All Content

Increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), new research suggests for the first time that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) also confers a higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after AFib ablation.

Over 29 months of postablation follow-up, 56% of patients with NAFLD suffered bouts of arrhythmia, compared with 31% of patients without NAFLD, matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ejection fraction within 5%, and AFib type (P < .0001).

The presence of NAFLD was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence in multivariable analyses adjusted for several confounders, including hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and AFib type (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.94-4.68).

The association is concerning given that one in four adults in the United States has NAFLD, and up to 6.1 million Americans are estimated to have Afib. Previous studies, such as ARREST-AF and LEGACY, however, have demonstrated the benefits of aggressive preablation cardiometabolic risk factor modification on long-term AFib ablation success.

Indeed, none of the NAFLD patients in the present study who lost at least 10% of their body weight had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 31% who lost less than 10%, and 91% who gained weight prior to ablation (P < .0001).

All 22 patients whose A1c increased during the 12 months prior to ablation had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 36% of patients whose A1c improved (P < .0001).

“I don’t think the findings of the study were particularly surprising, given what we know. It’s just further reinforcement of the essential role of risk-factor modification,” lead author Eoin Donnellan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The results were published Augus 12 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

For the study, the researchers examined data from 267 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 32.7 kg/m² who underwent radiofrequency ablation (98%) or cryoablation (2%) at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2013 and December 2017.

All patients were followed for at least 12 months after ablation and had scheduled clinic visits at 3, 6, and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, and annually thereafter.

NAFLD was diagnosed in 89 patients prior to ablation on the basis of CT imaging and abdominal ultrasound or MRI. On the basis of NAFLD-Fibrosis Score (NAFLD-FS), 13 patients had a low probability of liver fibrosis (F0-F2), 54 had an indeterminate probability, and 22 a high probability of fibrosis (F3-F4).

Compared with patients with no or early fibrosis (F0-F2), patients with advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) had almost a threefold increase in AFib recurrence (82% vs. 31%; P = .003).

“Cardiologists should make an effort to risk-stratify NAFLD patients either by NAFLD-FS or [an] alternative option, such as transient elastography or MR elastography, given these observations, rather than viewing it as either present or absence [sic] and involve expert multidisciplinary team care early in the clinical course of NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues wrote.

Coauthor Thomas G. Cotter, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Chicago, said in an interview that cardiologists could use just the NAFLD-FS as part of an algorithm for an AFib.

“Because if it shows low risk, then it’s very, very likely the patient will be fine,” he said. “To use more advanced noninvasive testing, there are subtleties in the interpretation that would require referral to a liver doctor or a gastroenterologist and the cost of referring might bulk up the costs. But the NAFLD-FS is freely available and is a validated tool.”

Although it hasn’t specifically been validated in patients with AFib, the NAFLD-FS has been shown to correlate with the development of coronary artery disease  (CAD) and was recommended for clinical use in U.S. multisociety guidelines for NAFLD.

The score is calculated using six readily available clinical variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia or diabetes, AST/ALT, platelets, and albumin). It does not include family history or alcohol consumption, which should be carefully detailed given the large overlap between NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, Dr. Cotter observed.

Of note, the study excluded patients with alcohol consumption of more than 30 g/day in men and more than 20 g/day in women, chronic viral hepatitis, Wilson’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis.

Finally, CT imaging revealed that epicardial fat volume (EFV) was greater in patients with NAFLD than in those without NAFLD (248 vs. 223 mL; P = .01).

Although increased amounts of epicardial fat have been associated with CAD, there was no significant difference in EFV between patients who did and did not develop recurrent arrhythmia (238 vs. 229 mL; P = .5). Nor was EFV associated with arrhythmia recurrence on Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 1.001; P = .17).

“We hypothesized that the increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence may be mediated in part by an increased epicardial fat volume,” Dr. Donnellan said. “The existing literature exploring the link between epicardial fat volume and A[Fib] burden and recurrence is conflicting. But in both this study and our bariatric surgery study, epicardial fat volume was not a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence on multivariable analysis.”

It’s likely that the increased recurrence risk is caused by several mechanisms, including NAFLD’s deleterious impact on cardiac structure and function, the bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and sleep apnea, and transcription of proinflammatory cytokines and low-grade systemic inflammation, he suggested.

“Patients with NAFLD represent a particularly high-risk population for arrhythmia recurrence. NAFLD is a reversible disease, and a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dietary and lifestyle interventions should by instituted prior to ablation,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues concluded.

They noted that serial abdominal imaging to assess for preablation changes in NAFLD was limited in patients and that only 56% of control subjects underwent dedicated abdominal imaging to rule out hepatic steatosis. Also, the heterogeneity of imaging modalities used to diagnose NAFLD may have influenced the results and the study’s single-center, retrospective design limits their generalizability.

The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), new research suggests for the first time that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) also confers a higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after AFib ablation.

Over 29 months of postablation follow-up, 56% of patients with NAFLD suffered bouts of arrhythmia, compared with 31% of patients without NAFLD, matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ejection fraction within 5%, and AFib type (P < .0001).

The presence of NAFLD was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence in multivariable analyses adjusted for several confounders, including hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and AFib type (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.94-4.68).

The association is concerning given that one in four adults in the United States has NAFLD, and up to 6.1 million Americans are estimated to have Afib. Previous studies, such as ARREST-AF and LEGACY, however, have demonstrated the benefits of aggressive preablation cardiometabolic risk factor modification on long-term AFib ablation success.

Indeed, none of the NAFLD patients in the present study who lost at least 10% of their body weight had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 31% who lost less than 10%, and 91% who gained weight prior to ablation (P < .0001).

All 22 patients whose A1c increased during the 12 months prior to ablation had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 36% of patients whose A1c improved (P < .0001).

“I don’t think the findings of the study were particularly surprising, given what we know. It’s just further reinforcement of the essential role of risk-factor modification,” lead author Eoin Donnellan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The results were published Augus 12 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

For the study, the researchers examined data from 267 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 32.7 kg/m² who underwent radiofrequency ablation (98%) or cryoablation (2%) at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2013 and December 2017.

All patients were followed for at least 12 months after ablation and had scheduled clinic visits at 3, 6, and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, and annually thereafter.

NAFLD was diagnosed in 89 patients prior to ablation on the basis of CT imaging and abdominal ultrasound or MRI. On the basis of NAFLD-Fibrosis Score (NAFLD-FS), 13 patients had a low probability of liver fibrosis (F0-F2), 54 had an indeterminate probability, and 22 a high probability of fibrosis (F3-F4).

Compared with patients with no or early fibrosis (F0-F2), patients with advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) had almost a threefold increase in AFib recurrence (82% vs. 31%; P = .003).

“Cardiologists should make an effort to risk-stratify NAFLD patients either by NAFLD-FS or [an] alternative option, such as transient elastography or MR elastography, given these observations, rather than viewing it as either present or absence [sic] and involve expert multidisciplinary team care early in the clinical course of NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues wrote.

Coauthor Thomas G. Cotter, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Chicago, said in an interview that cardiologists could use just the NAFLD-FS as part of an algorithm for an AFib.

“Because if it shows low risk, then it’s very, very likely the patient will be fine,” he said. “To use more advanced noninvasive testing, there are subtleties in the interpretation that would require referral to a liver doctor or a gastroenterologist and the cost of referring might bulk up the costs. But the NAFLD-FS is freely available and is a validated tool.”

Although it hasn’t specifically been validated in patients with AFib, the NAFLD-FS has been shown to correlate with the development of coronary artery disease  (CAD) and was recommended for clinical use in U.S. multisociety guidelines for NAFLD.

The score is calculated using six readily available clinical variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia or diabetes, AST/ALT, platelets, and albumin). It does not include family history or alcohol consumption, which should be carefully detailed given the large overlap between NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, Dr. Cotter observed.

Of note, the study excluded patients with alcohol consumption of more than 30 g/day in men and more than 20 g/day in women, chronic viral hepatitis, Wilson’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis.

Finally, CT imaging revealed that epicardial fat volume (EFV) was greater in patients with NAFLD than in those without NAFLD (248 vs. 223 mL; P = .01).

