Acute Coronary Syndromes

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.

Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.

“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.

“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.

The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.

Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.

Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.

Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.

There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.

The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.

Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.

“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.

They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.

Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.

“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.

They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”

But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”

“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”

Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.

“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”

The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.

The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.

Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.

The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.

Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”

That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial

Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”

Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

[email protected]

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

[email protected]

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

[email protected]

Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.

“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”

The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).

The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.

The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.

“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
 

Key findings

The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).

Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).

After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).

The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”

How to protect younger patients

“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.

“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.

Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.” 

The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.

Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.

“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”

The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).

The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.

The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.

“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
 

Key findings

The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).

Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).

After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).

The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”

How to protect younger patients

“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.

“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.

Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.” 

The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.

Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.

“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”

The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).

The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.

The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.

“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
 

Key findings

The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).

Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).

After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).

The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”

How to protect younger patients

“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.

“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.

Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.” 

The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).

Brigham and Women&#039;s Hospital

“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.

SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

[email protected]

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

[email protected]

More than half of Hispanic adults would be afraid to go to a hospital for a possible heart attack or stroke because they might get infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to a new survey from the American Heart Association.

Compared with Hispanic respondents, 55% of whom said they feared COVID-19, significantly fewer Blacks (45%) and Whites (40%) would be scared to go to the hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack or stroke, the AHA said based on the survey of 2,050 adults, which was conducted May 29 to June 2, 2020, by the Harris Poll.

Hispanics also were significantly more likely to stay home if they thought they were experiencing a heart attack or stroke (41%), rather than risk getting infected at the hospital, than were Blacks (33%), who were significantly more likely than Whites (24%) to stay home, the AHA reported.

White respondents, on the other hand, were the most likely to believe (89%) that a hospital would give them the same quality of care provided to everyone else. Hispanics and Blacks had significantly lower rates, at 78% and 74%, respectively, the AHA noted.

These findings are “yet another challenge for Black and Hispanic communities, who are more likely to have underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes and dying of COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates,” Rafael Ortiz, MD, American Heart Association volunteer medical expert and chief of neuro-endovascular surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in the AHA statement.

The survey was performed in conjunction with the AHA’s “Don’t Die of Doubt” campaign, which “reminds Americans, especially in Hispanic and Black communities, that the hospital remains the safest place to be if experiencing symptoms of a heart attack or a stroke.”

Among all the survey respondents, 57% said they would feel better if hospitals treated COVID-19 patients in a separate area. A number of other possible precautions ranked lower in helping them feel better:

• Screen all visitors, patients, and staff for COVID-19 symptoms when they enter the hospital: 39%.
• Require all patients, visitors, and staff to wear masks: 30%.
• Put increased cleaning protocols in place to disinfect multiple times per day: 23%.
• “Nothing would make me feel comfortable”: 6%.

Despite all the concerns about the risk of coronavirus infection, however, most Americans (77%) still believe that hospitals are the safest place to be in the event of a medical emergency, and 84% said that hospitals are prepared to safely treat emergencies that are not related to the pandemic, the AHA reported.

“Health care professionals know what to do even when things seem chaotic, and emergency departments have made plans behind the scenes to keep patients and healthcare workers safe even during a pandemic,” Dr. Ortiz pointed out.

[email protected]

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

For patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and mild subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), treatment with levothyroxine does not improve left ventricular function, according to results of the Thyroid in Acute Myocardial Infarction (ThyrAMI-2) trial.

“SCH is common, affecting approximately 10% of the adult population, and has been associated with worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in observational studies,” Salman Razvi, MD, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, England, said in an interview.

This study shows that levothyroxine treatment for patients with SCH and acute MI is “unlikely to be of benefit,” he said.

“This study says that treating the thyroid failure does not help nor harm such patients,” Terry F. Davies, MD, director, division of endocrinology, diabetes, and bone diseases, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, said in an interview. He was not involved in the study, which was published online July 21 in JAMA.

Participants included 95 adults (mean age, 63.5 years; 72 men) with persistent mild SCH who presented with acute MI at six hospitals in the United Kingdom. Most (69%) had ST-segment elevation MI.

Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years and serum thyrotropin level >4.0 mU/L with a normal free thyroxine level on two occasions 7-10 days apart and with one thyrotropin value <10 mU/L.

Forty-six participants were randomly allocated to receive levothyroxine starting at 25 mcg titrated to aim for serum thyrotropin levels between 0.4 and 2.5 mU/L and 49 to matching placebo capsules taken once daily for 52 weeks.

The primary outcome was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 52 weeks, assessed via MRI, with adjustment for age, sex, acute MI type, affected coronary artery territory, and baseline LVEF.

Secondary outcomes were LV volume, infarct size, adverse events, and patient-reported outcome measures of health status, health-related quality of life, and depression.

The median daily dose of levothyroxine at the end of the study was 50 mcg. Adherence to study medication was 94% during the course of the study.

At week 52, mean LVEF improved from 51.3% at baseline to 53.8% in the levothyroxine group and from 54.0% to 56.1% in the placebo group.

