high rate of recurrent vascular events in patients with stroke caused by ICAS warrants greater focus on primary prevention and targeted interventions for stroke-free individuals at highest risk for ICAS-related events, the investigators concluded.
 

Identify high-risk ICAS

Using NOMAS data, the investigators, led by Jose Gutierrez, MD, MPH, tested the hypothesis that stroke-free subjects at high risk of stroke and vascular events could be identified through the presence of asymptomatic ICAS. NOMAS is an ongoing, population-based epidemiologic study among randomly selected people with home telephones living in northern Manhattan.

During 2003-2008, investigators invited participants who were at least 50 years old, stroke free, and without contraindications to undergo brain MRA. The 1,211 study members were followed annually via telephone and in-person adjudication of events. A control group of 79 patients with no MRA was also identified with similar rates of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and current smoking.

Mean age was about 71 years (59% female, 65% Hispanic, 45% any stenosis). At the time of MRA, 78% had hypertension, 25% had diabetes, 81% had hypercholesterolemia, and 11% were current smokers.

Researchers rated stenoses in 11 brain arteries as 0, with no stenosis; 1, with less than 50% stenosis or luminal irregularities; 2, 50%-69% stenosis; and 3, at least 70% stenosis or flow gap. Outcomes included vascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardioembolic stroke, intracranial artery disease stroke (which combined intracranial small and large artery disease strokes), and any vascular events (defined as a composite of vascular death, any stroke, or MI).
 

Greater stenosis denotes higher risk

Analysis found ICAS to be associated with older age (odds ratio, 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04), hypertension duration (OR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), higher number of glucose-lowering drugs (OR, 1.64 per each medication; 95% CI, 1.24-2.15), and HDL cholesterol(OR, 0.96 per mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Event risk was greater among participants with ICAS of at least 70% (5.5% annual risk of vascular events; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; compared with those with no ICAS), the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Furthermore, 80% of incident strokes initially classified as small artery disease occurred among individuals with evidence of any degree of ICAS at their baseline MRI, the investigators noted. They found also that individuals with ICAS who had a primary care physician at the time of their initial MRI had a lower risk of events. Frequent primary care visits, they observed, might imply greater control of risk factors and other unmeasured confounders, such as health literacy, health care trust, access, and availability.
 

Incidental ICAS should trigger vascular assessment

An incidental diagnosis of ICAS in stroke-free subjects should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, the investigators concluded. They commented also that prophylaxis of first-ever stroke at this asymptomatic stage “may magnify the societal benefits of vascular prevention and decrease stroke-related disability and vascular death in our communities.”

“The big gap in our knowledge,” Tanya N. Turan, MD, professor of neurology at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, wrote in an accompanying editorial “is understanding the pathophysiological triggers for an asymptomatic stenosis to become a high-risk symptomatic stenosis. Until that question is answered, screening for asymptomatic ICAS is unlikely to change management among patients with known vascular risk factors.” In an interview, she observed further that “MRI plaque imaging could be a useful research tool to see if certain plaque features in an asymptomatic lesion are high risk for causing stroke. If that were proven, then it would make more sense to screen for ICAS and develop specific therapeutic strategies targeting high-risk asymptomatic plaque.”
 

Focus on recurrent stroke misplaced

Dr. Gutierrez said in an interview: “In the stroke world, most of what we do focuses on preventing recurrent stroke. Nonetheless, three-fourths of strokes in this country are new strokes, so to me it doesn’t make much sense to spend most of our efforts and attention to prevent the smallest fractions of strokes that occur in our society.”

He stressed that “the first immediate application of our results is that if people having a brain MRA for other reasons are found to have incidental, and therefore asymptomatic, ICAS, then they should be aggressively treated for vascular risk factors.” Secondly, “we hope to identify the patients at the highest risk of prevalent ICAS before they have a stroke. Among them, a brain MRI/MRA evaluating the phenotype would determine how aggressively to treat LDL.”

Dr. Gutierrez, professor of neurology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that educating patients of their underlying high risk of events may have the effect of engaging them more in their own care. “There is evidence that actually showing people scans increases compliance and health literacy. It’s not yet standard of care, but we hope our future projects will help advance the field in the primary prevention direction,” he said.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

An incidental diagnosis of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis in stroke-free individuals should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, according to the authors of a study identifying risk factors and vascular event risk in asymptomatic ICAS.

mr.suphachai praserdumrongchai/iStock/Getty Images Plus

That conclusion emerged from data collected on more than 1,000 stroke-free participants in NOMAS (Northern Manhattan Study), a trial that prospectively followed participants who underwent a brain magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) during 2003-2008.

In ICAS patients with stenosis of at least 70%, even with aggressive medical therapy, the annual stroke recurrence rate is 10%-20% in those with occlusions and at least three or more vascular risk factors. This high rate of recurrent vascular events in patients with stroke caused by ICAS warrants greater focus on primary prevention and targeted interventions for stroke-free individuals at highest risk for ICAS-related events, the investigators concluded.
 

Identify high-risk ICAS

Using NOMAS data, the investigators, led by Jose Gutierrez, MD, MPH, tested the hypothesis that stroke-free subjects at high risk of stroke and vascular events could be identified through the presence of asymptomatic ICAS. NOMAS is an ongoing, population-based epidemiologic study among randomly selected people with home telephones living in northern Manhattan.

During 2003-2008, investigators invited participants who were at least 50 years old, stroke free, and without contraindications to undergo brain MRA. The 1,211 study members were followed annually via telephone and in-person adjudication of events. A control group of 79 patients with no MRA was also identified with similar rates of hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia and current smoking.

Mean age was about 71 years (59% female, 65% Hispanic, 45% any stenosis). At the time of MRA, 78% had hypertension, 25% had diabetes, 81% had hypercholesterolemia, and 11% were current smokers.

Researchers rated stenoses in 11 brain arteries as 0, with no stenosis; 1, with less than 50% stenosis or luminal irregularities; 2, 50%-69% stenosis; and 3, at least 70% stenosis or flow gap. Outcomes included vascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, cardioembolic stroke, intracranial artery disease stroke (which combined intracranial small and large artery disease strokes), and any vascular events (defined as a composite of vascular death, any stroke, or MI).
 

Greater stenosis denotes higher risk

Analysis found ICAS to be associated with older age (odds ratio, 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.04), hypertension duration (OR, 1.01 per year; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), higher number of glucose-lowering drugs (OR, 1.64 per each medication; 95% CI, 1.24-2.15), and HDL cholesterol(OR, 0.96 per mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99). Event risk was greater among participants with ICAS of at least 70% (5.5% annual risk of vascular events; HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; compared with those with no ICAS), the investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Furthermore, 80% of incident strokes initially classified as small artery disease occurred among individuals with evidence of any degree of ICAS at their baseline MRI, the investigators noted. They found also that individuals with ICAS who had a primary care physician at the time of their initial MRI had a lower risk of events. Frequent primary care visits, they observed, might imply greater control of risk factors and other unmeasured confounders, such as health literacy, health care trust, access, and availability.
 