Although increased amounts of epicardial fat have been associated with CAD, there was no significant difference in EFV between patients who did and did not develop recurrent arrhythmia (238 vs. 229 mL; P = .5). Nor was EFV associated with arrhythmia recurrence on Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 1.001; P = .17).

“We hypothesized that the increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence may be mediated in part by an increased epicardial fat volume,” Dr. Donnellan said. “The existing literature exploring the link between epicardial fat volume and A[Fib] burden and recurrence is conflicting. But in both this study and our bariatric surgery study, epicardial fat volume was not a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence on multivariable analysis.”

It’s likely that the increased recurrence risk is caused by several mechanisms, including NAFLD’s deleterious impact on cardiac structure and function, the bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and sleep apnea, and transcription of proinflammatory cytokines and low-grade systemic inflammation, he suggested.

“Patients with NAFLD represent a particularly high-risk population for arrhythmia recurrence. NAFLD is a reversible disease, and a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dietary and lifestyle interventions should by instituted prior to ablation,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues concluded.

They noted that serial abdominal imaging to assess for preablation changes in NAFLD was limited in patients and that only 56% of control subjects underwent dedicated abdominal imaging to rule out hepatic steatosis. Also, the heterogeneity of imaging modalities used to diagnose NAFLD may have influenced the results and the study’s single-center, retrospective design limits their generalizability.

The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AFib), new research suggests for the first time that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) also confers a higher risk for arrhythmia recurrence after AFib ablation.

Over 29 months of postablation follow-up, 56% of patients with NAFLD suffered bouts of arrhythmia, compared with 31% of patients without NAFLD, matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ejection fraction within 5%, and AFib type (P < .0001).

The presence of NAFLD was an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence in multivariable analyses adjusted for several confounders, including hemoglobin A1c, BMI, and AFib type (hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.94-4.68).

The association is concerning given that one in four adults in the United States has NAFLD, and up to 6.1 million Americans are estimated to have Afib. Previous studies, such as ARREST-AF and LEGACY, however, have demonstrated the benefits of aggressive preablation cardiometabolic risk factor modification on long-term AFib ablation success.

Indeed, none of the NAFLD patients in the present study who lost at least 10% of their body weight had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 31% who lost less than 10%, and 91% who gained weight prior to ablation (P < .0001).

All 22 patients whose A1c increased during the 12 months prior to ablation had recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 36% of patients whose A1c improved (P < .0001).

“I don’t think the findings of the study were particularly surprising, given what we know. It’s just further reinforcement of the essential role of risk-factor modification,” lead author Eoin Donnellan, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The results were published Augus 12 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

For the study, the researchers examined data from 267 consecutive patients with a mean BMI of 32.7 kg/m² who underwent radiofrequency ablation (98%) or cryoablation (2%) at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2013 and December 2017.

All patients were followed for at least 12 months after ablation and had scheduled clinic visits at 3, 6, and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, and annually thereafter.

NAFLD was diagnosed in 89 patients prior to ablation on the basis of CT imaging and abdominal ultrasound or MRI. On the basis of NAFLD-Fibrosis Score (NAFLD-FS), 13 patients had a low probability of liver fibrosis (F0-F2), 54 had an indeterminate probability, and 22 a high probability of fibrosis (F3-F4).

Compared with patients with no or early fibrosis (F0-F2), patients with advanced liver fibrosis (F3-F4) had almost a threefold increase in AFib recurrence (82% vs. 31%; P = .003).

“Cardiologists should make an effort to risk-stratify NAFLD patients either by NAFLD-FS or [an] alternative option, such as transient elastography or MR elastography, given these observations, rather than viewing it as either present or absence [sic] and involve expert multidisciplinary team care early in the clinical course of NAFLD patients with evidence of advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues wrote.

Coauthor Thomas G. Cotter, MD, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, University of Chicago, said in an interview that cardiologists could use just the NAFLD-FS as part of an algorithm for an AFib.

“Because if it shows low risk, then it’s very, very likely the patient will be fine,” he said. “To use more advanced noninvasive testing, there are subtleties in the interpretation that would require referral to a liver doctor or a gastroenterologist and the cost of referring might bulk up the costs. But the NAFLD-FS is freely available and is a validated tool.”

Although it hasn’t specifically been validated in patients with AFib, the NAFLD-FS has been shown to correlate with the development of coronary artery disease  (CAD) and was recommended for clinical use in U.S. multisociety guidelines for NAFLD.

The score is calculated using six readily available clinical variables (age, BMI, hyperglycemia or diabetes, AST/ALT, platelets, and albumin). It does not include family history or alcohol consumption, which should be carefully detailed given the large overlap between NAFLD and alcohol-related liver disease, Dr. Cotter observed.

Of note, the study excluded patients with alcohol consumption of more than 30 g/day in men and more than 20 g/day in women, chronic viral hepatitis, Wilson’s disease, and hereditary hemochromatosis.

Finally, CT imaging revealed that epicardial fat volume (EFV) was greater in patients with NAFLD than in those without NAFLD (248 vs. 223 mL; P = .01).

Although increased amounts of epicardial fat have been associated with CAD, there was no significant difference in EFV between patients who did and did not develop recurrent arrhythmia (238 vs. 229 mL; P = .5). Nor was EFV associated with arrhythmia recurrence on Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 1.001; P = .17).

“We hypothesized that the increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence may be mediated in part by an increased epicardial fat volume,” Dr. Donnellan said. “The existing literature exploring the link between epicardial fat volume and A[Fib] burden and recurrence is conflicting. But in both this study and our bariatric surgery study, epicardial fat volume was not a significant predictor of arrhythmia recurrence on multivariable analysis.”

It’s likely that the increased recurrence risk is caused by several mechanisms, including NAFLD’s deleterious impact on cardiac structure and function, the bidirectional relationship between NAFLD and sleep apnea, and transcription of proinflammatory cytokines and low-grade systemic inflammation, he suggested.

“Patients with NAFLD represent a particularly high-risk population for arrhythmia recurrence. NAFLD is a reversible disease, and a multidisciplinary approach incorporating dietary and lifestyle interventions should by instituted prior to ablation,” Dr. Donnellan and colleagues concluded.

They noted that serial abdominal imaging to assess for preablation changes in NAFLD was limited in patients and that only 56% of control subjects underwent dedicated abdominal imaging to rule out hepatic steatosis. Also, the heterogeneity of imaging modalities used to diagnose NAFLD may have influenced the results and the study’s single-center, retrospective design limits their generalizability.

The authors reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

All intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is not the same, Victor F. Tapson, MD, declared at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The best current guidelines on the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) recommend a risk stratification strategy that involves further subdivision of intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. This additional classification is worthwhile because it has important treatment implications.

Patients with intermediate- to low-risk PE, along with those who have truly low-risk PE, require anticoagulation only. In contrast, patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE are at increased risk of decompensation. They have a much higher in-hospital mortality than those with intermediate- to low-risk PE. So hospitalists may want to consult their hospitals’ PE response team (PERT), if there is one, or whoever on staff is involved in helping make decisions about the appropriateness of more aggressive interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis or catheter-directed clot extraction, said Dr. Tapson, director of the venous thromboembolism and pulmonary vascular disease research program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We don’t have evidence of any real proven mortality difference yet in the intermediate-high risk PE group by being more aggressive. I think if the right patients were studied we could see a mortality difference. But one thing I’ve noted is that by being more aggressive – in a cautious manner, in selected patients – we clearly shorten the hospital stay by doing catheter-directed therapy in some of these folks. It saves money,” he observed.

Once the diagnosis of PE is confirmed, the first priority is to get anticoagulation started in all patients with an acceptable bleeding risk, since there is convincing evidence that anticoagulation reduces mortality in PE. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a direct-acting oral anticoagulant over warfarin on the basis of persuasive evidence of lower risk of major bleeding coupled with equal or better effectiveness in preventing recurrent PE.

Dr. Tapson said it’s worthwhile for hospitalists to take a close look at these European guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01647-2019).