The difference was not significant between groups, with an adjusted between-group difference of 0.76% (95% confidence interval, –0.93% to 2.46%; P = .37).

There were also no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes. There were 15 (33.3%) cardiovascular adverse events in the levothyroxine group and 18 (36.7%) in the placebo group.

Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted a lack of high-quality data to make recommendations regarding the management of mild SCH, particularly for patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Razvi and colleagues noted in their article.

“On the basis of these findings, screening for and subsequent treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism in patients with acute myocardial infarction to preserve LV function is not justified,” they concluded.

Important caveats

The investigators noted several important caveats and limitations. The trial recruited patients with mild SCH because this group constitutes the majority of patients with SCH and for whom there is the “greatest uncertainty” regarding treatment efficacy. It’s not known whether targeting treatment for individuals with more severe disease may be beneficial.

The therapeutic benefit of levothyroxine may have been blunted, owing to the delay between coronary occlusion and the start of levothyroxine (median delay, 17 days). It’s unclear whether earlier treatment or treatment for a longer period may be beneficial.

But Dr. Davies noted that “treatment is usually avoided in the emergency situation,” and therefore he doesn’t think the treatment delay is a limitation; rather, “it would appear prudent,” he said in the interview.

“The real issues with an otherwise very careful study is the small size of the population despite the statistical assessment that this was all that was needed and, secondly, the small dose of thyroxine used,” Dr. Davies said.

The authors agree that the low dose of levothyroxine is a limitation. The median dose at the end of the study – 50 mcg daily – is “lower than that used in other trials that have demonstrated a benefit of treatment on endothelial function and lipid profiles,” they pointed out.

Dr. Davies noted that thyroid tests are “usually routine” for patients with MI. “Mild subclinical thyroid failure has been associated with worse cardiac outcomes, [but] treating such patients with thyroid hormone is very controversial since thyroid hormone can induce arrhythmias,” he said.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) at the University of Leeds. Dr. Razvi received grants from the NIHR and nonfinancial support from Amdipharm Pharmaceuticals UK during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Merck and Abbott Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Davies has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

In elderly or low-weight patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a reduced dose of prasugrel relative to a full-dose of ticagrelor is associated with lower numerical rates of ischemic events and bleeding events, according to a prespecified substudy of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

“The present study provides the strongest support for reduced-dose prasugrel as the standard for elderly and low-weight patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy,” according to the senior author, Adnan Kastrati, MD, professor of cardiology and head of the Catheterization Laboratory at Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technical University of Munich.

The main results of ISAR-REACT 5, an open-label, head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with ACS, showed that the risk of the composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke 1 year after randomization was significantly higher for those on ticagrelor than prasugrel (hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .006). The bleeding risk on ticagrelor was also higher but not significantly different (5.4% vs. 4.8%; P = .46) (Schüpke S et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct;381:1524-34).

In this substudy newly published in Annals of Internal Medicine, outcomes were compared in the 1,099 patients who were 75 years or older or weighed less than 60 kg. In this group, unlike those younger or weighing more, patients were randomized to receive a reduced maintenance dose of 5 mg of once-daily prasugrel (rather than 10 mg) or full dose ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily).

At 1 year, the low-dose prasugrel strategy relative to ticagrelor was associated with a lower rate of events (12.7% vs. 14.6%) and a lower rate of bleeding (8.1% vs. 10.6%), defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 events.

Neither the 18% reduction for the efficacy endpoint (HR, 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.14) nor the 28% reduction in the bleeding endpoint (HR, 0.72; 95% CI 0.46-1.12) reached significance, but Dr. Kastrati reported that there was a significant “treatment effect-by-study-group interaction” for BARC 1-5 bleeding (P = .004) favoring prasugrel. This supports low-dose prasugrel as a strategy to prevent the excess bleeding risk previously observed with the standard 10-mg dose of prasugrel.

In other words, a reduced dose of prasugrel, compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor, in low-weight and elderly patients “is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk of bleeding,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

Low-weight and older patients represented 27% of those enrolled in ISAR-REACT 5. When compared to the study population as a whole, the risk for both ischemic and bleeding events was at least twice as high, the authors of an accompanying editorial observed. They praised this effort to refine the optimal antiplatelet regimen in a very-high-risk ACS population.

“The current analysis suggests that the prasugrel dose reduction regimen for elderly or underweight patients with ACS is effective and safe,” according to the editorial coauthors, David Conen, MD, and P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, who are affiliated with the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario.

This substudy was underpowered to show superiority for the efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly and low-weight ACS patients, which makes these results “hypothesis generating,” but the authors believe that they provide the best available evidence for selecting antiplatelet therapy in this challenging subgroup. Although the exclusion of patients at very high risk of bleeding from ISAR-REACT 5 suggest findings might not be relevant to all elderly and low-weight individuals, the investigators believe the data do inform clinical practice.

“Our study is the first head-to-head randomized comparison of the reduced dose of prasugrel against standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly and low-weight patients,” said Dr. Kastrati in an interview. “Specifically designed studies for this subset of patients are very unlikely to be conducted in the future.”