Incidental ICAS should trigger vascular assessment

An incidental diagnosis of ICAS in stroke-free subjects should trigger a thorough assessment of vascular health, the investigators concluded. They commented also that prophylaxis of first-ever stroke at this asymptomatic stage “may magnify the societal benefits of vascular prevention and decrease stroke-related disability and vascular death in our communities.”

“The big gap in our knowledge,” Tanya N. Turan, MD, professor of neurology at Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, wrote in an accompanying editorial “is understanding the pathophysiological triggers for an asymptomatic stenosis to become a high-risk symptomatic stenosis. Until that question is answered, screening for asymptomatic ICAS is unlikely to change management among patients with known vascular risk factors.” In an interview, she observed further that “MRI plaque imaging could be a useful research tool to see if certain plaque features in an asymptomatic lesion are high risk for causing stroke. If that were proven, then it would make more sense to screen for ICAS and develop specific therapeutic strategies targeting high-risk asymptomatic plaque.”
 

Focus on recurrent stroke misplaced

Dr. Gutierrez said in an interview: “In the stroke world, most of what we do focuses on preventing recurrent stroke. Nonetheless, three-fourths of strokes in this country are new strokes, so to me it doesn’t make much sense to spend most of our efforts and attention to prevent the smallest fractions of strokes that occur in our society.”

He stressed that “the first immediate application of our results is that if people having a brain MRA for other reasons are found to have incidental, and therefore asymptomatic, ICAS, then they should be aggressively treated for vascular risk factors.” Secondly, “we hope to identify the patients at the highest risk of prevalent ICAS before they have a stroke. Among them, a brain MRI/MRA evaluating the phenotype would determine how aggressively to treat LDL.”

Dr. Gutierrez, professor of neurology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, noted that educating patients of their underlying high risk of events may have the effect of engaging them more in their own care. “There is evidence that actually showing people scans increases compliance and health literacy. It’s not yet standard of care, but we hope our future projects will help advance the field in the primary prevention direction,” he said.

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

CPX-351 is a liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin. It was FDA approved in 2017 for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). The approval was based on the results from a randomized trial comparing CPX-351 vs standard 7 +3 chemotherapy in patients older that 65 with t-AML or AML-MRC. The 5-year results from that study were recently published by Lancet et al. At 5 years of follow-up, CPX-351 continued to show benefit in older patients with t-AML or AML-MRC vs standard chemotherapy with cytarabine for 7 days and daunorubicin for 3 days (7+3) . The median OS in favor of CPX-351 vs 7+3 group was maintained (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91). At 5 years, survival estimates were higher for CPX-351 vs 7+3 (18% [95% CI, 12%-25%] vs 8% [95% CI, 4%-13%]). Overall, 5% of deaths in both groups were considered related to the study treatment. Overall, more patients treated with CPX-351 were able to proceed to stem cell transplantation (SCT) compared to those treated with 7 + 3 (35% vs 25%).

The 3-year overall survival from SCT was 56% vs 23% for patients treated with CPX-351 vs 7 +3. Of the responding patients who did not proceed to SCT, only 3 patients were alive at 5 years. Although this data is encouraging, it demonstrates that we have a long way to go to improve the outcome of these patients. In addition, more patients who achieve remission should proceed to SCT in order to improve the survival of this patient population (Lancet JE et al). In terms of supportive care during induction chemotherapy, two published studies this month evaluated two approaches to aiming to decrease the morbidity from infections: prospective monitoring for fungal infections and the use of romyelocel with G-CSF. Prospectively monitoring for fungal infections was performed as an observation study imbedded within a phase 3 Children’s Oncology Group trial (ACCL0933). The study included 471 patients with AML (age, 3 months-30 years) receiving fluconazole (n=235) or caspofungin (n=236).

Twice-weekly surveillance with galactomannan enzyme immunoassay (GM-EIA) and b-D-glucan (BDG) assay were performed in all patients. The negative predictive value was greater than 99% for an individual or combination of GM-EIA and BDG assays. However, true positive results were not observed in any sample collected within 7 days of an invasive aspergillosis/candidiasis diagnosis, resulting in sensitivity and positive predictive value for each test of 0%. This approach was ineffective at detecting invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in children, adolescents, and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving antifungal prophylaxis (Fisher BT et al).

A different approach to reduce infection morbidity and mortality during induction chemotherapy is the administration of romyelocel. Myeloid progenitor cells are cells that can produce granulocytes but have no long-term reconstitution capability.  Romyelocel is a cryopreserved product, of MPC manufactured by ex vivo expansion of CD34⁺ hematopoietic stem cells. Romyelocel is capable of producing granulocytes, and thereby may reduce the severity or duration of neutropenic fevers. This phase 2 study included 163 patients with de novo AML receiving induction chemotherapy. Evaluable patients (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive either romyelocel-L plus G-CSF (n=59) or G-CSF monotherapy (n=61). From days 15 to 28, romyelocel-L plus G-CSF vs G-CSF monotherapy significantly reduced the mean duration of febrile episodes (2.36 days vs 3.90 days; P = .02) and incidence of infections (6.8% vs 27.9%; P = .0013). Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the romyelocel-L plus G-CSF vs G-CSF monotherapy group (25.5 days vs 28.7 days; P = .002). These results are encouraging, and a phase III trial is suggested by the authors. (Desai PM et al).

Finally, a study by MDACC reported disappointing results with the use of venetoclax in patients with tp53 mutation. Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 238 patients with newly diagnosed TP53-mutated AML treated with either VEN-based (n=58) or non-VEN-based (n=180) therapies. The addition of venetoclax to standard treatment regimens (VEN-based) did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), highlighting the need for novel therapies in this patient population. Overall, there was no significant differences in overall survival (median, 5.7 months vs 6.6 months; P = .4), relapse-free survival (median, 3.5 months vs 4.7 months; P = .43), 4-week mortality (7% vs 10%; P = .5), and 8-week mortality (22% vs 17%; P = .4) in patients receiving VEN-based vs non-VEN-based therapies (Venugopal S et al). Clearly, better therapies are needed for this patient population.