“I think our Europeans friends did a really nice job with those guidelines. They’re great guidelines, better than many of the others out there. I think they’re very, very usable,” he said. “I took part in the ACCP [American College of Chest Physicians] guidelines for years. I think they’re very rigorous in terms of the evidence base, but because they’re so rigorous there’s just tons of 2C recommendations, which are basically suggestions. The ESC guidelines are more robust.”
 

Risk stratification

Once anticoagulation is on board, the next task is risk stratification to determine the need for more aggressive therapy. A high-risk PE is best defined hemodynamically as one causing a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes. The term “high risk” is increasingly replacing “massive” PE, because the size of the clot doesn’t necessarily correlate with its hemodynamic impact.

An intermediate-risk PE is marked by a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score of 1 or more, right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or CT angiography, or an elevated cardiac troponin level.

The sPESI is a validated, user-friendly tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%.

“All you really need to know about a patient’s sPESI score is: Is it more than zero?” he explained.

Indeed, patients with an sPESI score of 0 have a 30-day mortality of 1%. With a score of 1 or more, however, that risk jumps to 10.9%.

No scoring system is 100% accurate, though, and Dr. Tapson emphasized that clinician gestalt plays an important role in PE risk stratification. In terms of clinical indicators of risk, he pays special attention to heart rate.

“I think if I had to pick the one thing that drives my decision the most about whether someone needs more aggressive therapy than anticoagulation, it’s probably heart rate,” he said. “If the heart rate is 70, the patient is probably very stable. Of course, that might not hold up in a patient with conduction problems or who is on a beta blocker, but in general if I see someone who looks good, has a relatively small PE, and a low heart rate, it makes me feel much better. If the heart rate is 130 or 120, I’m much more concerned.”

Both the European guidelines and the PERT Consortium guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE (Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1177/1076029619853037), which Dr. Tapson coauthored, recommend substratifying intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. It’s a straightforward matter: If a patient has either right ventricular dysfunction on imaging or an elevated cardiac troponin, that’s an intermediate- to low-risk PE warranting anticoagulation only. On the other hand, if both right ventricular dysfunction and an elevated troponin are present, the patient has an intermediate- to high-risk PE. Since this distinction translates to a difference in outcome, a consultation with PERT or an experienced PE interventionalist is in order for the intermediate- to high-risk PE, he said.

Dr. Tapson reported receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, BiO2, EKOS/BTG, and Daiichi. He is also a consultant to Janssen and BiO2, and on speakers’ bureaus for EKOS/BTG and Janssen.

[email protected]

All intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is not the same, Victor F. Tapson, MD, declared at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The best current guidelines on the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) recommend a risk stratification strategy that involves further subdivision of intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. This additional classification is worthwhile because it has important treatment implications.

Patients with intermediate- to low-risk PE, along with those who have truly low-risk PE, require anticoagulation only. In contrast, patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE are at increased risk of decompensation. They have a much higher in-hospital mortality than those with intermediate- to low-risk PE. So hospitalists may want to consult their hospitals’ PE response team (PERT), if there is one, or whoever on staff is involved in helping make decisions about the appropriateness of more aggressive interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis or catheter-directed clot extraction, said Dr. Tapson, director of the venous thromboembolism and pulmonary vascular disease research program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We don’t have evidence of any real proven mortality difference yet in the intermediate-high risk PE group by being more aggressive. I think if the right patients were studied we could see a mortality difference. But one thing I’ve noted is that by being more aggressive – in a cautious manner, in selected patients – we clearly shorten the hospital stay by doing catheter-directed therapy in some of these folks. It saves money,” he observed.

Once the diagnosis of PE is confirmed, the first priority is to get anticoagulation started in all patients with an acceptable bleeding risk, since there is convincing evidence that anticoagulation reduces mortality in PE. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a direct-acting oral anticoagulant over warfarin on the basis of persuasive evidence of lower risk of major bleeding coupled with equal or better effectiveness in preventing recurrent PE.

Dr. Tapson said it’s worthwhile for hospitalists to take a close look at these European guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01647-2019).

“I think our Europeans friends did a really nice job with those guidelines. They’re great guidelines, better than many of the others out there. I think they’re very, very usable,” he said. “I took part in the ACCP [American College of Chest Physicians] guidelines for years. I think they’re very rigorous in terms of the evidence base, but because they’re so rigorous there’s just tons of 2C recommendations, which are basically suggestions. The ESC guidelines are more robust.”
 

Risk stratification

Once anticoagulation is on board, the next task is risk stratification to determine the need for more aggressive therapy. A high-risk PE is best defined hemodynamically as one causing a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes. The term “high risk” is increasingly replacing “massive” PE, because the size of the clot doesn’t necessarily correlate with its hemodynamic impact.

An intermediate-risk PE is marked by a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score of 1 or more, right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or CT angiography, or an elevated cardiac troponin level.

The sPESI is a validated, user-friendly tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%.

“All you really need to know about a patient’s sPESI score is: Is it more than zero?” he explained.

Indeed, patients with an sPESI score of 0 have a 30-day mortality of 1%. With a score of 1 or more, however, that risk jumps to 10.9%.

No scoring system is 100% accurate, though, and Dr. Tapson emphasized that clinician gestalt plays an important role in PE risk stratification. In terms of clinical indicators of risk, he pays special attention to heart rate.

“I think if I had to pick the one thing that drives my decision the most about whether someone needs more aggressive therapy than anticoagulation, it’s probably heart rate,” he said. “If the heart rate is 70, the patient is probably very stable. Of course, that might not hold up in a patient with conduction problems or who is on a beta blocker, but in general if I see someone who looks good, has a relatively small PE, and a low heart rate, it makes me feel much better. If the heart rate is 130 or 120, I’m much more concerned.”

Both the European guidelines and the PERT Consortium guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE (Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1177/1076029619853037), which Dr. Tapson coauthored, recommend substratifying intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. It’s a straightforward matter: If a patient has either right ventricular dysfunction on imaging or an elevated cardiac troponin, that’s an intermediate- to low-risk PE warranting anticoagulation only. On the other hand, if both right ventricular dysfunction and an elevated troponin are present, the patient has an intermediate- to high-risk PE. Since this distinction translates to a difference in outcome, a consultation with PERT or an experienced PE interventionalist is in order for the intermediate- to high-risk PE, he said.

Dr. Tapson reported receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, BiO2, EKOS/BTG, and Daiichi. He is also a consultant to Janssen and BiO2, and on speakers’ bureaus for EKOS/BTG and Janssen.

[email protected]

All intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is not the same, Victor F. Tapson, MD, declared at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The best current guidelines on the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) recommend a risk stratification strategy that involves further subdivision of intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. This additional classification is worthwhile because it has important treatment implications.

Patients with intermediate- to low-risk PE, along with those who have truly low-risk PE, require anticoagulation only. In contrast, patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE are at increased risk of decompensation. They have a much higher in-hospital mortality than those with intermediate- to low-risk PE. So hospitalists may want to consult their hospitals’ PE response team (PERT), if there is one, or whoever on staff is involved in helping make decisions about the appropriateness of more aggressive interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis or catheter-directed clot extraction, said Dr. Tapson, director of the venous thromboembolism and pulmonary vascular disease research program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“We don’t have evidence of any real proven mortality difference yet in the intermediate-high risk PE group by being more aggressive. I think if the right patients were studied we could see a mortality difference. But one thing I’ve noted is that by being more aggressive – in a cautious manner, in selected patients – we clearly shorten the hospital stay by doing catheter-directed therapy in some of these folks. It saves money,” he observed.

Once the diagnosis of PE is confirmed, the first priority is to get anticoagulation started in all patients with an acceptable bleeding risk, since there is convincing evidence that anticoagulation reduces mortality in PE. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a direct-acting oral anticoagulant over warfarin on the basis of persuasive evidence of lower risk of major bleeding coupled with equal or better effectiveness in preventing recurrent PE.

Dr. Tapson said it’s worthwhile for hospitalists to take a close look at these European guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01647-2019).

