Two new drugs have arrived to challenge our prescription pad or electronic record, depending on which you use. Empagliflozin (Jardiance), a drug used to modify glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease, demonstrated a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. The other drug, Entresto, appears to provide an added benefit in heart failure therapy and was compared with a standard ACE inhibitor.

The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting in Stockholm, showed empagliflozin to be the first drug to decrease the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. It is one of a group of new sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) blockers being tested in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to placebo or empagliflozin while receiving standard medical and cardiovascular medications. After 3 years of follow-up, patients receiving the drug experienced a lower cardiovascular mortality rate, compared with placebo patients (3.7% vs. 5.9%, a 38% reduction) in addition to a decrease in hospitalization for heart failure and death from any cause. No effect was observed on the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke. In addition, the drug also lowered blood glucose and blood pressure and led to some significant weight loss. The drug also was shown to decrease vascular resistance and albuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2015. 373:2117-2).

Furthermore, an analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in San Diego, showed a profound benefit on the new onset and progression of chronic renal disease in diabetes patients. The importance of these results needs emphasis. Up until recently, the Food and Drug Administration has given a pass to diabetes drugs in regard to cardiovascular endpoints; approval has been based on their primary effect on lowering blood glucose. Some drugs in the past, such as rosiglitazone, actually have shown an increase in mortality in some diabetes patients. At long last, FDA approval for diabetes drugs hinges on acceptable outcomes in cardiovascular endpoints. The addition of a drug that can actually affect cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, the major risk factor of diabetes, provides an important addition to therapy.

The other drug that provides a choice of drugs for the treatment of heart failure is Entresto, a combination of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and the angiotensin receptor inhibitor valsartan, approved in July 2015. In PARADIGM-HF, the compound was compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with class II, III, and IV heart failure who were also receiving beta-blockers. Entresto-treated patients reported a 21.8% incidence of the primary outcome measure, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, compared with the enalapril alone incidence of 26.5% (P less than .001) (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993-1004). Investigators initially excluded 11.4% of the recruited patients from the study who could not tolerate Entresto or enalapril therapy. The drugs were well tolerated without any adverse reactions during therapy. Entresto was more effective than enalapril in regards to the occurrence of heart failure and death from any cause over a 27-month average follow-up.

The observations in this study emphasize how much the mortality of heart failure has decreased over the last decade. Cardiovascular deaths have decreased to roughly 7% per year and rehospitalization occurs in about 8% in the first year. Both drugs provide an important incremental benefit in heart failure patients.

Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Two new drugs have arrived to challenge our prescription pad or electronic record, depending on which you use. Empagliflozin (Jardiance), a drug used to modify glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease, demonstrated a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. The other drug, Entresto, appears to provide an added benefit in heart failure therapy and was compared with a standard ACE inhibitor.

The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting in Stockholm, showed empagliflozin to be the first drug to decrease the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. It is one of a group of new sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) blockers being tested in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to placebo or empagliflozin while receiving standard medical and cardiovascular medications. After 3 years of follow-up, patients receiving the drug experienced a lower cardiovascular mortality rate, compared with placebo patients (3.7% vs. 5.9%, a 38% reduction) in addition to a decrease in hospitalization for heart failure and death from any cause. No effect was observed on the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke. In addition, the drug also lowered blood glucose and blood pressure and led to some significant weight loss. The drug also was shown to decrease vascular resistance and albuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2015. 373:2117-2).

Furthermore, an analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in San Diego, showed a profound benefit on the new onset and progression of chronic renal disease in diabetes patients. The importance of these results needs emphasis. Up until recently, the Food and Drug Administration has given a pass to diabetes drugs in regard to cardiovascular endpoints; approval has been based on their primary effect on lowering blood glucose. Some drugs in the past, such as rosiglitazone, actually have shown an increase in mortality in some diabetes patients. At long last, FDA approval for diabetes drugs hinges on acceptable outcomes in cardiovascular endpoints. The addition of a drug that can actually affect cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, the major risk factor of diabetes, provides an important addition to therapy.

The other drug that provides a choice of drugs for the treatment of heart failure is Entresto, a combination of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and the angiotensin receptor inhibitor valsartan, approved in July 2015. In PARADIGM-HF, the compound was compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with class II, III, and IV heart failure who were also receiving beta-blockers. Entresto-treated patients reported a 21.8% incidence of the primary outcome measure, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, compared with the enalapril alone incidence of 26.5% (P less than .001) (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993-1004). Investigators initially excluded 11.4% of the recruited patients from the study who could not tolerate Entresto or enalapril therapy. The drugs were well tolerated without any adverse reactions during therapy. Entresto was more effective than enalapril in regards to the occurrence of heart failure and death from any cause over a 27-month average follow-up.

The observations in this study emphasize how much the mortality of heart failure has decreased over the last decade. Cardiovascular deaths have decreased to roughly 7% per year and rehospitalization occurs in about 8% in the first year. Both drugs provide an important incremental benefit in heart failure patients.

Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Two new drugs have arrived to challenge our prescription pad or electronic record, depending on which you use. Empagliflozin (Jardiance), a drug used to modify glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes in patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease, demonstrated a decrease in cardiovascular mortality. The other drug, Entresto, appears to provide an added benefit in heart failure therapy and was compared with a standard ACE inhibitor.

The results of EMPA-REG OUTCOME, reported at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting in Stockholm, showed empagliflozin to be the first drug to decrease the mortality and morbidity of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. It is one of a group of new sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) blockers being tested in type 2 diabetes with established cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to placebo or empagliflozin while receiving standard medical and cardiovascular medications. After 3 years of follow-up, patients receiving the drug experienced a lower cardiovascular mortality rate, compared with placebo patients (3.7% vs. 5.9%, a 38% reduction) in addition to a decrease in hospitalization for heart failure and death from any cause. No effect was observed on the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke. In addition, the drug also lowered blood glucose and blood pressure and led to some significant weight loss. The drug also was shown to decrease vascular resistance and albuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2015. 373:2117-2).