CPX-351 is a liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin. It was FDA approved in 2017 for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). The approval was based on the results from a randomized trial comparing CPX-351 vs standard 7 +3 chemotherapy in patients older that 65 with t-AML or AML-MRC. The 5-year results from that study were recently published by Lancet et al. At 5 years of follow-up, CPX-351 continued to show benefit in older patients with t-AML or AML-MRC vs standard chemotherapy with cytarabine for 7 days and daunorubicin for 3 days (7+3) . The median OS in favor of CPX-351 vs 7+3 group was maintained (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91). At 5 years, survival estimates were higher for CPX-351 vs 7+3 (18% [95% CI, 12%-25%] vs 8% [95% CI, 4%-13%]). Overall, 5% of deaths in both groups were considered related to the study treatment. Overall, more patients treated with CPX-351 were able to proceed to stem cell transplantation (SCT) compared to those treated with 7 + 3 (35% vs 25%).

The 3-year overall survival from SCT was 56% vs 23% for patients treated with CPX-351 vs 7 +3. Of the responding patients who did not proceed to SCT, only 3 patients were alive at 5 years. Although this data is encouraging, it demonstrates that we have a long way to go to improve the outcome of these patients. In addition, more patients who achieve remission should proceed to SCT in order to improve the survival of this patient population (Lancet JE et al). In terms of supportive care during induction chemotherapy, two published studies this month evaluated two approaches to aiming to decrease the morbidity from infections: prospective monitoring for fungal infections and the use of romyelocel with G-CSF. Prospectively monitoring for fungal infections was performed as an observation study imbedded within a phase 3 Children’s Oncology Group trial (ACCL0933). The study included 471 patients with AML (age, 3 months-30 years) receiving fluconazole (n=235) or caspofungin (n=236).

Twice-weekly surveillance with galactomannan enzyme immunoassay (GM-EIA) and b-D-glucan (BDG) assay were performed in all patients. The negative predictive value was greater than 99% for an individual or combination of GM-EIA and BDG assays. However, true positive results were not observed in any sample collected within 7 days of an invasive aspergillosis/candidiasis diagnosis, resulting in sensitivity and positive predictive value for each test of 0%. This approach was ineffective at detecting invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in children, adolescents, and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving antifungal prophylaxis (Fisher BT et al).

A different approach to reduce infection morbidity and mortality during induction chemotherapy is the administration of romyelocel. Myeloid progenitor cells are cells that can produce granulocytes but have no long-term reconstitution capability.  Romyelocel is a cryopreserved product, of MPC manufactured by ex vivo expansion of CD34⁺ hematopoietic stem cells. Romyelocel is capable of producing granulocytes, and thereby may reduce the severity or duration of neutropenic fevers. This phase 2 study included 163 patients with de novo AML receiving induction chemotherapy. Evaluable patients (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive either romyelocel-L plus G-CSF (n=59) or G-CSF monotherapy (n=61). From days 15 to 28, romyelocel-L plus G-CSF vs G-CSF monotherapy significantly reduced the mean duration of febrile episodes (2.36 days vs 3.90 days; P = .02) and incidence of infections (6.8% vs 27.9%; P = .0013). Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the romyelocel-L plus G-CSF vs G-CSF monotherapy group (25.5 days vs 28.7 days; P = .002). These results are encouraging, and a phase III trial is suggested by the authors. (Desai PM et al).

Finally, a study by MDACC reported disappointing results with the use of venetoclax in patients with tp53 mutation. Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 238 patients with newly diagnosed TP53-mutated AML treated with either VEN-based (n=58) or non-VEN-based (n=180) therapies. The addition of venetoclax to standard treatment regimens (VEN-based) did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), highlighting the need for novel therapies in this patient population. Overall, there was no significant differences in overall survival (median, 5.7 months vs 6.6 months; P = .4), relapse-free survival (median, 3.5 months vs 4.7 months; P = .43), 4-week mortality (7% vs 10%; P = .5), and 8-week mortality (22% vs 17%; P = .4) in patients receiving VEN-based vs non-VEN-based therapies (Venugopal S et al). Clearly, better therapies are needed for this patient population.

CPX-351 is a liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin. It was FDA approved in 2017 for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed therapy-related AML (t-AML) or AML with myelodysplasia-related changes (AML-MRC). The approval was based on the results from a randomized trial comparing CPX-351 vs standard 7 +3 chemotherapy in patients older that 65 with t-AML or AML-MRC. The 5-year results from that study were recently published by Lancet et al. At 5 years of follow-up, CPX-351 continued to show benefit in older patients with t-AML or AML-MRC vs standard chemotherapy with cytarabine for 7 days and daunorubicin for 3 days (7+3) . The median OS in favor of CPX-351 vs 7+3 group was maintained (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.91). At 5 years, survival estimates were higher for CPX-351 vs 7+3 (18% [95% CI, 12%-25%] vs 8% [95% CI, 4%-13%]). Overall, 5% of deaths in both groups were considered related to the study treatment. Overall, more patients treated with CPX-351 were able to proceed to stem cell transplantation (SCT) compared to those treated with 7 + 3 (35% vs 25%).

The 3-year overall survival from SCT was 56% vs 23% for patients treated with CPX-351 vs 7 +3. Of the responding patients who did not proceed to SCT, only 3 patients were alive at 5 years. Although this data is encouraging, it demonstrates that we have a long way to go to improve the outcome of these patients. In addition, more patients who achieve remission should proceed to SCT in order to improve the survival of this patient population (Lancet JE et al). In terms of supportive care during induction chemotherapy, two published studies this month evaluated two approaches to aiming to decrease the morbidity from infections: prospective monitoring for fungal infections and the use of romyelocel with G-CSF. Prospectively monitoring for fungal infections was performed as an observation study imbedded within a phase 3 Children’s Oncology Group trial (ACCL0933). The study included 471 patients with AML (age, 3 months-30 years) receiving fluconazole (n=235) or caspofungin (n=236).

Twice-weekly surveillance with galactomannan enzyme immunoassay (GM-EIA) and b-D-glucan (BDG) assay were performed in all patients. The negative predictive value was greater than 99% for an individual or combination of GM-EIA and BDG assays. However, true positive results were not observed in any sample collected within 7 days of an invasive aspergillosis/candidiasis diagnosis, resulting in sensitivity and positive predictive value for each test of 0%. This approach was ineffective at detecting invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in children, adolescents, and young adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving antifungal prophylaxis (Fisher BT et al).