“I think our Europeans friends did a really nice job with those guidelines. They’re great guidelines, better than many of the others out there. I think they’re very, very usable,” he said. “I took part in the ACCP [American College of Chest Physicians] guidelines for years. I think they’re very rigorous in terms of the evidence base, but because they’re so rigorous there’s just tons of 2C recommendations, which are basically suggestions. The ESC guidelines are more robust.”
 

Risk stratification

Once anticoagulation is on board, the next task is risk stratification to determine the need for more aggressive therapy. A high-risk PE is best defined hemodynamically as one causing a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes. The term “high risk” is increasingly replacing “massive” PE, because the size of the clot doesn’t necessarily correlate with its hemodynamic impact.

An intermediate-risk PE is marked by a simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score of 1 or more, right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography or CT angiography, or an elevated cardiac troponin level.

The sPESI is a validated, user-friendly tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%.

“All you really need to know about a patient’s sPESI score is: Is it more than zero?” he explained.

Indeed, patients with an sPESI score of 0 have a 30-day mortality of 1%. With a score of 1 or more, however, that risk jumps to 10.9%.

No scoring system is 100% accurate, though, and Dr. Tapson emphasized that clinician gestalt plays an important role in PE risk stratification. In terms of clinical indicators of risk, he pays special attention to heart rate.

“I think if I had to pick the one thing that drives my decision the most about whether someone needs more aggressive therapy than anticoagulation, it’s probably heart rate,” he said. “If the heart rate is 70, the patient is probably very stable. Of course, that might not hold up in a patient with conduction problems or who is on a beta blocker, but in general if I see someone who looks good, has a relatively small PE, and a low heart rate, it makes me feel much better. If the heart rate is 130 or 120, I’m much more concerned.”

Both the European guidelines and the PERT Consortium guidelines on the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE (Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1177/1076029619853037), which Dr. Tapson coauthored, recommend substratifying intermediate-risk PE into intermediate to low or intermediate to high risk. It’s a straightforward matter: If a patient has either right ventricular dysfunction on imaging or an elevated cardiac troponin, that’s an intermediate- to low-risk PE warranting anticoagulation only. On the other hand, if both right ventricular dysfunction and an elevated troponin are present, the patient has an intermediate- to high-risk PE. Since this distinction translates to a difference in outcome, a consultation with PERT or an experienced PE interventionalist is in order for the intermediate- to high-risk PE, he said.

Dr. Tapson reported receiving research funding from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, BiO2, EKOS/BTG, and Daiichi. He is also a consultant to Janssen and BiO2, and on speakers’ bureaus for EKOS/BTG and Janssen.

[email protected]

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

August was National Immunization Awareness Month. ... just in time to address the precipitous drop in immunization delivered during the early months of the pandemic.

FatCamera/Getty Images

In May, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported substantial reductions in vaccine doses ordered through the Vaccines for Children program after the declaration of national emergency because of COVID-19 on March 13. Approximately 2.5 million fewer doses of routine, noninfluenza vaccines were administered between Jan. 6 and April 2020, compared with a similar period last year (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 May 15;69[19]:591-3). Declines in immunization rates were echoed by states and municipalities across the United States. Last month, the health system in which I work reported 40,000 children behind on at least one vaccine.

We all know that, when immunization rates drop, outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases follow. In order to avert another public health crisis, we need action as well as awareness to catch up with childhood immunizations, and that is going to take more than a single month.
 

Identify patients who’ve missed vaccinations

Simply being open and ready to vaccinate is not enough. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urges providers to identify patients who have missed vaccines, and call them to schedule in-person visits. Proactively let parents know about strategies implemented in your office to ensure a safe environment.

Pediatricians are accustomed to an influx of patients in the summer, as parents make sure their children have all of the vaccines required for school attendance. As noted in a Washington Post article from Aug. 4, 2020, schools have traditionally served as a backstop for immunization rates. But as many school districts opt to take education online this fall, the implications for vaccine requirements are unclear. District of Columbia public schools continue to require immunization for virtual school attendance, but it is not clear how easily this can be enforced. To read about how other school districts have chosen to address – or not address – immunization requirements for school, visit the the Immunization Action Coalition’s Repository of Resources for Maintaining Immunization during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The repository links to international, national, and state-level policies and guidance and advocacy materials, including talking points, webinars, press releases, media articles from around the United States and social media posts, as well as telehealth resources.
 

Get some inspiration to talk about vaccination

Need a little inspiration for talking to parents about vaccines? Check out the CDC’s #HowIRecommend video series. These are short videos, most under a minute in length, that explain the importance of vaccination, how to effectively address questions from parents about vaccine safety, and how clinicians routinely recommend same day vaccination to their patients. These videos are part of the CDC’s National Immunization Awareness Month (NIAM) toolkit for communication with health care professionals. A companion toolkit for communicating with parents and patients contains sample social media messages with graphics, along with educational resources to share with parents.

The “Comprehensive Vaccine Education Program – From Training to Practice,” a free online program offered by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, takes a deeper dive into strategies to combat vaccine misinformation and address vaccine hesitancy. Available modules cover vaccine fundamentals, vaccine safety, clinical manifestations of vaccine-preventable diseases, and communication skills that lead to more effective conversations with patients and parents. The curriculum also includes the newest edition of The Vaccine Handbook app, a comprehensive source of practical information for vaccine providers.
 

Educate young children about vaccines

Don’t leave young children out of the conversation. Vax-Force is a children’s book that explores how vaccination works inside the human body. Dr. Vaxson the pediatrician explains how trusted doctors and scientists made Vicky the Vaccine. Her mission is to tell Willy the White Blood Cell and his Antibuddies how to find and fight bad-guy germs like measles, tetanus, and polio. The book was written by Kelsey Rowe, MD, while she was a medical student at Saint Louis University School of Medicine. Dr. Rowe, now a pediatric resident, notes, “In a world where anti-vaccination rhetoric threatens the health of our global community, this book’s mission is to teach children and adults alike that getting vaccinations is a safe, effective, and even exciting thing to do.” The book is available for purchase at https://www.vax-force.com/, and a small part of every sale is donated to Unicef USA.
 

Consider vaccination advocacy in your communities

Vaccinate Your Family, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting people of all ages from vaccine-preventable diseases, suggests that health care providers need to take an active role in raising immunization rates, not just in their own practices, but in their communities. One way to do this is to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor to a local newspaper describing why it’s important for parents to make sure their child’s immunizations are current. Those who have never written an opinion-editorial should look at the guidance developed by Voices for Vaccines.
 

How are we doing?

Early data suggest a rebound in immunization rates in May and June, but that is unlikely to close the gap created by disruptions in health care delivery earlier in the year. Collectively, we need to set ambitious goals. Are we just trying to reach prepandemic immunization levels? In Kentucky, where I practice, only 71% of kids aged 19-45 months had received all doses of seven routinely recommended vaccines (≥4 DTaP doses, ≥3 polio doses, ≥1 MMR dose, Hib full series, ≥3 HepB doses, ≥1 varicella dose, and ≥4 PCV doses) based on 2017 National Immunization Survey data. The Healthy People 2020 target goal is 80%. Only 55% of Kentucky girls aged 13-17 years received at least one dose of HPV vaccine, and rates in boys were even lower. Flu vaccine coverage in children 6 months to 17 years also was 55%. The status quo sets the bar too low. To see how your state is doing, check out the interactive map developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Are we attempting to avoid disaster or can we seize the opportunity to protect more children than ever from vaccine-preventable diseases? The latter would really be something to celebrate.
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

PHM20 session title

The Incidentaloma: Common Incidental Findings Seen on Pediatric Imaging

Presenters

Jill Azok, MD; Amanda Lansell, MD; Allayne Stephans, MD; and Erin Frank, MD

Session summary

Dr. Azok, Dr. Lansell, and Dr. Frank of University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, described one to three common, incidentally noted findings in central nervous system, thoracic, abdominopelvic, and musculoskeletal imaging. The presenters explained the indications for further work-up and/or intervention of these findings, and the importance of judicious use of imaging in pediatric patients.