Dr. Kastrati reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Menichelli M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 21. doi: 10.7326/M20-1806.

In elderly or low-weight patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a reduced dose of prasugrel relative to a full-dose of ticagrelor is associated with lower numerical rates of ischemic events and bleeding events, according to a prespecified substudy of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

“The present study provides the strongest support for reduced-dose prasugrel as the standard for elderly and low-weight patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy,” according to the senior author, Adnan Kastrati, MD, professor of cardiology and head of the Catheterization Laboratory at Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technical University of Munich.

The main results of ISAR-REACT 5, an open-label, head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with ACS, showed that the risk of the composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke 1 year after randomization was significantly higher for those on ticagrelor than prasugrel (hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .006). The bleeding risk on ticagrelor was also higher but not significantly different (5.4% vs. 4.8%; P = .46) (Schüpke S et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct;381:1524-34).

In this substudy newly published in Annals of Internal Medicine, outcomes were compared in the 1,099 patients who were 75 years or older or weighed less than 60 kg. In this group, unlike those younger or weighing more, patients were randomized to receive a reduced maintenance dose of 5 mg of once-daily prasugrel (rather than 10 mg) or full dose ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily).

At 1 year, the low-dose prasugrel strategy relative to ticagrelor was associated with a lower rate of events (12.7% vs. 14.6%) and a lower rate of bleeding (8.1% vs. 10.6%), defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 events.

Neither the 18% reduction for the efficacy endpoint (HR, 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.14) nor the 28% reduction in the bleeding endpoint (HR, 0.72; 95% CI 0.46-1.12) reached significance, but Dr. Kastrati reported that there was a significant “treatment effect-by-study-group interaction” for BARC 1-5 bleeding (P = .004) favoring prasugrel. This supports low-dose prasugrel as a strategy to prevent the excess bleeding risk previously observed with the standard 10-mg dose of prasugrel.

In other words, a reduced dose of prasugrel, compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor, in low-weight and elderly patients “is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk of bleeding,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

Low-weight and older patients represented 27% of those enrolled in ISAR-REACT 5. When compared to the study population as a whole, the risk for both ischemic and bleeding events was at least twice as high, the authors of an accompanying editorial observed. They praised this effort to refine the optimal antiplatelet regimen in a very-high-risk ACS population.

“The current analysis suggests that the prasugrel dose reduction regimen for elderly or underweight patients with ACS is effective and safe,” according to the editorial coauthors, David Conen, MD, and P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, who are affiliated with the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario.

This substudy was underpowered to show superiority for the efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly and low-weight ACS patients, which makes these results “hypothesis generating,” but the authors believe that they provide the best available evidence for selecting antiplatelet therapy in this challenging subgroup. Although the exclusion of patients at very high risk of bleeding from ISAR-REACT 5 suggest findings might not be relevant to all elderly and low-weight individuals, the investigators believe the data do inform clinical practice.

“Our study is the first head-to-head randomized comparison of the reduced dose of prasugrel against standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly and low-weight patients,” said Dr. Kastrati in an interview. “Specifically designed studies for this subset of patients are very unlikely to be conducted in the future.”

Dr. Kastrati reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Menichelli M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 21. doi: 10.7326/M20-1806.

In elderly or low-weight patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a reduced dose of prasugrel relative to a full-dose of ticagrelor is associated with lower numerical rates of ischemic events and bleeding events, according to a prespecified substudy of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

“The present study provides the strongest support for reduced-dose prasugrel as the standard for elderly and low-weight patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy,” according to the senior author, Adnan Kastrati, MD, professor of cardiology and head of the Catheterization Laboratory at Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technical University of Munich.

The main results of ISAR-REACT 5, an open-label, head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with ACS, showed that the risk of the composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke 1 year after randomization was significantly higher for those on ticagrelor than prasugrel (hazard ratio, 1.39; P = .006). The bleeding risk on ticagrelor was also higher but not significantly different (5.4% vs. 4.8%; P = .46) (Schüpke S et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct;381:1524-34).

In this substudy newly published in Annals of Internal Medicine, outcomes were compared in the 1,099 patients who were 75 years or older or weighed less than 60 kg. In this group, unlike those younger or weighing more, patients were randomized to receive a reduced maintenance dose of 5 mg of once-daily prasugrel (rather than 10 mg) or full dose ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily).

At 1 year, the low-dose prasugrel strategy relative to ticagrelor was associated with a lower rate of events (12.7% vs. 14.6%) and a lower rate of bleeding (8.1% vs. 10.6%), defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 events.

Neither the 18% reduction for the efficacy endpoint (HR, 0.82; 95% CI 0.60-1.14) nor the 28% reduction in the bleeding endpoint (HR, 0.72; 95% CI 0.46-1.12) reached significance, but Dr. Kastrati reported that there was a significant “treatment effect-by-study-group interaction” for BARC 1-5 bleeding (P = .004) favoring prasugrel. This supports low-dose prasugrel as a strategy to prevent the excess bleeding risk previously observed with the standard 10-mg dose of prasugrel.