A different approach to reduce infection morbidity and mortality during induction chemotherapy is the administration of romyelocel. Myeloid progenitor cells are cells that can produce granulocytes but have no long-term reconstitution capability.  Romyelocel is a cryopreserved product, of MPC manufactured by ex vivo expansion of CD34⁺ hematopoietic stem cells. Romyelocel is capable of producing granulocytes, and thereby may reduce the severity or duration of neutropenic fevers. This phase 2 study included 163 patients with de novo AML receiving induction chemotherapy. Evaluable patients (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive either romyelocel-L plus G-CSF (n=59) or G-CSF monotherapy (n=61). From days 15 to 28, romyelocel-L plus G-CSF vs G-CSF monotherapy significantly reduced the mean duration of febrile episodes (2.36 days vs 3.90 days; P = .02) and incidence of infections (6.8% vs 27.9%; P = .0013). Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the romyelocel-L plus G-CSF vs G-CSF monotherapy group (25.5 days vs 28.7 days; P = .002). These results are encouraging, and a phase III trial is suggested by the authors. (Desai PM et al).

Finally, a study by MDACC reported disappointing results with the use of venetoclax in patients with tp53 mutation. Findings are from a retrospective analysis of 238 patients with newly diagnosed TP53-mutated AML treated with either VEN-based (n=58) or non-VEN-based (n=180) therapies. The addition of venetoclax to standard treatment regimens (VEN-based) did not improve clinical outcomes in patients with TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML), highlighting the need for novel therapies in this patient population. Overall, there was no significant differences in overall survival (median, 5.7 months vs 6.6 months; P = .4), relapse-free survival (median, 3.5 months vs 4.7 months; P = .43), 4-week mortality (7% vs 10%; P = .5), and 8-week mortality (22% vs 17%; P = .4) in patients receiving VEN-based vs non-VEN-based therapies (Venugopal S et al). Clearly, better therapies are needed for this patient population.

Sleep patterns may influence risk of dementia, even decades before the onset of symptoms, according to a new analysis of data from the Whitehall II cohort study.

Previous work had identified links between short sleep duration and dementia risk, but few studies examined sleep habits long before onset of dementia. Those that did produced inconsistent results, according to Séverine Sabia, PhD, who is a research associate at Inserm (France) and the University College London.

“One potential reason for these inconstancies is the large range of ages of the study populations, and the small number of participants within each sleep duration group. The novelty of our study is to examine this association among almost 8,000 participants with a follow-up of 30 years, using repeated measures of sleep duration starting in midlife to consider sleep duration at specific ages,” Dr. Sabia said in an interview. She presented the research at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Those previous studies found a U-shaped association between sleep duration and dementia risk, with lowest risk associated with 7-8 hours of sleep, but greater risk for shorter and longer durations. However, because the studies had follow-up periods shorter than 10 years, they are at greater risk of reverse causation bias. Longer follow-up studies tended to have small sample sizes or to focus on older adults.

The longer follow-up in the current study makes for a more compelling case, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of Scientific Programs & Outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association. Observations of short or long sleep closer to the onset of symptoms could just be a warning sign of dementia. “But looking at age 50, age 60 ... if you’re seeing those relationships, then it’s less likely that it is just purely prodromal,” said Dr. Sexton. But it still doesn’t necessarily confirm causation. “It could also be a risk factor,” Dr. Sexton added.
 

Multifactorial risk

Dr. Sabia also noted that the magnitude of risk was similar to that seen with smoking or obesity, and many factors play a role in dementia risk. “Even if the risk of dementia was 30% higher in those with persistent short sleep duration, in absolute terms, the percentage of those with persistent short duration who developed dementia was 8%, and 6% in those with persistent sleep duration of 7 hours. Dementia is a multifactorial disease, which means that several factors are likely to influence its onset. Sleep duration is one of them, but if a person has poor sleep and does not manage to increase it, there are other important prevention measures. It is important to keep a healthy lifestyle and cardiometabolic measures in the normal range. All together it is likely to be beneficial for brain health in later life,” she said.

Dr. Sexton agreed. “With sleep we’re still trying to tease apart what aspect of sleep is important. Is it the sleep duration? Is it the quality of sleep? Is it certain sleep stages?” she said.

Regardless of sleep’s potential influence on dementia risk, both Dr. Sexton and Dr. Sabia noted the importance of sleep for general health. “These types of problems are very prevalent, so it’s good for people to be aware of them. And then if they notice any problems with their sleep, or any changes, to go and see their health care provider, and to be discussing them, and then to be investigating the cause, and to see whether changes in sleep hygiene and treatments for insomnia could address these sleep problems,” said Dr. Sexton.
 

Decades of data

During the Whitehall II study, researchers assessed average sleep duration (“How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?”) six times over 30 years of follow-up. Dr. Sabia’s group extracted self-reported sleep duration data at ages 50, 60, and 70. Short sleep duration was defined as fewer than 5 hours, or 6 hours. Normal sleep duration was defined as 7 hours. Long duration was defined as 8 hours or more.

A questioner during the Q&A period noted that this grouping is a little unusual. Many studies define 7-8 hours as normal. Dr. Sabia answered that they were unable to examine periods of 9 hours or more due to the nature of the data, and the lowest associated risk was found at 7 hours.

The researchers analyzed data from 7,959 participants (33.0% women). At age 50, compared with 7 hours of sleep, 6 or few hours of sleep was associated with a higher risk of dementia over the ensuing 25 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.48). The same was true at age 60 (15 years of follow-up HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.72). There was a trend at age 70 (8 years follow-up; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.57). For 8 or more hours of sleep, there were trends toward increased risk at age 50 (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Long sleep at age 60 and 70 was associated with heightened risk, but the confidence intervals were well outside statistical significance.

Twenty percent of participants had persistent short sleep over the course of follow-up, 37% had persistent normal sleep, and 7% had persistent long sleep. Seven percent of participants experienced a change from normal sleep to short sleep, 16% had a change from short sleep to normal sleep, and 13% had a change from normal sleep to long sleep.

Persistent short sleep between age 50 and 70 was associated with a 30% increased risk of dementia (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.69). There were no statistically significant associations between dementia risk and any of the changing sleep pattern groups.

Dr. Sabia and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Sleep patterns may influence risk of dementia, even decades before the onset of symptoms, according to a new analysis of data from the Whitehall II cohort study.

Previous work had identified links between short sleep duration and dementia risk, but few studies examined sleep habits long before onset of dementia. Those that did produced inconsistent results, according to Séverine Sabia, PhD, who is a research associate at Inserm (France) and the University College London.

“One potential reason for these inconstancies is the large range of ages of the study populations, and the small number of participants within each sleep duration group. The novelty of our study is to examine this association among almost 8,000 participants with a follow-up of 30 years, using repeated measures of sleep duration starting in midlife to consider sleep duration at specific ages,” Dr. Sabia said in an interview. She presented the research at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Those previous studies found a U-shaped association between sleep duration and dementia risk, with lowest risk associated with 7-8 hours of sleep, but greater risk for shorter and longer durations. However, because the studies had follow-up periods shorter than 10 years, they are at greater risk of reverse causation bias. Longer follow-up studies tended to have small sample sizes or to focus on older adults.