Dr. Frank discussed incidental findings seen on imaging of the central nervous system, using cases to focus on benign enlargement of the subarachnoid space, lipomas of the filum terminale, and pituitary abnormalities. Dr. Lansell continued by discussing possible clinical models for management of incidentally found pulmonary nodules and renal cysts. Dr. Azok completed the session with a discussion of the appearance and management of nonossifying fibromas and cortical fibrous defects. Common threads shared by all presenters were how frequent incidental findings are and the need for providers to be comfortable with a level of uncertainty.
 

Key takeaways

• Incidental findings are very common in pediatric imaging, occurring on up to one-third of CT scans, 25% of brain MRIs, and 21% of knee radiographs.
• An infant with personal and family history of macrocephaly, normal development, and increased extra-axial CSF on MRI likely has benign enlargement of the arachnoid space and does not need further evaluation.
• A hyperintensity of filum terminale on MRI is consistent with lipoma of the filum terminale and does not require follow-up unless symptoms of tethered cord are present.
• Pituitary abnormalities are common and call for dedicated history, physical exam, and an endocrine screening with imaging surveillance if screening is normal.
• Patient history and appearance of pulmonary nodules are important in determining appropriate follow-up.
• No single feature of renal lesions predicts future behavior, but larger lesions deserve more work-up.
• Nonossifying fibromas are well-demarcated intracortical radiolucencies of long bone metaphyses that do not require treatment or further evaluation unless they are large, painful, or occur in the proximal femur.

Dr. Miller is a second-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. His academic interests include medical education, quality improvement, and high value care.

PHM20 session title

The Incidentaloma: Common Incidental Findings Seen on Pediatric Imaging

Presenters

Jill Azok, MD; Amanda Lansell, MD; Allayne Stephans, MD; and Erin Frank, MD

Session summary

Dr. Azok, Dr. Lansell, and Dr. Frank of University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, described one to three common, incidentally noted findings in central nervous system, thoracic, abdominopelvic, and musculoskeletal imaging. The presenters explained the indications for further work-up and/or intervention of these findings, and the importance of judicious use of imaging in pediatric patients.

Dr. Frank discussed incidental findings seen on imaging of the central nervous system, using cases to focus on benign enlargement of the subarachnoid space, lipomas of the filum terminale, and pituitary abnormalities. Dr. Lansell continued by discussing possible clinical models for management of incidentally found pulmonary nodules and renal cysts. Dr. Azok completed the session with a discussion of the appearance and management of nonossifying fibromas and cortical fibrous defects. Common threads shared by all presenters were how frequent incidental findings are and the need for providers to be comfortable with a level of uncertainty.
 

Key takeaways

• Incidental findings are very common in pediatric imaging, occurring on up to one-third of CT scans, 25% of brain MRIs, and 21% of knee radiographs.
• An infant with personal and family history of macrocephaly, normal development, and increased extra-axial CSF on MRI likely has benign enlargement of the arachnoid space and does not need further evaluation.
• A hyperintensity of filum terminale on MRI is consistent with lipoma of the filum terminale and does not require follow-up unless symptoms of tethered cord are present.
• Pituitary abnormalities are common and call for dedicated history, physical exam, and an endocrine screening with imaging surveillance if screening is normal.
• Patient history and appearance of pulmonary nodules are important in determining appropriate follow-up.
• No single feature of renal lesions predicts future behavior, but larger lesions deserve more work-up.
• Nonossifying fibromas are well-demarcated intracortical radiolucencies of long bone metaphyses that do not require treatment or further evaluation unless they are large, painful, or occur in the proximal femur.

Dr. Miller is a second-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. His academic interests include medical education, quality improvement, and high value care.

PHM20 session title

The Incidentaloma: Common Incidental Findings Seen on Pediatric Imaging

Presenters

Jill Azok, MD; Amanda Lansell, MD; Allayne Stephans, MD; and Erin Frank, MD

Session summary

Dr. Azok, Dr. Lansell, and Dr. Frank of University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, described one to three common, incidentally noted findings in central nervous system, thoracic, abdominopelvic, and musculoskeletal imaging. The presenters explained the indications for further work-up and/or intervention of these findings, and the importance of judicious use of imaging in pediatric patients.

Dr. Frank discussed incidental findings seen on imaging of the central nervous system, using cases to focus on benign enlargement of the subarachnoid space, lipomas of the filum terminale, and pituitary abnormalities. Dr. Lansell continued by discussing possible clinical models for management of incidentally found pulmonary nodules and renal cysts. Dr. Azok completed the session with a discussion of the appearance and management of nonossifying fibromas and cortical fibrous defects. Common threads shared by all presenters were how frequent incidental findings are and the need for providers to be comfortable with a level of uncertainty.
 

Key takeaways

• Incidental findings are very common in pediatric imaging, occurring on up to one-third of CT scans, 25% of brain MRIs, and 21% of knee radiographs.
• An infant with personal and family history of macrocephaly, normal development, and increased extra-axial CSF on MRI likely has benign enlargement of the arachnoid space and does not need further evaluation.
• A hyperintensity of filum terminale on MRI is consistent with lipoma of the filum terminale and does not require follow-up unless symptoms of tethered cord are present.
• Pituitary abnormalities are common and call for dedicated history, physical exam, and an endocrine screening with imaging surveillance if screening is normal.
• Patient history and appearance of pulmonary nodules are important in determining appropriate follow-up.
• No single feature of renal lesions predicts future behavior, but larger lesions deserve more work-up.
• Nonossifying fibromas are well-demarcated intracortical radiolucencies of long bone metaphyses that do not require treatment or further evaluation unless they are large, painful, or occur in the proximal femur.

Dr. Miller is a second-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. His academic interests include medical education, quality improvement, and high value care.

Many COVID-19 treatments, in addition to the infection, may be associated with adverse skin reactions and should be considered in a differential diagnosis, according to a review published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with a range of skin conditions, wrote Antonio Martinez-Lopez, MD, of Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital, Granada, Spain, and colleagues, who provided an overview of the cutaneous side effects associated with drugs used to treat COVID-19 infection.

“Cutaneous manifestations have recently been described in patients with the new coronavirus infection, similar to cutaneous involvement occurring in common viral infections,” they said. Infected individuals have experienced maculopapular eruption, pseudo-chilblain lesions, urticaria, monomorphic disseminated vesicular lesions, acral vesicular-pustulous lesions, and livedo or necrosis, they noted.

Diagnosing skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19 remains a challenge, because it is unclear whether the skin lesions are related to the virus, the authors said. “Skin diseases not related to coronavirus, other seasonal viral infections, and drug reactions should be considered in the differential diagnosis, especially in those patients suffering from nonspecific manifestations such as urticaria or maculopapular eruptions,” they wrote.

However, “urticarial lesions and maculopapular eruptions in SARS-CoV-2 infections usually appear at the same time as the systemic symptoms, while drug adverse reactions are likely to arise hours to days after the start of the treatment,” they said.

The reviewers noted several cutaneous side effects associated with several of the often-prescribed drugs for COVID-19 infection. The antimalarials hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine had been authorized for COVID-19 treatment by the Food and Drug Administration, but this emergency authorization was rescinded in June. They noted that up to 11.5% of patients on these drugs may experience cutaneous adverse effects, including some that “can be mistaken for skin manifestations of SARS-CoV-2, especially those with maculopapular rash or exanthematous reactions.” Another side effect is exacerbation of psoriasis, which has been described in patients with COVID-19, the authors said.

The oral antiretroviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir, under investigation in clinical trials for COVID-19, has been associated with skin rashes in as many as 5% of adults in HIV studies. Usually appearing after treatment is started, the maculopapular pruritic rash is “usually well tolerated,” they said, although there have been reports of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Alopecia areata is among the other side effects reported.

Remdesivir also has been authorized for emergency treatment of COVID-19, and the small amount of data available suggest that cutaneous manifestations may be infrequent, the reviewers said. In a recent study of 53 patients treated with remdesivir for 10 days, approximately 8% developed a rash, but the study did not include any information “about rash morphology, distribution, or timeline in relation to remdesivir that may help clinicians differentiate from cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19,” they said.

Other potential treatments for complications of COVID-19 include imatinib, tocilizumab, anakinra, immunoglobulins, corticosteroids, colchicine, and low molecular weight heparins; all have the potential for association with skin reactions, but data on skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 are limited, the authors wrote.