In other words, a reduced dose of prasugrel, compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor, in low-weight and elderly patients “is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk of bleeding,” he and his coinvestigators concluded.

Low-weight and older patients represented 27% of those enrolled in ISAR-REACT 5. When compared to the study population as a whole, the risk for both ischemic and bleeding events was at least twice as high, the authors of an accompanying editorial observed. They praised this effort to refine the optimal antiplatelet regimen in a very-high-risk ACS population.

“The current analysis suggests that the prasugrel dose reduction regimen for elderly or underweight patients with ACS is effective and safe,” according to the editorial coauthors, David Conen, MD, and P.J. Devereaux, MD, PhD, who are affiliated with the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario.

This substudy was underpowered to show superiority for the efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly and low-weight ACS patients, which makes these results “hypothesis generating,” but the authors believe that they provide the best available evidence for selecting antiplatelet therapy in this challenging subgroup. Although the exclusion of patients at very high risk of bleeding from ISAR-REACT 5 suggest findings might not be relevant to all elderly and low-weight individuals, the investigators believe the data do inform clinical practice.

“Our study is the first head-to-head randomized comparison of the reduced dose of prasugrel against standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly and low-weight patients,” said Dr. Kastrati in an interview. “Specifically designed studies for this subset of patients are very unlikely to be conducted in the future.”

Dr. Kastrati reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

SOURCE: Menichelli M et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 21. doi: 10.7326/M20-1806.

Young adult smokers who stop smoking in the first year after an initial myocardial infarction are far less likely to die over the next 10 years than their peers who continue to smoke. Yet nearly two-thirds keep smoking after the event, according to new data from the Partners YOUNG-MI Registry.

“Smoking is one of the most common risk factors for developing an MI at a young age. ... This reinforces the need to have more young individuals avoid, or quit, the use of tobacco,” Ron Blankstein, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Yet, the finding that 62% of young adults continue to smoke 1 year after MI points to an “enormous need for better smoking cessation efforts following a heart attack,” he said.
 

“Powerful” message for clinicians

“This study joins an incredibly powerful body of evidence that says if you quit smoking, you’re going to live longer,” said Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“As physicians, there is nothing we can do that will have a greater impact for our patients than quitting smoking. The study is a powerful call for clinicians to intervene with their patients that smoke – both if you have an MI or if you don’t,” Dr. Fiore told this news organization.

The study involved 2,072 individuals 50 years or younger (median age, 45 years; 81% male) who were hospitalized for an initial MI at two large academic medical centers in Boston. Of these, 33.9% were never-smokers, 13.6% were former smokers, and 52.5% were smokers at the time of their MI.

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, those who quit smoking had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P < .001) and a cardiovascular cause (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79; P = .02), relative to those who continued to smoke.

The results remained statistically significant in a propensity-matched analysis for both all-cause (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < .001) and CV mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = .003).

“Although patients who quit smoking were similar to those who continued to smoke with respect to their baseline characteristics, smoking cessation was associated with an approximate 70%-80% reduction in all-cause and CV mortality,” the authors note in their article, published online July 8 in JAMA Network Open.

They say it’s also noteworthy that long-term death rates of never-smokers and former smokers who quit before the MI were nearly identical.

‘A failure of our health care system’

The bottom line, said Dr. Blankstein, is that it is “never too late to quit, and those who experience an MI should do so right away. Our health care system must help promote such efforts, as there is immense room for improvement.”

Dr. Fiore said: “When I see an article like this, it just reminds me that, if you’re really thinking about staying healthy, there is nothing better you can do to improve the quality and longevity of your life than quitting smoking.”

The observation that many patients continue to smoke after MI is a “failure of our health care system, and it’s an individual failure in that these individuals are not able to overcome their powerful nicotine dependence. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that’s resulting in unnecessary deaths,” said Dr. Fiore.

There is no “magic bullet” to overcome nicotine addiction, but there are approved treatments that can “substantially boost quit rates,” he noted.

The two most effective smoking-cessation treatments are varenicline (Chantix) and combination nicotine replacement therapy, a patch combined ideally with nicotine mini lozenges, particularly when combined with some brief counseling, said Fiore.

He encourages cardiologists to get their patients to commit to quitting and then link them to resources such as 1-800-QUIT-NOW or SmokeFree.gov.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen and Astellas. Dr. Fiore had no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adult smokers who stop smoking in the first year after an initial myocardial infarction are far less likely to die over the next 10 years than their peers who continue to smoke. Yet nearly two-thirds keep smoking after the event, according to new data from the Partners YOUNG-MI Registry.

“Smoking is one of the most common risk factors for developing an MI at a young age. ... This reinforces the need to have more young individuals avoid, or quit, the use of tobacco,” Ron Blankstein, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Yet, the finding that 62% of young adults continue to smoke 1 year after MI points to an “enormous need for better smoking cessation efforts following a heart attack,” he said.
 