The longer follow-up in the current study makes for a more compelling case, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of Scientific Programs & Outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association. Observations of short or long sleep closer to the onset of symptoms could just be a warning sign of dementia. “But looking at age 50, age 60 ... if you’re seeing those relationships, then it’s less likely that it is just purely prodromal,” said Dr. Sexton. But it still doesn’t necessarily confirm causation. “It could also be a risk factor,” Dr. Sexton added.
 

Multifactorial risk

Dr. Sabia also noted that the magnitude of risk was similar to that seen with smoking or obesity, and many factors play a role in dementia risk. “Even if the risk of dementia was 30% higher in those with persistent short sleep duration, in absolute terms, the percentage of those with persistent short duration who developed dementia was 8%, and 6% in those with persistent sleep duration of 7 hours. Dementia is a multifactorial disease, which means that several factors are likely to influence its onset. Sleep duration is one of them, but if a person has poor sleep and does not manage to increase it, there are other important prevention measures. It is important to keep a healthy lifestyle and cardiometabolic measures in the normal range. All together it is likely to be beneficial for brain health in later life,” she said.

Dr. Sexton agreed. “With sleep we’re still trying to tease apart what aspect of sleep is important. Is it the sleep duration? Is it the quality of sleep? Is it certain sleep stages?” she said.

Regardless of sleep’s potential influence on dementia risk, both Dr. Sexton and Dr. Sabia noted the importance of sleep for general health. “These types of problems are very prevalent, so it’s good for people to be aware of them. And then if they notice any problems with their sleep, or any changes, to go and see their health care provider, and to be discussing them, and then to be investigating the cause, and to see whether changes in sleep hygiene and treatments for insomnia could address these sleep problems,” said Dr. Sexton.
 

Decades of data

During the Whitehall II study, researchers assessed average sleep duration (“How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?”) six times over 30 years of follow-up. Dr. Sabia’s group extracted self-reported sleep duration data at ages 50, 60, and 70. Short sleep duration was defined as fewer than 5 hours, or 6 hours. Normal sleep duration was defined as 7 hours. Long duration was defined as 8 hours or more.

A questioner during the Q&A period noted that this grouping is a little unusual. Many studies define 7-8 hours as normal. Dr. Sabia answered that they were unable to examine periods of 9 hours or more due to the nature of the data, and the lowest associated risk was found at 7 hours.

The researchers analyzed data from 7,959 participants (33.0% women). At age 50, compared with 7 hours of sleep, 6 or few hours of sleep was associated with a higher risk of dementia over the ensuing 25 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.48). The same was true at age 60 (15 years of follow-up HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.72). There was a trend at age 70 (8 years follow-up; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.57). For 8 or more hours of sleep, there were trends toward increased risk at age 50 (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Long sleep at age 60 and 70 was associated with heightened risk, but the confidence intervals were well outside statistical significance.

Twenty percent of participants had persistent short sleep over the course of follow-up, 37% had persistent normal sleep, and 7% had persistent long sleep. Seven percent of participants experienced a change from normal sleep to short sleep, 16% had a change from short sleep to normal sleep, and 13% had a change from normal sleep to long sleep.

Persistent short sleep between age 50 and 70 was associated with a 30% increased risk of dementia (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.69). There were no statistically significant associations between dementia risk and any of the changing sleep pattern groups.

Dr. Sabia and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Sleep patterns may influence risk of dementia, even decades before the onset of symptoms, according to a new analysis of data from the Whitehall II cohort study.

Previous work had identified links between short sleep duration and dementia risk, but few studies examined sleep habits long before onset of dementia. Those that did produced inconsistent results, according to Séverine Sabia, PhD, who is a research associate at Inserm (France) and the University College London.

“One potential reason for these inconstancies is the large range of ages of the study populations, and the small number of participants within each sleep duration group. The novelty of our study is to examine this association among almost 8,000 participants with a follow-up of 30 years, using repeated measures of sleep duration starting in midlife to consider sleep duration at specific ages,” Dr. Sabia said in an interview. She presented the research at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Those previous studies found a U-shaped association between sleep duration and dementia risk, with lowest risk associated with 7-8 hours of sleep, but greater risk for shorter and longer durations. However, because the studies had follow-up periods shorter than 10 years, they are at greater risk of reverse causation bias. Longer follow-up studies tended to have small sample sizes or to focus on older adults.

The longer follow-up in the current study makes for a more compelling case, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of Scientific Programs & Outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association. Observations of short or long sleep closer to the onset of symptoms could just be a warning sign of dementia. “But looking at age 50, age 60 ... if you’re seeing those relationships, then it’s less likely that it is just purely prodromal,” said Dr. Sexton. But it still doesn’t necessarily confirm causation. “It could also be a risk factor,” Dr. Sexton added.
 

Multifactorial risk

Dr. Sabia also noted that the magnitude of risk was similar to that seen with smoking or obesity, and many factors play a role in dementia risk. “Even if the risk of dementia was 30% higher in those with persistent short sleep duration, in absolute terms, the percentage of those with persistent short duration who developed dementia was 8%, and 6% in those with persistent sleep duration of 7 hours. Dementia is a multifactorial disease, which means that several factors are likely to influence its onset. Sleep duration is one of them, but if a person has poor sleep and does not manage to increase it, there are other important prevention measures. It is important to keep a healthy lifestyle and cardiometabolic measures in the normal range. All together it is likely to be beneficial for brain health in later life,” she said.

Dr. Sexton agreed. “With sleep we’re still trying to tease apart what aspect of sleep is important. Is it the sleep duration? Is it the quality of sleep? Is it certain sleep stages?” she said.

Regardless of sleep’s potential influence on dementia risk, both Dr. Sexton and Dr. Sabia noted the importance of sleep for general health. “These types of problems are very prevalent, so it’s good for people to be aware of them. And then if they notice any problems with their sleep, or any changes, to go and see their health care provider, and to be discussing them, and then to be investigating the cause, and to see whether changes in sleep hygiene and treatments for insomnia could address these sleep problems,” said Dr. Sexton.
 

Decades of data

During the Whitehall II study, researchers assessed average sleep duration (“How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?”) six times over 30 years of follow-up. Dr. Sabia’s group extracted self-reported sleep duration data at ages 50, 60, and 70. Short sleep duration was defined as fewer than 5 hours, or 6 hours. Normal sleep duration was defined as 7 hours. Long duration was defined as 8 hours or more.

A questioner during the Q&A period noted that this grouping is a little unusual. Many studies define 7-8 hours as normal. Dr. Sabia answered that they were unable to examine periods of 9 hours or more due to the nature of the data, and the lowest associated risk was found at 7 hours.