Furthermore, an analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME presented in November at the American Society of Nephrology meeting in San Diego, showed a profound benefit on the new onset and progression of chronic renal disease in diabetes patients. The importance of these results needs emphasis. Up until recently, the Food and Drug Administration has given a pass to diabetes drugs in regard to cardiovascular endpoints; approval has been based on their primary effect on lowering blood glucose. Some drugs in the past, such as rosiglitazone, actually have shown an increase in mortality in some diabetes patients. At long last, FDA approval for diabetes drugs hinges on acceptable outcomes in cardiovascular endpoints. The addition of a drug that can actually affect cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, the major risk factor of diabetes, provides an important addition to therapy.

The other drug that provides a choice of drugs for the treatment of heart failure is Entresto, a combination of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and the angiotensin receptor inhibitor valsartan, approved in July 2015. In PARADIGM-HF, the compound was compared to enalapril in the treatment of patients with class II, III, and IV heart failure who were also receiving beta-blockers. Entresto-treated patients reported a 21.8% incidence of the primary outcome measure, cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, compared with the enalapril alone incidence of 26.5% (P less than .001) (N Engl J Med. 2014;371:993-1004). Investigators initially excluded 11.4% of the recruited patients from the study who could not tolerate Entresto or enalapril therapy. The drugs were well tolerated without any adverse reactions during therapy. Entresto was more effective than enalapril in regards to the occurrence of heart failure and death from any cause over a 27-month average follow-up.

The observations in this study emphasize how much the mortality of heart failure has decreased over the last decade. Cardiovascular deaths have decreased to roughly 7% per year and rehospitalization occurs in about 8% in the first year. Both drugs provide an important incremental benefit in heart failure patients.

Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.

Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) refers to rupture of membranes prior to the onset of labor before 37 weeks’ gestation. It accounts for one-third of all preterm births.¹ Pregnancy complications associated with PPROM include intrauterine infection (chorioamnionitis), preterm labor, and placental abruption. Should such complications develop, immediate delivery is indicated. When to recommend elective delivery in the absence of complications, however, remains controversial.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends elective delivery at or after 34 weeks’ gestation,² because the prevailing evidence suggests that the risk of pregnancy-related complications (especially ascending infection) exceeds the risks of iatrogenic prematurity at this gestational age. However, ACOG acknowledges that this recommendation is based on “limited and inconsistent scientific evidence.”² To address deficiencies in the literature, investigators designed the PPROMT (preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes close to term) trial to study women with ruptured membranes before the onset of labor between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation.

PPROMT study designMorris and colleagues present results of their multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of expectant management versus planned delivery in pregnancies complicated by PPROM at 34 0/7 through 36 6/7 weeks’ gestation carried out in 65 centers across 11 countries. A total of 1,839 women not requiring urgent delivery were randomly assigned to either immediate delivery (n = 924) or expectant management (n = 915).

No difference was noted in the primary outcome of neonatal sepsis between the immediate birth (n = 23 [2%]) and expectant management groups (n = 29 [3%]; relative risk [RR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–1.3). This also was true in the subgroup of women who were colonized with group B streptococcus (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.2–4.5).

There also was no difference in the secondary outcome measure, a composite metric including sepsis, ventilation for 24 or more hours, or death (73 [8%] in the immediate delivery group vs 61 [7%] in the expectant management group; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9–1.6). However, infants born to women randomly assigned to immediate delivery, versus expectant management, had a significantly higher rate of respiratory distress syndrome (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.3) and mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0–1.8). In addition, the immediate-delivery infants had a longer median stay in the special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (4.0 days, interquartile range [IQR], 0.0–10.0 vs 2.0 days, IQR, 0.0–7.0) and total hospital stay (6.0 days, IQR, 3.0–10.0 vs 4.0 days, IQR, 3.0–8.0). As expected, women in the expectant management group had a significantly longer hospital stay than women in the immediate delivery group, because 75% (688/912) were managed as inpatients. Interestingly, women in the immediate delivery group had a higher cesarean delivery rate than those in the expectant management group (239 [26%] vs 169 [19%], respectively; RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2–1.7), although no explanation was offered.

Strengths and limitationsMajor strengths of this study include the large sample size and superior study design. It is by far the largest RCT to address this question. Because this was a pragmatic RCT, certain practices (such as the choice of latency antibiotic regimen) varied across centers, although randomization would be expected to minimize the effect of such variables on study outcome.

A major limitation is that participant recruitment occurred over a period of more than 10 years, during which time antenatal and neonatal intensive care unit practices likely would have changed.

What this evidence means for practiceFew clinical studies have the potential to significantly change obstetric management. This report by Morris and colleagues is one such study. It was well designed, well executed, and powered to look at the most clinically relevant outcome, namely, neonatal sepsis. While these study results do call into question the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations to electively deliver patients with PPROM at or after 34 weeks’ gestation, additional discussion is needed at the national level before these recommendations can be changed.
—Denis A. Vaughan, MBBCh, BAO, MRCPI, and Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) refers to rupture of membranes prior to the onset of labor before 37 weeks’ gestation. It accounts for one-third of all preterm births.¹ Pregnancy complications associated with PPROM include intrauterine infection (chorioamnionitis), preterm labor, and placental abruption. Should such complications develop, immediate delivery is indicated. When to recommend elective delivery in the absence of complications, however, remains controversial.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends elective delivery at or after 34 weeks’ gestation,² because the prevailing evidence suggests that the risk of pregnancy-related complications (especially ascending infection) exceeds the risks of iatrogenic prematurity at this gestational age. However, ACOG acknowledges that this recommendation is based on “limited and inconsistent scientific evidence.”² To address deficiencies in the literature, investigators designed the PPROMT (preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes close to term) trial to study women with ruptured membranes before the onset of labor between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation.