“Powerful” message for clinicians

“This study joins an incredibly powerful body of evidence that says if you quit smoking, you’re going to live longer,” said Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“As physicians, there is nothing we can do that will have a greater impact for our patients than quitting smoking. The study is a powerful call for clinicians to intervene with their patients that smoke – both if you have an MI or if you don’t,” Dr. Fiore told this news organization.

The study involved 2,072 individuals 50 years or younger (median age, 45 years; 81% male) who were hospitalized for an initial MI at two large academic medical centers in Boston. Of these, 33.9% were never-smokers, 13.6% were former smokers, and 52.5% were smokers at the time of their MI.

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, those who quit smoking had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P < .001) and a cardiovascular cause (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79; P = .02), relative to those who continued to smoke.

The results remained statistically significant in a propensity-matched analysis for both all-cause (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < .001) and CV mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = .003).

“Although patients who quit smoking were similar to those who continued to smoke with respect to their baseline characteristics, smoking cessation was associated with an approximate 70%-80% reduction in all-cause and CV mortality,” the authors note in their article, published online July 8 in JAMA Network Open.

They say it’s also noteworthy that long-term death rates of never-smokers and former smokers who quit before the MI were nearly identical.

‘A failure of our health care system’

The bottom line, said Dr. Blankstein, is that it is “never too late to quit, and those who experience an MI should do so right away. Our health care system must help promote such efforts, as there is immense room for improvement.”

Dr. Fiore said: “When I see an article like this, it just reminds me that, if you’re really thinking about staying healthy, there is nothing better you can do to improve the quality and longevity of your life than quitting smoking.”

The observation that many patients continue to smoke after MI is a “failure of our health care system, and it’s an individual failure in that these individuals are not able to overcome their powerful nicotine dependence. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that’s resulting in unnecessary deaths,” said Dr. Fiore.

There is no “magic bullet” to overcome nicotine addiction, but there are approved treatments that can “substantially boost quit rates,” he noted.

The two most effective smoking-cessation treatments are varenicline (Chantix) and combination nicotine replacement therapy, a patch combined ideally with nicotine mini lozenges, particularly when combined with some brief counseling, said Fiore.

He encourages cardiologists to get their patients to commit to quitting and then link them to resources such as 1-800-QUIT-NOW or SmokeFree.gov.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen and Astellas. Dr. Fiore had no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adult smokers who stop smoking in the first year after an initial myocardial infarction are far less likely to die over the next 10 years than their peers who continue to smoke. Yet nearly two-thirds keep smoking after the event, according to new data from the Partners YOUNG-MI Registry.

“Smoking is one of the most common risk factors for developing an MI at a young age. ... This reinforces the need to have more young individuals avoid, or quit, the use of tobacco,” Ron Blankstein, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Yet, the finding that 62% of young adults continue to smoke 1 year after MI points to an “enormous need for better smoking cessation efforts following a heart attack,” he said.
 

“Powerful” message for clinicians

“This study joins an incredibly powerful body of evidence that says if you quit smoking, you’re going to live longer,” said Michael Fiore, MD, MPH, MBA, director of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, Madison, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“As physicians, there is nothing we can do that will have a greater impact for our patients than quitting smoking. The study is a powerful call for clinicians to intervene with their patients that smoke – both if you have an MI or if you don’t,” Dr. Fiore told this news organization.

The study involved 2,072 individuals 50 years or younger (median age, 45 years; 81% male) who were hospitalized for an initial MI at two large academic medical centers in Boston. Of these, 33.9% were never-smokers, 13.6% were former smokers, and 52.5% were smokers at the time of their MI.

During a median follow-up of 10.2 years, those who quit smoking had a significantly lower rate of death from any cause (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.63; P < .001) and a cardiovascular cause (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79; P = .02), relative to those who continued to smoke.

The results remained statistically significant in a propensity-matched analysis for both all-cause (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < .001) and CV mortality (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = .003).

“Although patients who quit smoking were similar to those who continued to smoke with respect to their baseline characteristics, smoking cessation was associated with an approximate 70%-80% reduction in all-cause and CV mortality,” the authors note in their article, published online July 8 in JAMA Network Open.

They say it’s also noteworthy that long-term death rates of never-smokers and former smokers who quit before the MI were nearly identical.

‘A failure of our health care system’

The bottom line, said Dr. Blankstein, is that it is “never too late to quit, and those who experience an MI should do so right away. Our health care system must help promote such efforts, as there is immense room for improvement.”

Dr. Fiore said: “When I see an article like this, it just reminds me that, if you’re really thinking about staying healthy, there is nothing better you can do to improve the quality and longevity of your life than quitting smoking.”

The observation that many patients continue to smoke after MI is a “failure of our health care system, and it’s an individual failure in that these individuals are not able to overcome their powerful nicotine dependence. It’s an unfortunate occurrence that’s resulting in unnecessary deaths,” said Dr. Fiore.

There is no “magic bullet” to overcome nicotine addiction, but there are approved treatments that can “substantially boost quit rates,” he noted.

The two most effective smoking-cessation treatments are varenicline (Chantix) and combination nicotine replacement therapy, a patch combined ideally with nicotine mini lozenges, particularly when combined with some brief counseling, said Fiore.