The researchers analyzed data from 7,959 participants (33.0% women). At age 50, compared with 7 hours of sleep, 6 or few hours of sleep was associated with a higher risk of dementia over the ensuing 25 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.48). The same was true at age 60 (15 years of follow-up HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.72). There was a trend at age 70 (8 years follow-up; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.57). For 8 or more hours of sleep, there were trends toward increased risk at age 50 (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Long sleep at age 60 and 70 was associated with heightened risk, but the confidence intervals were well outside statistical significance.

Twenty percent of participants had persistent short sleep over the course of follow-up, 37% had persistent normal sleep, and 7% had persistent long sleep. Seven percent of participants experienced a change from normal sleep to short sleep, 16% had a change from short sleep to normal sleep, and 13% had a change from normal sleep to long sleep.

Persistent short sleep between age 50 and 70 was associated with a 30% increased risk of dementia (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.69). There were no statistically significant associations between dementia risk and any of the changing sleep pattern groups.

Dr. Sabia and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Catheter ablation has been around a lot longer for ventricular arrhythmia than for atrial fibrillation, but far less is settled about what antithrombotic therapy should follow ventricular ablations, as there have been no big, randomized trials for guidance.

But the evidence base grew stronger this week, and it favors postprocedure treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) over antiplatelet therapy with aspirin for patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat left ventricular (LV) arrhythmias.

The 30-day risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) was sharply higher for patients who took daily aspirin after RF ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVC) in a multicenter randomized trial.

Those of its 246 patients who received aspirin were also far more likely to show asymptomatic lesions on cerebral MRI scans performed both 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure.

The findings show the importance of DOAC therapy after ventricular ablation procedures, a setting for which there are no evidence-based guidelines, “to mitigate the risk of systemic thromboembolic events,” said Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park. He spoke at a media presentation on the trial, called STROKE-VT, during the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held virtually and on-site in Boston.

The risk for stroke and TIA went up in association with several procedural issues, including some that operators might be able to change in order to reach for better outcomes, Dr. Lakkireddy observed.

“Prolonged radiofrequency ablation times, especially in those with low left ventricle ejection fractions, are definitely higher risk,” as are procedures that involved the retrograde transaortic approach for advancing the ablation catheter, rather than a trans-septal approach.

The retrograde transaortic approach should be avoided in such procedures, “whenever it can be avoided,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who formally presented STROKE-VT at the HRS sessions and is lead author on its report published about the same time in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The trial has limitations, but “it’s a very important study, and I think that this could become our standard of care for managing anticoagulation after VT and PVC left-sided ablations,” Mina K. Chung, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s presentation.

How patients are treated with antithrombotics after ventricular ablations can vary widely, sometimes based on the operator’s “subjective feeling of how extensive the ablation is,” Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, not involved in the study, said during the STROKE-VT media briefing.

That’s consistent with the guidelines, which propose oral anticoagulation therapy after more extensive ventricular ablations and antiplatelets when the ablation is more limited – based more on consensus than firm evidence – as described by Jeffrey R. Winterfield, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Usha Tedrow, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“This is really the first randomized trial data, that I know of, that we have on this. So I do think it will be guideline-influencing,” Dr. Albert said.

“This should change practice,” agreed Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, Duke University, Durham, N.C., also not part of STROKE-VT. “A lot of evidence in the trial is consistent and provides a compelling story, not to mention that, in my opinion, the study probably underestimates the value of DOACs,” he told this news organization.

That’s because patients assigned to DOACs had far longer ablation times, “so their risk was even greater than in the aspirin arm,” Dr. Piccini said. Ablation times averaged 2,095 seconds in the DOAC group, compared with only 1,708 seconds in the aspirin group, probably because the preponderance of VT over PVC ablations for those getting a DOAC was even greater in the aspirin group.

Of the 246 patients assigned to either aspirin or a DOAC, usually a factor Xa inhibitor, 75% had undergone VT ablation and the remainder ablation for PVCs. Their mean age was 60 years and only 18% were women. None had experienced a cerebrovascular event in the previous 3 months.

The 30-day odds ratio for TIA or ischemic stroke in patients who received aspirin, compared with a DOAC, was 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.10-39.11; P < .001).

The corresponding OR for asymptomatic cerebral lesions by MRI at 24 hours was 2.15 (95% CI, 1.02-4.54; P = .04) and at 30 days was 3.48 (95% CI, 1.38-8.80; P = .008).

The rate of stroke or TIA was similar in patients who underwent ablation for VT and for PVCs (14% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .70). There were fewer asymptomatic cerebrovascular events by MRI at 24 hours for those undergoing VT ablations (14.7% and 25.8%, respectively; P = .046); but difference between rates attenuated by 30 days (11.4% and 14.5%, respectively; P = .52).

The OR for TIA or stroke associated with the retrograde transaortic approach, performed in about 40% of the patients, compared with the trans-septal approach in the remainder was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.06-6.37; P = .04).

“The study tells us it’s safe and indeed preferable to anticoagulate after an ablation procedure. But the more important finding, perhaps, wasn’t the one related to the core hypothesis. And that was the effect of retrograde access,” Paul A. Friedman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s formal presentation of the trial.

Whether a ventricular ablation is performed using the retrograde transaortic or trans-septal approach often depends on the location of the ablation targets in the left ventricle. But in some cases it’s a matter of operator preference, Dr. Piccini observed.

“There are some situations where, really, it is better to do retrograde aortic, and there are some cases that are better to do trans-septal. But now there’s going to be a higher burden of proof,” he said. Given the findings of STROKE-VT, operators may need to consider that a ventricular ablation procedure that can be done by the trans-septal route perhaps ought to be consistently done that way.

Dr. Lakkireddy discloses financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and more. Dr. Chung had “nothing relevant to disclose.” Dr. Piccini discloses receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Sanofi, Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Medtronic, Philips, Biotronik, Allergan, LivaNova, and Myokardia; and research in conjunction with Bayer Healthcare, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr. Friedman discloses conducting research in conjunction with Medtronic and Abbott; holding intellectual property rights with AliveCor, Inference, Medicool, Eko, and Anumana; and receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr. Winterfield and Dr. Tedrow had no disclosures.

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

Catheter ablation has been around a lot longer for ventricular arrhythmia than for atrial fibrillation, but far less is settled about what antithrombotic therapy should follow ventricular ablations, as there have been no big, randomized trials for guidance.

But the evidence base grew stronger this week, and it favors postprocedure treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) over antiplatelet therapy with aspirin for patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat left ventricular (LV) arrhythmias.

The 30-day risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) was sharply higher for patients who took daily aspirin after RF ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVC) in a multicenter randomized trial.