PPROMT study designMorris and colleagues present results of their multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of expectant management versus planned delivery in pregnancies complicated by PPROM at 34 0/7 through 36 6/7 weeks’ gestation carried out in 65 centers across 11 countries. A total of 1,839 women not requiring urgent delivery were randomly assigned to either immediate delivery (n = 924) or expectant management (n = 915).

No difference was noted in the primary outcome of neonatal sepsis between the immediate birth (n = 23 [2%]) and expectant management groups (n = 29 [3%]; relative risk [RR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–1.3). This also was true in the subgroup of women who were colonized with group B streptococcus (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.2–4.5).

There also was no difference in the secondary outcome measure, a composite metric including sepsis, ventilation for 24 or more hours, or death (73 [8%] in the immediate delivery group vs 61 [7%] in the expectant management group; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9–1.6). However, infants born to women randomly assigned to immediate delivery, versus expectant management, had a significantly higher rate of respiratory distress syndrome (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.3) and mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0–1.8). In addition, the immediate-delivery infants had a longer median stay in the special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (4.0 days, interquartile range [IQR], 0.0–10.0 vs 2.0 days, IQR, 0.0–7.0) and total hospital stay (6.0 days, IQR, 3.0–10.0 vs 4.0 days, IQR, 3.0–8.0). As expected, women in the expectant management group had a significantly longer hospital stay than women in the immediate delivery group, because 75% (688/912) were managed as inpatients. Interestingly, women in the immediate delivery group had a higher cesarean delivery rate than those in the expectant management group (239 [26%] vs 169 [19%], respectively; RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2–1.7), although no explanation was offered.

Strengths and limitationsMajor strengths of this study include the large sample size and superior study design. It is by far the largest RCT to address this question. Because this was a pragmatic RCT, certain practices (such as the choice of latency antibiotic regimen) varied across centers, although randomization would be expected to minimize the effect of such variables on study outcome.

A major limitation is that participant recruitment occurred over a period of more than 10 years, during which time antenatal and neonatal intensive care unit practices likely would have changed.

What this evidence means for practiceFew clinical studies have the potential to significantly change obstetric management. This report by Morris and colleagues is one such study. It was well designed, well executed, and powered to look at the most clinically relevant outcome, namely, neonatal sepsis. While these study results do call into question the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations to electively deliver patients with PPROM at or after 34 weeks’ gestation, additional discussion is needed at the national level before these recommendations can be changed.
—Denis A. Vaughan, MBBCh, BAO, MRCPI, and Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) refers to rupture of membranes prior to the onset of labor before 37 weeks’ gestation. It accounts for one-third of all preterm births.¹ Pregnancy complications associated with PPROM include intrauterine infection (chorioamnionitis), preterm labor, and placental abruption. Should such complications develop, immediate delivery is indicated. When to recommend elective delivery in the absence of complications, however, remains controversial.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends elective delivery at or after 34 weeks’ gestation,² because the prevailing evidence suggests that the risk of pregnancy-related complications (especially ascending infection) exceeds the risks of iatrogenic prematurity at this gestational age. However, ACOG acknowledges that this recommendation is based on “limited and inconsistent scientific evidence.”² To address deficiencies in the literature, investigators designed the PPROMT (preterm prelabor rupture of the membranes close to term) trial to study women with ruptured membranes before the onset of labor between 34 and 37 weeks’ gestation.

PPROMT study designMorris and colleagues present results of their multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of expectant management versus planned delivery in pregnancies complicated by PPROM at 34 0/7 through 36 6/7 weeks’ gestation carried out in 65 centers across 11 countries. A total of 1,839 women not requiring urgent delivery were randomly assigned to either immediate delivery (n = 924) or expectant management (n = 915).

No difference was noted in the primary outcome of neonatal sepsis between the immediate birth (n = 23 [2%]) and expectant management groups (n = 29 [3%]; relative risk [RR], 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5–1.3). This also was true in the subgroup of women who were colonized with group B streptococcus (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.2–4.5).

There also was no difference in the secondary outcome measure, a composite metric including sepsis, ventilation for 24 or more hours, or death (73 [8%] in the immediate delivery group vs 61 [7%] in the expectant management group; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9–1.6). However, infants born to women randomly assigned to immediate delivery, versus expectant management, had a significantly higher rate of respiratory distress syndrome (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.3) and mechanical ventilation (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0–1.8). In addition, the immediate-delivery infants had a longer median stay in the special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (4.0 days, interquartile range [IQR], 0.0–10.0 vs 2.0 days, IQR, 0.0–7.0) and total hospital stay (6.0 days, IQR, 3.0–10.0 vs 4.0 days, IQR, 3.0–8.0). As expected, women in the expectant management group had a significantly longer hospital stay than women in the immediate delivery group, because 75% (688/912) were managed as inpatients. Interestingly, women in the immediate delivery group had a higher cesarean delivery rate than those in the expectant management group (239 [26%] vs 169 [19%], respectively; RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2–1.7), although no explanation was offered.

Strengths and limitationsMajor strengths of this study include the large sample size and superior study design. It is by far the largest RCT to address this question. Because this was a pragmatic RCT, certain practices (such as the choice of latency antibiotic regimen) varied across centers, although randomization would be expected to minimize the effect of such variables on study outcome.