Notably, data on the use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients are controversial, although preliminary data showed some reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients who were on respiratory support, they noted. “With regard to differential diagnosis of cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, the vascular fragility associated with corticosteroid use, especially in elderly patients, may be similar to the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 infection.”

Knowledge about the virology of COVID-19 continues to evolve rapidly, and the number of drugs being studied as treatments continues to expand, the authors pointed out.

“By considering adverse drug reactions in the differential diagnosis, dermatologists can be useful in assisting in the care of these patients,” they wrote. Drugs, rather than the infection, may be the cause of skin reactions in some COVID-19 patients, and “management is often symptomatic, but it is sometimes necessary to modify or discontinue the treatment, and some conditions can even be life-threatening,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Martinez-Lopez A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.08.006.

Many COVID-19 treatments, in addition to the infection, may be associated with adverse skin reactions and should be considered in a differential diagnosis, according to a review published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with a range of skin conditions, wrote Antonio Martinez-Lopez, MD, of Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital, Granada, Spain, and colleagues, who provided an overview of the cutaneous side effects associated with drugs used to treat COVID-19 infection.

“Cutaneous manifestations have recently been described in patients with the new coronavirus infection, similar to cutaneous involvement occurring in common viral infections,” they said. Infected individuals have experienced maculopapular eruption, pseudo-chilblain lesions, urticaria, monomorphic disseminated vesicular lesions, acral vesicular-pustulous lesions, and livedo or necrosis, they noted.

Diagnosing skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19 remains a challenge, because it is unclear whether the skin lesions are related to the virus, the authors said. “Skin diseases not related to coronavirus, other seasonal viral infections, and drug reactions should be considered in the differential diagnosis, especially in those patients suffering from nonspecific manifestations such as urticaria or maculopapular eruptions,” they wrote.

However, “urticarial lesions and maculopapular eruptions in SARS-CoV-2 infections usually appear at the same time as the systemic symptoms, while drug adverse reactions are likely to arise hours to days after the start of the treatment,” they said.

The reviewers noted several cutaneous side effects associated with several of the often-prescribed drugs for COVID-19 infection. The antimalarials hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine had been authorized for COVID-19 treatment by the Food and Drug Administration, but this emergency authorization was rescinded in June. They noted that up to 11.5% of patients on these drugs may experience cutaneous adverse effects, including some that “can be mistaken for skin manifestations of SARS-CoV-2, especially those with maculopapular rash or exanthematous reactions.” Another side effect is exacerbation of psoriasis, which has been described in patients with COVID-19, the authors said.

The oral antiretroviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir, under investigation in clinical trials for COVID-19, has been associated with skin rashes in as many as 5% of adults in HIV studies. Usually appearing after treatment is started, the maculopapular pruritic rash is “usually well tolerated,” they said, although there have been reports of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Alopecia areata is among the other side effects reported.

Remdesivir also has been authorized for emergency treatment of COVID-19, and the small amount of data available suggest that cutaneous manifestations may be infrequent, the reviewers said. In a recent study of 53 patients treated with remdesivir for 10 days, approximately 8% developed a rash, but the study did not include any information “about rash morphology, distribution, or timeline in relation to remdesivir that may help clinicians differentiate from cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19,” they said.

Other potential treatments for complications of COVID-19 include imatinib, tocilizumab, anakinra, immunoglobulins, corticosteroids, colchicine, and low molecular weight heparins; all have the potential for association with skin reactions, but data on skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 are limited, the authors wrote.

Notably, data on the use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients are controversial, although preliminary data showed some reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients who were on respiratory support, they noted. “With regard to differential diagnosis of cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, the vascular fragility associated with corticosteroid use, especially in elderly patients, may be similar to the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 infection.”

Knowledge about the virology of COVID-19 continues to evolve rapidly, and the number of drugs being studied as treatments continues to expand, the authors pointed out.

“By considering adverse drug reactions in the differential diagnosis, dermatologists can be useful in assisting in the care of these patients,” they wrote. Drugs, rather than the infection, may be the cause of skin reactions in some COVID-19 patients, and “management is often symptomatic, but it is sometimes necessary to modify or discontinue the treatment, and some conditions can even be life-threatening,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Martinez-Lopez A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.08.006.

Many COVID-19 treatments, in addition to the infection, may be associated with adverse skin reactions and should be considered in a differential diagnosis, according to a review published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

SARS-CoV-2 infection has been associated with a range of skin conditions, wrote Antonio Martinez-Lopez, MD, of Virgen de las Nieves University Hospital, Granada, Spain, and colleagues, who provided an overview of the cutaneous side effects associated with drugs used to treat COVID-19 infection.

“Cutaneous manifestations have recently been described in patients with the new coronavirus infection, similar to cutaneous involvement occurring in common viral infections,” they said. Infected individuals have experienced maculopapular eruption, pseudo-chilblain lesions, urticaria, monomorphic disseminated vesicular lesions, acral vesicular-pustulous lesions, and livedo or necrosis, they noted.

Diagnosing skin manifestations in patients with COVID-19 remains a challenge, because it is unclear whether the skin lesions are related to the virus, the authors said. “Skin diseases not related to coronavirus, other seasonal viral infections, and drug reactions should be considered in the differential diagnosis, especially in those patients suffering from nonspecific manifestations such as urticaria or maculopapular eruptions,” they wrote.

However, “urticarial lesions and maculopapular eruptions in SARS-CoV-2 infections usually appear at the same time as the systemic symptoms, while drug adverse reactions are likely to arise hours to days after the start of the treatment,” they said.

The reviewers noted several cutaneous side effects associated with several of the often-prescribed drugs for COVID-19 infection. The antimalarials hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine had been authorized for COVID-19 treatment by the Food and Drug Administration, but this emergency authorization was rescinded in June. They noted that up to 11.5% of patients on these drugs may experience cutaneous adverse effects, including some that “can be mistaken for skin manifestations of SARS-CoV-2, especially those with maculopapular rash or exanthematous reactions.” Another side effect is exacerbation of psoriasis, which has been described in patients with COVID-19, the authors said.

The oral antiretroviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir, under investigation in clinical trials for COVID-19, has been associated with skin rashes in as many as 5% of adults in HIV studies. Usually appearing after treatment is started, the maculopapular pruritic rash is “usually well tolerated,” they said, although there have been reports of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Alopecia areata is among the other side effects reported.

Remdesivir also has been authorized for emergency treatment of COVID-19, and the small amount of data available suggest that cutaneous manifestations may be infrequent, the reviewers said. In a recent study of 53 patients treated with remdesivir for 10 days, approximately 8% developed a rash, but the study did not include any information “about rash morphology, distribution, or timeline in relation to remdesivir that may help clinicians differentiate from cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19,” they said.

Other potential treatments for complications of COVID-19 include imatinib, tocilizumab, anakinra, immunoglobulins, corticosteroids, colchicine, and low molecular weight heparins; all have the potential for association with skin reactions, but data on skin manifestations associated with COVID-19 are limited, the authors wrote.

Notably, data on the use of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients are controversial, although preliminary data showed some reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients who were on respiratory support, they noted. “With regard to differential diagnosis of cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, the vascular fragility associated with corticosteroid use, especially in elderly patients, may be similar to the thrombotic complications of COVID-19 infection.”

Knowledge about the virology of COVID-19 continues to evolve rapidly, and the number of drugs being studied as treatments continues to expand, the authors pointed out.

“By considering adverse drug reactions in the differential diagnosis, dermatologists can be useful in assisting in the care of these patients,” they wrote. Drugs, rather than the infection, may be the cause of skin reactions in some COVID-19 patients, and “management is often symptomatic, but it is sometimes necessary to modify or discontinue the treatment, and some conditions can even be life-threatening,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Martinez-Lopez A et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.08.006.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.

Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.

“Telehealth has quickly emerged as the preferred care setting during the pandemic and will drive patient behavior in the future,” Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”

For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.

The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.

Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.

“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.

Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.

Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.

Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.

“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.

The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
 

[email protected]

If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.

Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.