Those of its 246 patients who received aspirin were also far more likely to show asymptomatic lesions on cerebral MRI scans performed both 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure.

The findings show the importance of DOAC therapy after ventricular ablation procedures, a setting for which there are no evidence-based guidelines, “to mitigate the risk of systemic thromboembolic events,” said Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park. He spoke at a media presentation on the trial, called STROKE-VT, during the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held virtually and on-site in Boston.

The risk for stroke and TIA went up in association with several procedural issues, including some that operators might be able to change in order to reach for better outcomes, Dr. Lakkireddy observed.

“Prolonged radiofrequency ablation times, especially in those with low left ventricle ejection fractions, are definitely higher risk,” as are procedures that involved the retrograde transaortic approach for advancing the ablation catheter, rather than a trans-septal approach.

The retrograde transaortic approach should be avoided in such procedures, “whenever it can be avoided,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who formally presented STROKE-VT at the HRS sessions and is lead author on its report published about the same time in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The trial has limitations, but “it’s a very important study, and I think that this could become our standard of care for managing anticoagulation after VT and PVC left-sided ablations,” Mina K. Chung, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s presentation.

How patients are treated with antithrombotics after ventricular ablations can vary widely, sometimes based on the operator’s “subjective feeling of how extensive the ablation is,” Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, not involved in the study, said during the STROKE-VT media briefing.

That’s consistent with the guidelines, which propose oral anticoagulation therapy after more extensive ventricular ablations and antiplatelets when the ablation is more limited – based more on consensus than firm evidence – as described by Jeffrey R. Winterfield, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Usha Tedrow, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“This is really the first randomized trial data, that I know of, that we have on this. So I do think it will be guideline-influencing,” Dr. Albert said.

“This should change practice,” agreed Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, Duke University, Durham, N.C., also not part of STROKE-VT. “A lot of evidence in the trial is consistent and provides a compelling story, not to mention that, in my opinion, the study probably underestimates the value of DOACs,” he told this news organization.

That’s because patients assigned to DOACs had far longer ablation times, “so their risk was even greater than in the aspirin arm,” Dr. Piccini said. Ablation times averaged 2,095 seconds in the DOAC group, compared with only 1,708 seconds in the aspirin group, probably because the preponderance of VT over PVC ablations for those getting a DOAC was even greater in the aspirin group.

Of the 246 patients assigned to either aspirin or a DOAC, usually a factor Xa inhibitor, 75% had undergone VT ablation and the remainder ablation for PVCs. Their mean age was 60 years and only 18% were women. None had experienced a cerebrovascular event in the previous 3 months.

The 30-day odds ratio for TIA or ischemic stroke in patients who received aspirin, compared with a DOAC, was 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.10-39.11; P < .001).

The corresponding OR for asymptomatic cerebral lesions by MRI at 24 hours was 2.15 (95% CI, 1.02-4.54; P = .04) and at 30 days was 3.48 (95% CI, 1.38-8.80; P = .008).

The rate of stroke or TIA was similar in patients who underwent ablation for VT and for PVCs (14% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .70). There were fewer asymptomatic cerebrovascular events by MRI at 24 hours for those undergoing VT ablations (14.7% and 25.8%, respectively; P = .046); but difference between rates attenuated by 30 days (11.4% and 14.5%, respectively; P = .52).

The OR for TIA or stroke associated with the retrograde transaortic approach, performed in about 40% of the patients, compared with the trans-septal approach in the remainder was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.06-6.37; P = .04).

“The study tells us it’s safe and indeed preferable to anticoagulate after an ablation procedure. But the more important finding, perhaps, wasn’t the one related to the core hypothesis. And that was the effect of retrograde access,” Paul A. Friedman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s formal presentation of the trial.

Whether a ventricular ablation is performed using the retrograde transaortic or trans-septal approach often depends on the location of the ablation targets in the left ventricle. But in some cases it’s a matter of operator preference, Dr. Piccini observed.

“There are some situations where, really, it is better to do retrograde aortic, and there are some cases that are better to do trans-septal. But now there’s going to be a higher burden of proof,” he said. Given the findings of STROKE-VT, operators may need to consider that a ventricular ablation procedure that can be done by the trans-septal route perhaps ought to be consistently done that way.

Dr. Lakkireddy discloses financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and more. Dr. Chung had “nothing relevant to disclose.” Dr. Piccini discloses receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Sanofi, Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Medtronic, Philips, Biotronik, Allergan, LivaNova, and Myokardia; and research in conjunction with Bayer Healthcare, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr. Friedman discloses conducting research in conjunction with Medtronic and Abbott; holding intellectual property rights with AliveCor, Inference, Medicool, Eko, and Anumana; and receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr. Winterfield and Dr. Tedrow had no disclosures.

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

Catheter ablation has been around a lot longer for ventricular arrhythmia than for atrial fibrillation, but far less is settled about what antithrombotic therapy should follow ventricular ablations, as there have been no big, randomized trials for guidance.

But the evidence base grew stronger this week, and it favors postprocedure treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) over antiplatelet therapy with aspirin for patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) ablation to treat left ventricular (LV) arrhythmias.

The 30-day risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemia attack (TIA) was sharply higher for patients who took daily aspirin after RF ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular contractions (PVC) in a multicenter randomized trial.

Those of its 246 patients who received aspirin were also far more likely to show asymptomatic lesions on cerebral MRI scans performed both 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure.

The findings show the importance of DOAC therapy after ventricular ablation procedures, a setting for which there are no evidence-based guidelines, “to mitigate the risk of systemic thromboembolic events,” said Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, Overland Park. He spoke at a media presentation on the trial, called STROKE-VT, during the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held virtually and on-site in Boston.

The risk for stroke and TIA went up in association with several procedural issues, including some that operators might be able to change in order to reach for better outcomes, Dr. Lakkireddy observed.

“Prolonged radiofrequency ablation times, especially in those with low left ventricle ejection fractions, are definitely higher risk,” as are procedures that involved the retrograde transaortic approach for advancing the ablation catheter, rather than a trans-septal approach.

The retrograde transaortic approach should be avoided in such procedures, “whenever it can be avoided,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who formally presented STROKE-VT at the HRS sessions and is lead author on its report published about the same time in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The trial has limitations, but “it’s a very important study, and I think that this could become our standard of care for managing anticoagulation after VT and PVC left-sided ablations,” Mina K. Chung, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s presentation.

How patients are treated with antithrombotics after ventricular ablations can vary widely, sometimes based on the operator’s “subjective feeling of how extensive the ablation is,” Christine M. Albert, MD, MPH, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, not involved in the study, said during the STROKE-VT media briefing.