A major limitation is that participant recruitment occurred over a period of more than 10 years, during which time antenatal and neonatal intensive care unit practices likely would have changed.

What this evidence means for practiceFew clinical studies have the potential to significantly change obstetric management. This report by Morris and colleagues is one such study. It was well designed, well executed, and powered to look at the most clinically relevant outcome, namely, neonatal sepsis. While these study results do call into question the current American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations to electively deliver patients with PPROM at or after 34 weeks’ gestation, additional discussion is needed at the national level before these recommendations can be changed.
—Denis A. Vaughan, MBBCh, BAO, MRCPI, and Errol R. Norwitz, MD, PhD

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

AUSTIN, TEX. – With ongoing changes in health delivery and ever-increasing government scrutiny over care, physicians face a number of pressing legal risks this year.

At an American Health Lawyers Association meeting, Birmingham, Ala., health law attorney William W. Horton shared the top legal dangers for doctors in 2016.

From False Claims Act investigations and whistle-blower claims to liability connected to value-based care, clinicians have a lot to consider, said Mr. Horton, who is chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section.

In a video interview, Mr. Horton also discussed how to reduce liability and limit government inquiries.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

AUSTIN, TEX. – With ongoing changes in health delivery and ever-increasing government scrutiny over care, physicians face a number of pressing legal risks this year.

At an American Health Lawyers Association meeting, Birmingham, Ala., health law attorney William W. Horton shared the top legal dangers for doctors in 2016.

From False Claims Act investigations and whistle-blower claims to liability connected to value-based care, clinicians have a lot to consider, said Mr. Horton, who is chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section.

In a video interview, Mr. Horton also discussed how to reduce liability and limit government inquiries.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

AUSTIN, TEX. – With ongoing changes in health delivery and ever-increasing government scrutiny over care, physicians face a number of pressing legal risks this year.

At an American Health Lawyers Association meeting, Birmingham, Ala., health law attorney William W. Horton shared the top legal dangers for doctors in 2016.

From False Claims Act investigations and whistle-blower claims to liability connected to value-based care, clinicians have a lot to consider, said Mr. Horton, who is chair of the American Bar Association Health Law Section.

In a video interview, Mr. Horton also discussed how to reduce liability and limit government inquiries.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

In the early 1970’s, the three letters that a pediatric house officer hated to see on a slip returning from the lab were Q.N.S. Quality Not Sufficient meant that the minutes, which seemed like hours, you had invested torturing some poor sick child to obtain just a few cc’s of blood had been wasted. It also meant returning to the patient’s crib or bedside to explain to the child and her parents that the torture you had promised was over for the day was in fact not over.

Tourniquets were fished out of lapel buttonholes, and the search for a decent vein had to begin all over again. If the child was chubby or bloated with retained fluid, those veins were invisible. If the child had been ill for weeks – particularly if the patient had been on chemotherapy – all of the good veins had been blown or had clotted days ago.

Many of the patients were saintly and eerily cooperative despite your fumbling attempts at venipuncture, but most were not. Some parents were so supportive of your efforts that you wanted to hug them when the ordeal was over (and you did). A few parents amped up the tension at the bedside so much that you wanted to ask them to leave (but you didn’t). If a parent was understandably incapable of effectively restraining the child, you needed to find an experienced nurse to help. A few of the best nurses were so good that the house officer merely needed to hold the needle still, and the child was repositioned in just the right orientation so that the puncture occurred miraculously.

There were some last ditch efforts at phlebotomy that were so ghastly that you had to ask the parents to leave. I don’t know if the infamous internal jugular stick is still used, but it wasn’t pretty. And it was almost as frightening for the physician holding the needle as it was for the patient. Even in the big teaching hospitals, dedicated phlebotomists hadn’t been invented yet. A few nurses had earned reputations as good vein finders, but for the most part it was on-the-job training for the house officers.

It was not until 1973 that Dr. John Broviac’s central line catheters became available in some hospitals and 1979 until Dr. Robert Hickman’s version appeared. It took a few more years before techniques were perfected for safely drawing specimens from these lines that had been originally intended for infusion. But for me and my cohort of house officers and our unfortunate patients, it was years too late. I am sure that caring for hospitalized pediatric cancer patients today continues to be dominated by challenges. But for those of us tasked with drawing blood from patients without the benefit of central line catheters, it was gut wrenching.

Those battles for a few cc’s of blood left their scars. I have seldom ordered any blood test without asking myself whether there wasn’t a bloodless way of assessing the patient’s condition. Or couldn’t we just do the test on a drop or two of blood? Of course, as I as finishing my training, more tests were downsized so that they could be done “micro.” But as you know, getting enough blood from a heel stick or finger prick isn’t always as easy as it sounds. If the child is shocky or cold, a good blood flow is hard to obtain. Warming helps but squeezing doesn’t because tissue juices can dilute the sample, and the trauma of squeezing can contaminate the sample.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology raises the question of how accurately even a single drop of blood reflects what is going on in the patient’s total blood pool (“Drop by drop variation in the cellular components of fingerprick blood: Implications for point-of-care diagnostic development” [Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Dec;144(6):885-94]). Two bioengineers from Rice University discovered that six successive drops of blood from a single finger prick varied by a significant amount when analyzed for a variety of cellular components. For example, the drop-to-drop variability for hemoglobin was five times that of a sample collected by venipuncture.