He encourages cardiologists to get their patients to commit to quitting and then link them to resources such as 1-800-QUIT-NOW or SmokeFree.gov.

Funding for the study was provided by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen and Astellas. Dr. Fiore had no relevant disclosures.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Beta-blockers taken for hypertension may predispose women to worse outcomes, compared with men, when they later present with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a registry study suggests.

In the analysis of more than 13,000 patients with ACS and no history of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the women who had taken beta-blockers for hypertension showed about a one-third increased risk for heart failure (HF) at the time of their ACS presentation.

The difference between women and men was especially pronounced among patients with ST-segment elevation MI, compared with those with non-STEMI.

No such relationship between sex and risk for HF with ACS was observed among the larger portion of the cohort that had not previously been treated with beta-blockers, according to a report published July 13 in Hypertension, with lead author Raffaele Bugiardini, MD, University of Bologna (Italy).

Mortality at 30 days was sharply higher for patients with than without HF at their ACS presentation, by more than 600% for women and more than 800% for men.

“Our study provides robust evidence of an interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy and suggests an increased risk of HF among women presenting with incident myocardial infarction,” Dr. Bugiardini said in an interview.

Given their novelty, “our findings raise strong concern about the appropriate role of beta-blockers in the therapy of hypertension in women with no prior history of cardiovascular diseases. Beta-blocker use may be an acute precipitant of heart failure in women presenting with incident ACS as first manifestation of coronary heart disease.” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote.

“There is one main implication for clinical practice. Discontinuing a beta-blocker in an otherwise healthy woman with hypertension and no prior CV disease is not harmful and could be wise,” Dr. Bugiardini said. “Blood pressure in women may be regulated in a safer way, such as using other medications and, of course, through diet and exercise.”

Rationale for the study

Men and women “differ with respect to the risk, causes, and prognosis of HF,” Dr. Bugiardini and colleagues wrote, and current guidelines “do not differentiate between the use of beta-blockers in men and in women.”

However, they proposed, “because prior trials and meta-analyses enrolled nearly five men for every woman, any differences in the effect of beta-blockers among women would have been concealed by the effect of beta-blocker therapy among men.”

The current study looked at data from October 2010 to July 2018 in the ISACS ARCHIVES, ISACS-TC, and the EMMACE-3X registries, covering 13,764 patients from 12 European countries who had a history of hypertension and presented with confirmed ACS.

Of the combined cohort, 2,590 (19%) had been treated with beta-blockers prior to their ACS presentation. They were similar to those without a history of beta-blocker use with respect to baseline features and use of other medications in an adjusted analysis.

In the group with prior beta-blocker use, 21.3% of the women and 16.7% of the men had HF of Killip class 2 or higher, a 4.6% absolute difference that worked out to a relative risk of 1.35 (95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.65).

The corresponding rates for women and men without prior beta-blocker use were 17.2% and 16.1%, respectively, for an absolute difference of only 1.1% and an RR of1.09 (95% CI, 0.97-1.21).

The interaction between sex and beta-blocker therapy for the HF outcome was significant (P < .034). An analysis that excluded patients in cardiogenic shock at their ACS presentation produced similar results.

In an analysis only of patients with STEMI, the RR for HF in women versus men was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.12-1.84) among those with a history of beta-blocker use, and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.98-1.26) among those who hadn’t used the drugs. The interaction between sex and beta-blocker use was significant (P = .033).

No such significant interaction was seen for the subgroup with non-STEMI as their index ACS (P = .14).

Heart failure at ACS was the most powerful observed predictor of 30-day mortality in women and in men in multivariate analysis; the odds ratios were 7.54 (95% CI, 5.78-9.83) and 9.62 (95% CI, 7.67-12.07), respectively.

“Our study underscores the importance of sex analyses in clinical research studies, which may provide further actionable data,” Dr. Bugiardini stated. “Failure to include both sexes in therapeutic studies is a missed opportunity to uncover underlying sex-specific risks. The adverse effect of beta-blocker therapy in women with hypertension is a sex-specific risk.”

Not just a male disease

Part of the study’s conclusions are “really not that surprising, because we have known for a long time that women who have an MI are much more likely to develop HF than men, and we also know that HF raises mortality after MI,” Ileana L. Pina, MD, MPH, Wayne State University, Detroit, said in an interview.

But what surprised her was that women taking beta-blockers were at greater risk for HF. “This association needs to be proven in a prospective study and confirmed in another dataset,” said Dr. Pina, who was not involved with the current study. “The most important message is to remember that HF is not just a ‘male’ disease and to pay attention to the symptoms of women and not discount or relegate them to anxiety or gastric problems.”

The study was observational, Dr. Bugiardini noted, so “the results may have some variance and need confirmation. However, a sex-stratified, randomized, controlled trial of beta-blocker therapy in patients with hypertension but no prior history of coronary heart disease or HF may not be considered ethical, since it would be designed to confirm risk … and not benefit.”