“Telehealth has quickly emerged as the preferred care setting during the pandemic and will drive patient behavior in the future,” Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”

For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.

The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.

Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.

“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.

Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.

Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.

Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.

“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.

The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
 

[email protected]

If people try telemedicine, they’ll like telemedicine. And if they want to avoid a doctor’s office, as most people do these days, they’ll try telemedicine. That is the message coming from 1,000 people surveyed for DocASAP, a provider of online patient access and engagement systems.

Here are a couple of numbers: 92% of those who made a telemedicine visit said they were satisfied with the overall appointment experience, and 91% said that they are more likely to schedule a telemedicine visit instead of an in-person appointment. All of the survey respondents had visited a health care provider in the past year, and 40% already had made a telemedicine visit, DocASAP reported.

“Telehealth has quickly emerged as the preferred care setting during the pandemic and will drive patient behavior in the future,” Puneet Maheshwari, DocASAP cofounder and CEO, said in a statement. “As providers continue to adopt innovative technology to power a more seamless, end-to-end digital consumer experience, I expect telehealth to become fully integrated into overall care management.”

For now, though, COVID-19 is an overriding concern and health care facilities are suspect. When respondents were asked to identify the types of public facilities where they felt safe, hospitals were named by 32%, doctors’ offices by 26%, and ED/urgent care by just 12%, the DocASAP report said. Even public transportation got 13%.

The safest place to be, according to 42% of the respondents? The grocery store.

Of those surveyed, 43% “indicated they will not feel safe entering any health care setting until at least the fall,” the company said. An even higher share of patients, 68%, canceled or postponed an in-person appointment during the pandemic.

“No longer are remote health services viewed as ‘nice to have’ – they are now a must-have care delivery option,” DocASAP said in their report.

Safety concerns involving COVID-19, named by 47% of the sample, were the leading factor that would influence patients’ decision to schedule a telemedicine visit. Insurance coverage was next at 43%, followed by “ease of accessing quality care” at 40%, the report said.

Among those who had made a telemedicine visit, scheduling the appointment was the most satisfying aspect of the experience, according to 54% of respondents, with day-of-appointment wait time next at 38% and quality of the video/audio technology tied with preappointment communication at almost 33%, the survey data show.

Conversely, scheduling the appointment also was declared the most frustrating aspect of the telemedicine experience, although the total in that category was a much lower 29%.

“The pandemic has thrust profound change on every aspect of life, particularly health care. … Innovations – like digital and telehealth solutions – designed to meet patient needs will likely become embedded into the health care delivery system,” DocASAP said.

The survey was commissioned by DocASAP and conducted by marketing research company OnePoll on June 29-30, 2020.
 

[email protected]

The Society of Hospital Medicine prides itself on bringing a broad range of experts together with the largest gathering of hospitalists at any conference – virtual or otherwise! Hospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, executives, pharmacists, educators, and practitioners of many hospital-based specialties make HM20 Virtual a unique educational experience.

We know that patients depend on you to have pertinent, updated, and timely information for their acute care needs. HM20 Virtual can provide the information you need to stay abreast in this complex and ever-changing year. From COVID-19 to common diagnosis, from racism/bias to blood glucose, from peds to pulmonary embolism, HM20 Virtual covers important topics for all acute care and hospital clinicians and professionals.

This year’s conference is something new. To meet the ever-changing challenges that the year 2020 has brought all of us, HM20 Virtual has addressed one of the limitations of an online conference: personal interactions. With Simulive sessions, you will have the opportunity to chat with fellow participants and interact with the expert faculty in real time! Of course, all Simulive sessions will be available on demand after the fact for those of you who need alternate times to watch.

Be sure to attend some (or all!) of this week’s Simulive sessions. There is something for everyone:

• On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Sam Brondfield, MD, will discuss oncologic work-ups, and James Kim, MD, will make antibiotics simple (where was Dr. Kim for my medical school training?).
• Wednesday, Aug. 19, circles back to another epidemic, the opioid crisis, presented by Theresa Vettese, MD. Dr. Alfred Burger updates us on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Jeff Trost, MD, brings us up to speed on the effects of COVID-19 and the heart.
• Thursday, Aug. 20, wraps up week 2 of HM20 Virtual with Population Health by Adam Myers, MD, and Updates in Pneumonia by Joanna Bonsall, MD.

The personal interactions don’t have to stop there! HM20 Virtual also features Special Interest Forums. Check out the list and find out how to join by visiting the HM20 Virtual website.

We look forward to “seeing” you at HM20 Virtual. We always want your feedback; however, in this socially distanced, travel-limited world, your input is more important now than ever. Be sure to let us know how this new format works for your learning, networking, and professional needs.

On behalf of the SHM board of directors, the SHM staff, and myself, we hope you enjoy HM20 Virtual. Through this meeting’s rich selection of educational opportunities – and the innovative approaches in a world dominated by the coronavirus – SHM continues to further its mission to promote excellence in the practice of hospital medicine. SHM remains at the forefront of health care today, empowering hospitalists and transforming patient care.

Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine prides itself on bringing a broad range of experts together with the largest gathering of hospitalists at any conference – virtual or otherwise! Hospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, executives, pharmacists, educators, and practitioners of many hospital-based specialties make HM20 Virtual a unique educational experience.

We know that patients depend on you to have pertinent, updated, and timely information for their acute care needs. HM20 Virtual can provide the information you need to stay abreast in this complex and ever-changing year. From COVID-19 to common diagnosis, from racism/bias to blood glucose, from peds to pulmonary embolism, HM20 Virtual covers important topics for all acute care and hospital clinicians and professionals.

This year’s conference is something new. To meet the ever-changing challenges that the year 2020 has brought all of us, HM20 Virtual has addressed one of the limitations of an online conference: personal interactions. With Simulive sessions, you will have the opportunity to chat with fellow participants and interact with the expert faculty in real time! Of course, all Simulive sessions will be available on demand after the fact for those of you who need alternate times to watch.

Be sure to attend some (or all!) of this week’s Simulive sessions. There is something for everyone:

• On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Sam Brondfield, MD, will discuss oncologic work-ups, and James Kim, MD, will make antibiotics simple (where was Dr. Kim for my medical school training?).
• Wednesday, Aug. 19, circles back to another epidemic, the opioid crisis, presented by Theresa Vettese, MD. Dr. Alfred Burger updates us on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Jeff Trost, MD, brings us up to speed on the effects of COVID-19 and the heart.
• Thursday, Aug. 20, wraps up week 2 of HM20 Virtual with Population Health by Adam Myers, MD, and Updates in Pneumonia by Joanna Bonsall, MD.

The personal interactions don’t have to stop there! HM20 Virtual also features Special Interest Forums. Check out the list and find out how to join by visiting the HM20 Virtual website.

We look forward to “seeing” you at HM20 Virtual. We always want your feedback; however, in this socially distanced, travel-limited world, your input is more important now than ever. Be sure to let us know how this new format works for your learning, networking, and professional needs.

On behalf of the SHM board of directors, the SHM staff, and myself, we hope you enjoy HM20 Virtual. Through this meeting’s rich selection of educational opportunities – and the innovative approaches in a world dominated by the coronavirus – SHM continues to further its mission to promote excellence in the practice of hospital medicine. SHM remains at the forefront of health care today, empowering hospitalists and transforming patient care.

Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine prides itself on bringing a broad range of experts together with the largest gathering of hospitalists at any conference – virtual or otherwise! Hospitalists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, executives, pharmacists, educators, and practitioners of many hospital-based specialties make HM20 Virtual a unique educational experience.

We know that patients depend on you to have pertinent, updated, and timely information for their acute care needs. HM20 Virtual can provide the information you need to stay abreast in this complex and ever-changing year. From COVID-19 to common diagnosis, from racism/bias to blood glucose, from peds to pulmonary embolism, HM20 Virtual covers important topics for all acute care and hospital clinicians and professionals.

This year’s conference is something new. To meet the ever-changing challenges that the year 2020 has brought all of us, HM20 Virtual has addressed one of the limitations of an online conference: personal interactions. With Simulive sessions, you will have the opportunity to chat with fellow participants and interact with the expert faculty in real time! Of course, all Simulive sessions will be available on demand after the fact for those of you who need alternate times to watch.