You and I may dream of the day when just a drop will do it and we can put our needles away for good. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is that a single drop of blood is a Q.N.S.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

In the early 1970’s, the three letters that a pediatric house officer hated to see on a slip returning from the lab were Q.N.S. Quality Not Sufficient meant that the minutes, which seemed like hours, you had invested torturing some poor sick child to obtain just a few cc’s of blood had been wasted. It also meant returning to the patient’s crib or bedside to explain to the child and her parents that the torture you had promised was over for the day was in fact not over.

Tourniquets were fished out of lapel buttonholes, and the search for a decent vein had to begin all over again. If the child was chubby or bloated with retained fluid, those veins were invisible. If the child had been ill for weeks – particularly if the patient had been on chemotherapy – all of the good veins had been blown or had clotted days ago.

Many of the patients were saintly and eerily cooperative despite your fumbling attempts at venipuncture, but most were not. Some parents were so supportive of your efforts that you wanted to hug them when the ordeal was over (and you did). A few parents amped up the tension at the bedside so much that you wanted to ask them to leave (but you didn’t). If a parent was understandably incapable of effectively restraining the child, you needed to find an experienced nurse to help. A few of the best nurses were so good that the house officer merely needed to hold the needle still, and the child was repositioned in just the right orientation so that the puncture occurred miraculously.

There were some last ditch efforts at phlebotomy that were so ghastly that you had to ask the parents to leave. I don’t know if the infamous internal jugular stick is still used, but it wasn’t pretty. And it was almost as frightening for the physician holding the needle as it was for the patient. Even in the big teaching hospitals, dedicated phlebotomists hadn’t been invented yet. A few nurses had earned reputations as good vein finders, but for the most part it was on-the-job training for the house officers.

It was not until 1973 that Dr. John Broviac’s central line catheters became available in some hospitals and 1979 until Dr. Robert Hickman’s version appeared. It took a few more years before techniques were perfected for safely drawing specimens from these lines that had been originally intended for infusion. But for me and my cohort of house officers and our unfortunate patients, it was years too late. I am sure that caring for hospitalized pediatric cancer patients today continues to be dominated by challenges. But for those of us tasked with drawing blood from patients without the benefit of central line catheters, it was gut wrenching.

Those battles for a few cc’s of blood left their scars. I have seldom ordered any blood test without asking myself whether there wasn’t a bloodless way of assessing the patient’s condition. Or couldn’t we just do the test on a drop or two of blood? Of course, as I as finishing my training, more tests were downsized so that they could be done “micro.” But as you know, getting enough blood from a heel stick or finger prick isn’t always as easy as it sounds. If the child is shocky or cold, a good blood flow is hard to obtain. Warming helps but squeezing doesn’t because tissue juices can dilute the sample, and the trauma of squeezing can contaminate the sample.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology raises the question of how accurately even a single drop of blood reflects what is going on in the patient’s total blood pool (“Drop by drop variation in the cellular components of fingerprick blood: Implications for point-of-care diagnostic development” [Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Dec;144(6):885-94]). Two bioengineers from Rice University discovered that six successive drops of blood from a single finger prick varied by a significant amount when analyzed for a variety of cellular components. For example, the drop-to-drop variability for hemoglobin was five times that of a sample collected by venipuncture.

You and I may dream of the day when just a drop will do it and we can put our needles away for good. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is that a single drop of blood is a Q.N.S.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

In the early 1970’s, the three letters that a pediatric house officer hated to see on a slip returning from the lab were Q.N.S. Quality Not Sufficient meant that the minutes, which seemed like hours, you had invested torturing some poor sick child to obtain just a few cc’s of blood had been wasted. It also meant returning to the patient’s crib or bedside to explain to the child and her parents that the torture you had promised was over for the day was in fact not over.

Tourniquets were fished out of lapel buttonholes, and the search for a decent vein had to begin all over again. If the child was chubby or bloated with retained fluid, those veins were invisible. If the child had been ill for weeks – particularly if the patient had been on chemotherapy – all of the good veins had been blown or had clotted days ago.

Many of the patients were saintly and eerily cooperative despite your fumbling attempts at venipuncture, but most were not. Some parents were so supportive of your efforts that you wanted to hug them when the ordeal was over (and you did). A few parents amped up the tension at the bedside so much that you wanted to ask them to leave (but you didn’t). If a parent was understandably incapable of effectively restraining the child, you needed to find an experienced nurse to help. A few of the best nurses were so good that the house officer merely needed to hold the needle still, and the child was repositioned in just the right orientation so that the puncture occurred miraculously.

There were some last ditch efforts at phlebotomy that were so ghastly that you had to ask the parents to leave. I don’t know if the infamous internal jugular stick is still used, but it wasn’t pretty. And it was almost as frightening for the physician holding the needle as it was for the patient. Even in the big teaching hospitals, dedicated phlebotomists hadn’t been invented yet. A few nurses had earned reputations as good vein finders, but for the most part it was on-the-job training for the house officers.

It was not until 1973 that Dr. John Broviac’s central line catheters became available in some hospitals and 1979 until Dr. Robert Hickman’s version appeared. It took a few more years before techniques were perfected for safely drawing specimens from these lines that had been originally intended for infusion. But for me and my cohort of house officers and our unfortunate patients, it was years too late. I am sure that caring for hospitalized pediatric cancer patients today continues to be dominated by challenges. But for those of us tasked with drawing blood from patients without the benefit of central line catheters, it was gut wrenching.

Those battles for a few cc’s of blood left their scars. I have seldom ordered any blood test without asking myself whether there wasn’t a bloodless way of assessing the patient’s condition. Or couldn’t we just do the test on a drop or two of blood? Of course, as I as finishing my training, more tests were downsized so that they could be done “micro.” But as you know, getting enough blood from a heel stick or finger prick isn’t always as easy as it sounds. If the child is shocky or cold, a good blood flow is hard to obtain. Warming helps but squeezing doesn’t because tissue juices can dilute the sample, and the trauma of squeezing can contaminate the sample.