That’s consistent with the guidelines, which propose oral anticoagulation therapy after more extensive ventricular ablations and antiplatelets when the ablation is more limited – based more on consensus than firm evidence – as described by Jeffrey R. Winterfield, MD, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Usha Tedrow, MD, MSc, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

“This is really the first randomized trial data, that I know of, that we have on this. So I do think it will be guideline-influencing,” Dr. Albert said.

“This should change practice,” agreed Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, MHS, Duke University, Durham, N.C., also not part of STROKE-VT. “A lot of evidence in the trial is consistent and provides a compelling story, not to mention that, in my opinion, the study probably underestimates the value of DOACs,” he told this news organization.

That’s because patients assigned to DOACs had far longer ablation times, “so their risk was even greater than in the aspirin arm,” Dr. Piccini said. Ablation times averaged 2,095 seconds in the DOAC group, compared with only 1,708 seconds in the aspirin group, probably because the preponderance of VT over PVC ablations for those getting a DOAC was even greater in the aspirin group.

Of the 246 patients assigned to either aspirin or a DOAC, usually a factor Xa inhibitor, 75% had undergone VT ablation and the remainder ablation for PVCs. Their mean age was 60 years and only 18% were women. None had experienced a cerebrovascular event in the previous 3 months.

The 30-day odds ratio for TIA or ischemic stroke in patients who received aspirin, compared with a DOAC, was 12.6 (95% confidence interval, 4.10-39.11; P < .001).

The corresponding OR for asymptomatic cerebral lesions by MRI at 24 hours was 2.15 (95% CI, 1.02-4.54; P = .04) and at 30 days was 3.48 (95% CI, 1.38-8.80; P = .008).

The rate of stroke or TIA was similar in patients who underwent ablation for VT and for PVCs (14% vs. 16%, respectively; P = .70). There were fewer asymptomatic cerebrovascular events by MRI at 24 hours for those undergoing VT ablations (14.7% and 25.8%, respectively; P = .046); but difference between rates attenuated by 30 days (11.4% and 14.5%, respectively; P = .52).

The OR for TIA or stroke associated with the retrograde transaortic approach, performed in about 40% of the patients, compared with the trans-septal approach in the remainder was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.06-6.37; P = .04).

“The study tells us it’s safe and indeed preferable to anticoagulate after an ablation procedure. But the more important finding, perhaps, wasn’t the one related to the core hypothesis. And that was the effect of retrograde access,” Paul A. Friedman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said as an invited discussant after Dr. Lakkireddy’s formal presentation of the trial.

Whether a ventricular ablation is performed using the retrograde transaortic or trans-septal approach often depends on the location of the ablation targets in the left ventricle. But in some cases it’s a matter of operator preference, Dr. Piccini observed.

“There are some situations where, really, it is better to do retrograde aortic, and there are some cases that are better to do trans-septal. But now there’s going to be a higher burden of proof,” he said. Given the findings of STROKE-VT, operators may need to consider that a ventricular ablation procedure that can be done by the trans-septal route perhaps ought to be consistently done that way.

Dr. Lakkireddy discloses financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and more. Dr. Chung had “nothing relevant to disclose.” Dr. Piccini discloses receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Sanofi, Abbott, ARCA Biopharma, Medtronic, Philips, Biotronik, Allergan, LivaNova, and Myokardia; and research in conjunction with Bayer Healthcare, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Philips. Dr. Friedman discloses conducting research in conjunction with Medtronic and Abbott; holding intellectual property rights with AliveCor, Inference, Medicool, Eko, and Anumana; and receiving honoraria or speaking or consulting fees from Boston Scientific. Dr. Winterfield and Dr. Tedrow had no disclosures.

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

More children admitted to hospitals in 2018 had acute bronchitis than any other diagnosis, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

About 7% (99,000) of the 1.47 million nonmaternal, nonneonatal hospital stays in children aged 0-17 years involved a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis in 2018, representing the leading cause of admissions in boys (154.7 stays per 100,000 population) and the second-leading diagnosis in girls (113.1 stays per 100,000), Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in a statistical brief.

Depressive disorders were the most common primary diagnosis in girls, with a rate of 176.7 stays per 100,000, and the second-leading diagnosis overall, although the rate was less than half that (74.0 per 100,000) in boys. Two other respiratory conditions, asthma and pneumonia, were among the top five for both girls and boys, as was epilepsy, they reported.

The combined rate for all diagnoses was slightly higher for boys, 2,051 per 100,000, compared with 1,922 for girls, they said based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

“Identifying the most frequent primary conditions for which patients are admitted to the hospital is important to the implementation and improvement of health care delivery, quality initiatives, and health policy,” said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of the AHRQ.

[email protected]

More children admitted to hospitals in 2018 had acute bronchitis than any other diagnosis, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

About 7% (99,000) of the 1.47 million nonmaternal, nonneonatal hospital stays in children aged 0-17 years involved a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis in 2018, representing the leading cause of admissions in boys (154.7 stays per 100,000 population) and the second-leading diagnosis in girls (113.1 stays per 100,000), Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in a statistical brief.

Depressive disorders were the most common primary diagnosis in girls, with a rate of 176.7 stays per 100,000, and the second-leading diagnosis overall, although the rate was less than half that (74.0 per 100,000) in boys. Two other respiratory conditions, asthma and pneumonia, were among the top five for both girls and boys, as was epilepsy, they reported.

The combined rate for all diagnoses was slightly higher for boys, 2,051 per 100,000, compared with 1,922 for girls, they said based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

“Identifying the most frequent primary conditions for which patients are admitted to the hospital is important to the implementation and improvement of health care delivery, quality initiatives, and health policy,” said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of the AHRQ.

[email protected]

More children admitted to hospitals in 2018 had acute bronchitis than any other diagnosis, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

About 7% (99,000) of the 1.47 million nonmaternal, nonneonatal hospital stays in children aged 0-17 years involved a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis in 2018, representing the leading cause of admissions in boys (154.7 stays per 100,000 population) and the second-leading diagnosis in girls (113.1 stays per 100,000), Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in a statistical brief.

Depressive disorders were the most common primary diagnosis in girls, with a rate of 176.7 stays per 100,000, and the second-leading diagnosis overall, although the rate was less than half that (74.0 per 100,000) in boys. Two other respiratory conditions, asthma and pneumonia, were among the top five for both girls and boys, as was epilepsy, they reported.

The combined rate for all diagnoses was slightly higher for boys, 2,051 per 100,000, compared with 1,922 for girls, they said based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

“Identifying the most frequent primary conditions for which patients are admitted to the hospital is important to the implementation and improvement of health care delivery, quality initiatives, and health policy,” said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of the AHRQ.

[email protected]