“Further observational studies may give confirmation,” he added. “In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration should alert health care professionals of the adverse events associated with beta-blocker use in women with hypertension and no prior history of CV disease, [because] prescribing beta-blockers to a woman with hypertension means exposing her to unnecessary risk.”

Dr. Bugiardini and the other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Pina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with later bleeding complications that were at least moderate in severity showed a 15-fold increased risk of dying within 30 days, compared with those without such bleeding, in a pooled analysis of four randomized antithrombotic-therapy trials.

Mortality 1 month to 1 year after a bleeding event was not as sharply increased, but there was still almost triple the risk seen in patients without bleeding complications.

In both cases, the risk increase was independent of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had been part of the management of ACS, concludes the study, published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We showed that postdischarge bleeding was associated with a pretty bad prognosis, in terms of all-cause mortality, regardless of the index treatment – PCI or medical therapy,” lead author Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, MSc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that we should care about bleeding prevention in patients who had a previous ACS, regardless of the treatment strategy, as much as we care for prevention of future ischemic events,” said Dr. Marquis-Gravel, who is also an interventional cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute.

“This large-scale analysis clearly demonstrates that bleeding events occurring among ACS patients with coronary stents carry the same prognostic significance in magnitude and time course as among patients who do not undergo PCI,” observed Derek Chew, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and Jack Wei Chieh Tan, MBBS, MBA, of National Heart Centre, Singapore, in an accompanying editorial.

“Therefore, at least in the later phases of planning antithrombotic therapy, when weighting bleeding risk in these conditions, these estimates should not be ‘discounted’ for the absence or presence of PCI during the initial ACS management,” they wrote.
 

A “proven assumption”

“A great deal of research has previously been conducted to tailor DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] and to minimize bleeding risk following PCI based on the proven assumption that bleeding is associated with adverse clinical outcomes,” Dr. Marques-Gravel explained.

“The prognostic impact of postdischarge bleeding has not been studied thoroughly in patients with ACS who were only treated medically with DAPT without PCI.” Yet this population makes up a large proportion of the ACS population, and patients are “generally older and sicker” and therefore at increased risk for both ischemic and bleeding events, he said.

The researchers explored those issues in a post hoc pooled analysis of four randomized comparisons of antithrombotic strategies in patients with ACS: APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS. The analyses tracked bleeding events that took place from a landmark time of 7 days after presentation with ACS over a median follow-up of 1 year in 45,011 patients (31.3% female), 48% of whom were managed with PCI.

Those treated with PCI, compared with those medically managed only, tended to be younger, more often male, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as their ACS, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities.

During the total follow-up of 48,717 person-years, the postdischarge rate of moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding defined by GUSTO criteria reached 2.6 events per 100 patient-years. A total of 2,149 patients died, and mortality was consistently higher in patients who had such bleeding complications. They showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 15.7 (95% confidence interval, 12.3-20.0) for mortality within 30 days, compared with patients without bleeds. Their HR for mortality at 30 days to 1 year was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.4).

The association between bleeding complications and mortality remained consistent, regardless of whether patients had undergone PCI for their ACS (interaction P = .240).
 

A pragmatic interpretation

Although an observational study can’t show causality between bleeding and mortality, Dr. Marquis-Gravel cautioned, “the fact that the majority of deaths occurred early after the bleeding event, within 30 days, is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

He recommended a “pragmatic interpretation” of the study: “Bleeding avoidance strategies tested in PCI populations, including short-term DAPT or aspirin-free strategies, should also be considered in medically treated patients with ACS deemed at higher risk of bleeding.”

“It is clear that bleeding events after successful PCI for an ACS are independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity,” Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, of Texas Tech University, El Paso, said in an interview.

“Every effort should be made to minimize bleeding events with the use of appropriate access site for PCI, dosing, selection, and duration of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents, and use of proton pump inhibitors when appropriate,” he said.

The clinical decision-making involved in this individualized approach “is often not easy,” said Dr. Mukherjee, who was not involved in the current study. “Integrating patients and clinical pharmacists in choosing optimal antithrombotic therapies post-MI is likely to be helpful” in the process.

Although “major bleeding following ACS increases the risk of mortality for both medically managed and PCI-managed patients with ACS, the vast majority of deaths, 90%, occur in those that have not had a bleed,” Mamas A. Mamas, DPhil, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said in an interview.

“It is important to understand the causes of death in this population and think about how interventions may impact on this,” agreed Dr. Mamas, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Marquis-Gravel reported receiving speaking fees and honoraria from Servier and Novartis; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Chew reported receiving speaking fees and institutional grants in aid from Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Tan discloses receiving speaking fees and educational grants from Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Mamas report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with later bleeding complications that were at least moderate in severity showed a 15-fold increased risk of dying within 30 days, compared with those without such bleeding, in a pooled analysis of four randomized antithrombotic-therapy trials.

Mortality 1 month to 1 year after a bleeding event was not as sharply increased, but there was still almost triple the risk seen in patients without bleeding complications.