A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology raises the question of how accurately even a single drop of blood reflects what is going on in the patient’s total blood pool (“Drop by drop variation in the cellular components of fingerprick blood: Implications for point-of-care diagnostic development” [Am J Clin Pathol. 2015 Dec;144(6):885-94]). Two bioengineers from Rice University discovered that six successive drops of blood from a single finger prick varied by a significant amount when analyzed for a variety of cellular components. For example, the drop-to-drop variability for hemoglobin was five times that of a sample collected by venipuncture.

You and I may dream of the day when just a drop will do it and we can put our needles away for good. Unfortunately, for now, the answer is that a single drop of blood is a Q.N.S.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.”

May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD

President & Annual Meeting Chair
Joseph S. Coselli

Annual Meeting Co-Chairs
Charles D. Fraser
David R. Jones

View Preliminary Program, Speakers, Presentations and Full Abstracts

The 96th Annual Meeting is a five-day program of state-of-the-art presentations by renowned experts. Attendees will enhance their knowledge and skills in a wide-range of subjects including general and specialized cardiac surgery, emerging technologies, congenital heart disease, critical care and aortic/endovascular surgery.

Don’t miss this year’s exciting program including:

Saturday Skills Courses featuring Combined Luncheon Speaker: Denton A. Cooley, followed by Hands-On Sessions

Sunday Postgraduate Symposia with Legends Luncheons featuring Joel D. Cooper and John L. Ochsner

New: Survival Guide for the Cardiothoracic Surgical Team course following by a Hands-On Session (Available to Residents, Fellows and Health Care Professionals Only)

Presidential Address: Competition: Perspiration to Inspiration “Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”, Joseph S. Coselli, Baylor College of Medicine

Basic Science Lecture: Stopping Incurable Cancers through Eliminating their Anti-Oxidative Defenses, James D. Watson, a Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and researcher who is credited with co-discovering the double-helix structure of DNA.

Honored Guest Lecture: Brian Kelly, Notre Dame Head Football Coach and a veteran of 23 seasons as a collegiate head coach. Brian Kelly brings a championship tradition to his fifth year as the 29th head football coach at the University of Notre Dame.

Emerging Technologies & Techniques For: Adult Cardiac and General Thoracic

VAD/ECMO SessionMasters of Surgery: Video Sessions

AATS Learning Center: Featuring cutting-edge case videos of novel procedures and surgical techniques.

May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD

President & Annual Meeting Chair
Joseph S. Coselli

Annual Meeting Co-Chairs
Charles D. Fraser
David R. Jones

View Preliminary Program, Speakers, Presentations and Full Abstracts

The 96th Annual Meeting is a five-day program of state-of-the-art presentations by renowned experts. Attendees will enhance their knowledge and skills in a wide-range of subjects including general and specialized cardiac surgery, emerging technologies, congenital heart disease, critical care and aortic/endovascular surgery.

Don’t miss this year’s exciting program including:

Saturday Skills Courses featuring Combined Luncheon Speaker: Denton A. Cooley, followed by Hands-On Sessions

Sunday Postgraduate Symposia with Legends Luncheons featuring Joel D. Cooper and John L. Ochsner

New: Survival Guide for the Cardiothoracic Surgical Team course following by a Hands-On Session (Available to Residents, Fellows and Health Care Professionals Only)

Presidential Address: Competition: Perspiration to Inspiration “Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”, Joseph S. Coselli, Baylor College of Medicine

Basic Science Lecture: Stopping Incurable Cancers through Eliminating their Anti-Oxidative Defenses, James D. Watson, a Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and researcher who is credited with co-discovering the double-helix structure of DNA.

Honored Guest Lecture: Brian Kelly, Notre Dame Head Football Coach and a veteran of 23 seasons as a collegiate head coach. Brian Kelly brings a championship tradition to his fifth year as the 29th head football coach at the University of Notre Dame.

Emerging Technologies & Techniques For: Adult Cardiac and General Thoracic

VAD/ECMO SessionMasters of Surgery: Video Sessions

AATS Learning Center: Featuring cutting-edge case videos of novel procedures and surgical techniques.

May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD

President & Annual Meeting Chair
Joseph S. Coselli

Annual Meeting Co-Chairs
Charles D. Fraser
David R. Jones

View Preliminary Program, Speakers, Presentations and Full Abstracts

The 96th Annual Meeting is a five-day program of state-of-the-art presentations by renowned experts. Attendees will enhance their knowledge and skills in a wide-range of subjects including general and specialized cardiac surgery, emerging technologies, congenital heart disease, critical care and aortic/endovascular surgery.

Don’t miss this year’s exciting program including:

Saturday Skills Courses featuring Combined Luncheon Speaker: Denton A. Cooley, followed by Hands-On Sessions

Sunday Postgraduate Symposia with Legends Luncheons featuring Joel D. Cooper and John L. Ochsner

New: Survival Guide for the Cardiothoracic Surgical Team course following by a Hands-On Session (Available to Residents, Fellows and Health Care Professionals Only)

Presidential Address: Competition: Perspiration to Inspiration “Aut viam inveniam aut faciam”, Joseph S. Coselli, Baylor College of Medicine

Basic Science Lecture: Stopping Incurable Cancers through Eliminating their Anti-Oxidative Defenses, James D. Watson, a Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and researcher who is credited with co-discovering the double-helix structure of DNA.

Honored Guest Lecture: Brian Kelly, Notre Dame Head Football Coach and a veteran of 23 seasons as a collegiate head coach. Brian Kelly brings a championship tradition to his fifth year as the 29th head football coach at the University of Notre Dame.