Be sure to attend some (or all!) of this week’s Simulive sessions. There is something for everyone:

• On Tuesday, Aug. 18, Sam Brondfield, MD, will discuss oncologic work-ups, and James Kim, MD, will make antibiotics simple (where was Dr. Kim for my medical school training?).
• Wednesday, Aug. 19, circles back to another epidemic, the opioid crisis, presented by Theresa Vettese, MD. Dr. Alfred Burger updates us on Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Jeff Trost, MD, brings us up to speed on the effects of COVID-19 and the heart.
• Thursday, Aug. 20, wraps up week 2 of HM20 Virtual with Population Health by Adam Myers, MD, and Updates in Pneumonia by Joanna Bonsall, MD.

The personal interactions don’t have to stop there! HM20 Virtual also features Special Interest Forums. Check out the list and find out how to join by visiting the HM20 Virtual website.

We look forward to “seeing” you at HM20 Virtual. We always want your feedback; however, in this socially distanced, travel-limited world, your input is more important now than ever. Be sure to let us know how this new format works for your learning, networking, and professional needs.

On behalf of the SHM board of directors, the SHM staff, and myself, we hope you enjoy HM20 Virtual. Through this meeting’s rich selection of educational opportunities – and the innovative approaches in a world dominated by the coronavirus – SHM continues to further its mission to promote excellence in the practice of hospital medicine. SHM remains at the forefront of health care today, empowering hospitalists and transforming patient care.

Dr. Howell is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The heart-related manifestations of COVID-19 are a serious matter, but no one should make the mistake of thinking of COVID-19 as primarily a cardiac disease, according to Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“One of my take-home messages is this is not a heart illness. This is still an infectious pulmonary illness that most likely causes stress on the heart in both healthy people and those with preexisting heart disease,” he said in offering a preview of his upcoming clinical update at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

For this reason, in his clinical update talk, titled “COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know,” he’ll urge hospitalists to be conservative in ordering cardiac biomarker tests such troponin and natriuretic peptide levels. The focus should appropriately be on the subset of COVID-19 patients having the same symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or new-onset cardiomyopathy that would trigger laboratory testing in non–COVID-19 patients.

“Be more selective. Definitely do not routinely monitor troponin or [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide] in patients just because they have COVID-19. A lot of patients with COVID-19 have these labs drawn, especially in the emergency department. We see a high signal-to-noise ratio: not infrequently the values are abnormal, and yet we don’t really know what that means,” said Dr. Trost, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.

COVID-19 patients with preexisting heart disease are clearly at increased risk of severe forms of the infectious illness. In his talk, Dr. Trost will review the epidemiology of this association. He’ll also discuss the varied cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, consisting of myocarditis or other forms of new-onset cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias.

Many questions regarding COVID-19 and the heart remain unanswered for now, such as the mechanism and long-term implications of the phenomenon of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with chest pain in the presence of unobstructed coronary arteries, which Dr. Trost and others have encountered. Or the extent to which COVID-19–associated myocarditis is directly virus mediated as opposed to an autoimmune process.

“We’re relying completely on case reports at this point,” according to the cardiologist.

But one major issue has, thankfully, been put to rest on the basis of persuasive evidence which Dr. Trost plans to highlight: Millions of patients on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers can now rest assured that taking those medications doesn’t place them at increased risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus or, if infected, developing severe complications of COVID-19. Earlier in the pandemic that had been a legitimate theoretic concern based upon a plausible mechanism.

“I think we as physicians can now confidently say that we don’t need to stop these medicines in folks,” Dr. Trost said.

COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know

Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 19, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET

The heart-related manifestations of COVID-19 are a serious matter, but no one should make the mistake of thinking of COVID-19 as primarily a cardiac disease, according to Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“One of my take-home messages is this is not a heart illness. This is still an infectious pulmonary illness that most likely causes stress on the heart in both healthy people and those with preexisting heart disease,” he said in offering a preview of his upcoming clinical update at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

For this reason, in his clinical update talk, titled “COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know,” he’ll urge hospitalists to be conservative in ordering cardiac biomarker tests such troponin and natriuretic peptide levels. The focus should appropriately be on the subset of COVID-19 patients having the same symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or new-onset cardiomyopathy that would trigger laboratory testing in non–COVID-19 patients.

“Be more selective. Definitely do not routinely monitor troponin or [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide] in patients just because they have COVID-19. A lot of patients with COVID-19 have these labs drawn, especially in the emergency department. We see a high signal-to-noise ratio: not infrequently the values are abnormal, and yet we don’t really know what that means,” said Dr. Trost, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.

COVID-19 patients with preexisting heart disease are clearly at increased risk of severe forms of the infectious illness. In his talk, Dr. Trost will review the epidemiology of this association. He’ll also discuss the varied cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, consisting of myocarditis or other forms of new-onset cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias.

Many questions regarding COVID-19 and the heart remain unanswered for now, such as the mechanism and long-term implications of the phenomenon of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with chest pain in the presence of unobstructed coronary arteries, which Dr. Trost and others have encountered. Or the extent to which COVID-19–associated myocarditis is directly virus mediated as opposed to an autoimmune process.

“We’re relying completely on case reports at this point,” according to the cardiologist.

But one major issue has, thankfully, been put to rest on the basis of persuasive evidence which Dr. Trost plans to highlight: Millions of patients on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers can now rest assured that taking those medications doesn’t place them at increased risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus or, if infected, developing severe complications of COVID-19. Earlier in the pandemic that had been a legitimate theoretic concern based upon a plausible mechanism.

“I think we as physicians can now confidently say that we don’t need to stop these medicines in folks,” Dr. Trost said.

COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know

Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 19, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET

The heart-related manifestations of COVID-19 are a serious matter, but no one should make the mistake of thinking of COVID-19 as primarily a cardiac disease, according to Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“One of my take-home messages is this is not a heart illness. This is still an infectious pulmonary illness that most likely causes stress on the heart in both healthy people and those with preexisting heart disease,” he said in offering a preview of his upcoming clinical update at HM20 Virtual, hosted by the Society of Hospital Medicine.

For this reason, in his clinical update talk, titled “COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know,” he’ll urge hospitalists to be conservative in ordering cardiac biomarker tests such troponin and natriuretic peptide levels. The focus should appropriately be on the subset of COVID-19 patients having the same symptoms suggestive of acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or new-onset cardiomyopathy that would trigger laboratory testing in non–COVID-19 patients.

“Be more selective. Definitely do not routinely monitor troponin or [N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide] in patients just because they have COVID-19. A lot of patients with COVID-19 have these labs drawn, especially in the emergency department. We see a high signal-to-noise ratio: not infrequently the values are abnormal, and yet we don’t really know what that means,” said Dr. Trost, who is also director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center.

COVID-19 patients with preexisting heart disease are clearly at increased risk of severe forms of the infectious illness. In his talk, Dr. Trost will review the epidemiology of this association. He’ll also discuss the varied cardiac manifestations of COVID-19, consisting of myocarditis or other forms of new-onset cardiomyopathy, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, and arrhythmias.

Many questions regarding COVID-19 and the heart remain unanswered for now, such as the mechanism and long-term implications of the phenomenon of ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with chest pain in the presence of unobstructed coronary arteries, which Dr. Trost and others have encountered. Or the extent to which COVID-19–associated myocarditis is directly virus mediated as opposed to an autoimmune process.

“We’re relying completely on case reports at this point,” according to the cardiologist.

But one major issue has, thankfully, been put to rest on the basis of persuasive evidence which Dr. Trost plans to highlight: Millions of patients on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers can now rest assured that taking those medications doesn’t place them at increased risk of becoming infected with the novel coronavirus or, if infected, developing severe complications of COVID-19. Earlier in the pandemic that had been a legitimate theoretic concern based upon a plausible mechanism.

“I think we as physicians can now confidently say that we don’t need to stop these medicines in folks,” Dr. Trost said.

COVID-19 and the Heart: What Every Hospitalist Should Know

Live Q&A: Wednesday, Aug. 19, 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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