Emerging Technologies & Techniques For: Adult Cardiac and General Thoracic

VAD/ECMO SessionMasters of Surgery: Video Sessions

AATS Learning Center: Featuring cutting-edge case videos of novel procedures and surgical techniques.

May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY

Course Directors
Joseph S. Coselli
Steven L. Lansman

The 2016 AATS Aortic Symposium is a two-day symposium focused on the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysms and dissections. The conference is designed for cardiovascular and thoracic surgeons, residents, perfusionists, ICU and OR nurses and others involved in aortic disease patient care. Faculty members include world leaders in the field who will share their experiences treating difficult aortic disease cases.

View the preliminary program

Learn More

May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY

Course Directors
Joseph S. Coselli
Steven L. Lansman

The 2016 AATS Aortic Symposium is a two-day symposium focused on the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysms and dissections. The conference is designed for cardiovascular and thoracic surgeons, residents, perfusionists, ICU and OR nurses and others involved in aortic disease patient care. Faculty members include world leaders in the field who will share their experiences treating difficult aortic disease cases.

View the preliminary program

Learn More

May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY

Course Directors
Joseph S. Coselli
Steven L. Lansman

The 2016 AATS Aortic Symposium is a two-day symposium focused on the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of aortic aneurysms and dissections. The conference is designed for cardiovascular and thoracic surgeons, residents, perfusionists, ICU and OR nurses and others involved in aortic disease patient care. Faculty members include world leaders in the field who will share their experiences treating difficult aortic disease cases.

View the preliminary program

Learn More

Health Care Professional Package: Includes Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposia and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016 for only $400 — a savings of $300.

Resident/Fellow and Medical Student Package: Includes Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposia and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016 and attend for no charge. After that date, the fee is $300 — a savings of $300.

Saturday Courses and Sunday Symposia Registration: Register for a Saturday course and/or a Sunday symposium and have access to all other courses/symposia taking place that same day. Note: Registration for the Saturday courses and/or Sunday symposium is separate from the Annual Meeting fee.

Learn More

Health Care Professional Package: Includes Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposia and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016 for only $400 — a savings of $300.

Resident/Fellow and Medical Student Package: Includes Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposia and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016 and attend for no charge. After that date, the fee is $300 — a savings of $300.

Saturday Courses and Sunday Symposia Registration: Register for a Saturday course and/or a Sunday symposium and have access to all other courses/symposia taking place that same day. Note: Registration for the Saturday courses and/or Sunday symposium is separate from the Annual Meeting fee.

Learn More

Health Care Professional Package: Includes Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposia and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016 for only $400 — a savings of $300.

Resident/Fellow and Medical Student Package: Includes Saturday Courses, Sunday Symposia and the 96th Annual Meeting (Monday-Wednesday). Register before March 25, 2016 and attend for no charge. After that date, the fee is $300 — a savings of $300.

Saturday Courses and Sunday Symposia Registration: Register for a Saturday course and/or a Sunday symposium and have access to all other courses/symposia taking place that same day. Note: Registration for the Saturday courses and/or Sunday symposium is separate from the Annual Meeting fee.

Learn More

AATS Week 2016 includes Two Terrific Events

Aortic Symposium
May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY

96th Annual Meeting
May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD

Register for AATS Week 2016 today & receive a $100 discount off the AATS Aortic Symposium registration fee

Registration & Housing Now Open

AATS Week 2016 includes Two Terrific Events

Aortic Symposium
May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY

96th Annual Meeting
May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD

Register for AATS Week 2016 today & receive a $100 discount off the AATS Aortic Symposium registration fee

Registration & Housing Now Open

AATS Week 2016 includes Two Terrific Events

Aortic Symposium
May 12–13, 2016
New York, NY

96th Annual Meeting
May 14-18, 2016
Baltimore, MD

Register for AATS Week 2016 today & receive a $100 discount off the AATS Aortic Symposium registration fee

Registration & Housing Now Open

Access Dr. Burkman's Webcasts on contraception:

• Obesity and contraceptive efficacy and risks 
• How to use the CDC's online tools to manage complex cases in contraception

Helpful resource for your practice:

• Guttmacher Institute Fact Sheet: Contraceptive Use in the United States, October 2015    

Access Dr. Burkman's Webcasts on contraception:

• Obesity and contraceptive efficacy and risks 
• How to use the CDC's online tools to manage complex cases in contraception

Helpful resource for your practice:

• Guttmacher Institute Fact Sheet: Contraceptive Use in the United States, October 2015    

Access Dr. Burkman's Webcasts on contraception:

• Obesity and contraceptive efficacy and risks 
• How to use the CDC's online tools to manage complex cases in contraception

Helpful resource for your practice:

• Guttmacher Institute Fact Sheet: Contraceptive Use in the United States, October 2015    

LOS ANGELES – Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia is associated with subsequent ischemic stroke in patients without documented atrial fibrillation, according to a claims analysis of 42,152 Medicare enrollees at least 66 years old.

Atrial fibrillation accounts for perhaps 30% of cryptogenic strokes, “so clearly there’s something more to the story than just atrial fibrillation in” the other 70%, said investigator Dr. Hooman Kamel, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York. “Most cryptogenic strokes seem like they are embolic. The question is what are the undiscovered sources of embolism?”

Dr. Kamel and his colleagues focused on paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) even though it’s generally considered benign. But “PSVT is increasingly recognized as a marker for underlying atrial dysfunction, especially in older patients. In some cases, the abnormal atrial substrate could cause thromboembolism even before atrial fibrillation [AF] appears,” he said at the International Stroke Conference.

To ensure regular heart rhythm monitoring, the study was limited to patients with implanted pacemakers or defibrillators. Patients with AF or stroke before or at the time of device implantation were excluded.

After a median of 1.8 years of follow-up, 2,245 patients (5.3%) were diagnosed with PSVT, and 1,007 (2.4%) had an ischemic stroke. The incidence of stroke without PSVT diagnosis was 0.95% per year, but 2.17% per year with a preceding PSVT diagnosis (P less than .001). Adjusting for age, gender, income, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and other potential confounders, the team found that a diagnosis of PSVT was associated with a doubling of ischemic stroke risk (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0), and an almost quadrupling of the risk for embolic stroke (HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.1-11.8).

“A lot more work needs to be done to nail this down, but potentially we are broadening the pool of atrial markers for stroke risk. These results build on recent findings that disturbances of atrial rhythm and function other than AF may” lead to stroke, Dr. Kamel said.

It’s way too soon to consider atrial ablation for PSVT to reduce stroke risk, he said, but his team is interrogating its administrative data for clues of its utility. “The idea of ablation for stroke is really interesting. I think ablation should help reduce the risk of stroke. It’s a really important question, and we don’t know the answer yet. There’s a lot more to be learned, [but] there does seem to be a definite progression from PSVT to AF,” Dr. Kamel said.

The National Institutes of Health funded the work. Dr. Kamel is a speaker for Genentech.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia is associated with subsequent ischemic stroke in patients without documented atrial fibrillation, according to a claims analysis of 42,152 Medicare enrollees at least 66 years old.

Atrial fibrillation accounts for perhaps 30% of cryptogenic strokes, “so clearly there’s something more to the story than just atrial fibrillation in” the other 70%, said investigator Dr. Hooman Kamel, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York. “Most cryptogenic strokes seem like they are embolic. The question is what are the undiscovered sources of embolism?”

Dr. Kamel and his colleagues focused on paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) even though it’s generally considered benign. But “PSVT is increasingly recognized as a marker for underlying atrial dysfunction, especially in older patients. In some cases, the abnormal atrial substrate could cause thromboembolism even before atrial fibrillation [AF] appears,” he said at the International Stroke Conference.

To ensure regular heart rhythm monitoring, the study was limited to patients with implanted pacemakers or defibrillators. Patients with AF or stroke before or at the time of device implantation were excluded.

After a median of 1.8 years of follow-up, 2,245 patients (5.3%) were diagnosed with PSVT, and 1,007 (2.4%) had an ischemic stroke. The incidence of stroke without PSVT diagnosis was 0.95% per year, but 2.17% per year with a preceding PSVT diagnosis (P less than .001). Adjusting for age, gender, income, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and other potential confounders, the team found that a diagnosis of PSVT was associated with a doubling of ischemic stroke risk (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0), and an almost quadrupling of the risk for embolic stroke (HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.1-11.8).

“A lot more work needs to be done to nail this down, but potentially we are broadening the pool of atrial markers for stroke risk. These results build on recent findings that disturbances of atrial rhythm and function other than AF may” lead to stroke, Dr. Kamel said.

It’s way too soon to consider atrial ablation for PSVT to reduce stroke risk, he said, but his team is interrogating its administrative data for clues of its utility. “The idea of ablation for stroke is really interesting. I think ablation should help reduce the risk of stroke. It’s a really important question, and we don’t know the answer yet. There’s a lot more to be learned, [but] there does seem to be a definite progression from PSVT to AF,” Dr. Kamel said.

The National Institutes of Health funded the work. Dr. Kamel is a speaker for Genentech.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia is associated with subsequent ischemic stroke in patients without documented atrial fibrillation, according to a claims analysis of 42,152 Medicare enrollees at least 66 years old.

Atrial fibrillation accounts for perhaps 30% of cryptogenic strokes, “so clearly there’s something more to the story than just atrial fibrillation in” the other 70%, said investigator Dr. Hooman Kamel, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York. “Most cryptogenic strokes seem like they are embolic. The question is what are the undiscovered sources of embolism?”

Dr. Kamel and his colleagues focused on paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) even though it’s generally considered benign. But “PSVT is increasingly recognized as a marker for underlying atrial dysfunction, especially in older patients. In some cases, the abnormal atrial substrate could cause thromboembolism even before atrial fibrillation [AF] appears,” he said at the International Stroke Conference.

To ensure regular heart rhythm monitoring, the study was limited to patients with implanted pacemakers or defibrillators. Patients with AF or stroke before or at the time of device implantation were excluded.

After a median of 1.8 years of follow-up, 2,245 patients (5.3%) were diagnosed with PSVT, and 1,007 (2.4%) had an ischemic stroke. The incidence of stroke without PSVT diagnosis was 0.95% per year, but 2.17% per year with a preceding PSVT diagnosis (P less than .001). Adjusting for age, gender, income, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and other potential confounders, the team found that a diagnosis of PSVT was associated with a doubling of ischemic stroke risk (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0), and an almost quadrupling of the risk for embolic stroke (HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.1-11.8).

“A lot more work needs to be done to nail this down, but potentially we are broadening the pool of atrial markers for stroke risk. These results build on recent findings that disturbances of atrial rhythm and function other than AF may” lead to stroke, Dr. Kamel said.

It’s way too soon to consider atrial ablation for PSVT to reduce stroke risk, he said, but his team is interrogating its administrative data for clues of its utility. “The idea of ablation for stroke is really interesting. I think ablation should help reduce the risk of stroke. It’s a really important question, and we don’t know the answer yet. There’s a lot more to be learned, [but] there does seem to be a definite progression from PSVT to AF,” Dr. Kamel said.

The National Institutes of Health funded the work. Dr. Kamel is a speaker for Genentech.

[email protected]