In both cases, the risk increase was independent of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had been part of the management of ACS, concludes the study, published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We showed that postdischarge bleeding was associated with a pretty bad prognosis, in terms of all-cause mortality, regardless of the index treatment – PCI or medical therapy,” lead author Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, MSc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that we should care about bleeding prevention in patients who had a previous ACS, regardless of the treatment strategy, as much as we care for prevention of future ischemic events,” said Dr. Marquis-Gravel, who is also an interventional cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute.

“This large-scale analysis clearly demonstrates that bleeding events occurring among ACS patients with coronary stents carry the same prognostic significance in magnitude and time course as among patients who do not undergo PCI,” observed Derek Chew, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and Jack Wei Chieh Tan, MBBS, MBA, of National Heart Centre, Singapore, in an accompanying editorial.

“Therefore, at least in the later phases of planning antithrombotic therapy, when weighting bleeding risk in these conditions, these estimates should not be ‘discounted’ for the absence or presence of PCI during the initial ACS management,” they wrote.
 

A “proven assumption”

“A great deal of research has previously been conducted to tailor DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] and to minimize bleeding risk following PCI based on the proven assumption that bleeding is associated with adverse clinical outcomes,” Dr. Marques-Gravel explained.

“The prognostic impact of postdischarge bleeding has not been studied thoroughly in patients with ACS who were only treated medically with DAPT without PCI.” Yet this population makes up a large proportion of the ACS population, and patients are “generally older and sicker” and therefore at increased risk for both ischemic and bleeding events, he said.

The researchers explored those issues in a post hoc pooled analysis of four randomized comparisons of antithrombotic strategies in patients with ACS: APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS. The analyses tracked bleeding events that took place from a landmark time of 7 days after presentation with ACS over a median follow-up of 1 year in 45,011 patients (31.3% female), 48% of whom were managed with PCI.

Those treated with PCI, compared with those medically managed only, tended to be younger, more often male, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as their ACS, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities.

During the total follow-up of 48,717 person-years, the postdischarge rate of moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding defined by GUSTO criteria reached 2.6 events per 100 patient-years. A total of 2,149 patients died, and mortality was consistently higher in patients who had such bleeding complications. They showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 15.7 (95% confidence interval, 12.3-20.0) for mortality within 30 days, compared with patients without bleeds. Their HR for mortality at 30 days to 1 year was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.4).

The association between bleeding complications and mortality remained consistent, regardless of whether patients had undergone PCI for their ACS (interaction P = .240).
 

A pragmatic interpretation

Although an observational study can’t show causality between bleeding and mortality, Dr. Marquis-Gravel cautioned, “the fact that the majority of deaths occurred early after the bleeding event, within 30 days, is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

He recommended a “pragmatic interpretation” of the study: “Bleeding avoidance strategies tested in PCI populations, including short-term DAPT or aspirin-free strategies, should also be considered in medically treated patients with ACS deemed at higher risk of bleeding.”

“It is clear that bleeding events after successful PCI for an ACS are independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity,” Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, of Texas Tech University, El Paso, said in an interview.

“Every effort should be made to minimize bleeding events with the use of appropriate access site for PCI, dosing, selection, and duration of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents, and use of proton pump inhibitors when appropriate,” he said.

The clinical decision-making involved in this individualized approach “is often not easy,” said Dr. Mukherjee, who was not involved in the current study. “Integrating patients and clinical pharmacists in choosing optimal antithrombotic therapies post-MI is likely to be helpful” in the process.

Although “major bleeding following ACS increases the risk of mortality for both medically managed and PCI-managed patients with ACS, the vast majority of deaths, 90%, occur in those that have not had a bleed,” Mamas A. Mamas, DPhil, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said in an interview.

“It is important to understand the causes of death in this population and think about how interventions may impact on this,” agreed Dr. Mamas, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Marquis-Gravel reported receiving speaking fees and honoraria from Servier and Novartis; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Chew reported receiving speaking fees and institutional grants in aid from Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Tan discloses receiving speaking fees and educational grants from Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Mamas report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) with later bleeding complications that were at least moderate in severity showed a 15-fold increased risk of dying within 30 days, compared with those without such bleeding, in a pooled analysis of four randomized antithrombotic-therapy trials.

Mortality 1 month to 1 year after a bleeding event was not as sharply increased, but there was still almost triple the risk seen in patients without bleeding complications.

In both cases, the risk increase was independent of whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had been part of the management of ACS, concludes the study, published in the July 14 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“We showed that postdischarge bleeding was associated with a pretty bad prognosis, in terms of all-cause mortality, regardless of the index treatment – PCI or medical therapy,” lead author Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, MSc, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“Our data suggest that we should care about bleeding prevention in patients who had a previous ACS, regardless of the treatment strategy, as much as we care for prevention of future ischemic events,” said Dr. Marquis-Gravel, who is also an interventional cardiologist at the Montreal Heart Institute.

“This large-scale analysis clearly demonstrates that bleeding events occurring among ACS patients with coronary stents carry the same prognostic significance in magnitude and time course as among patients who do not undergo PCI,” observed Derek Chew, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia, and Jack Wei Chieh Tan, MBBS, MBA, of National Heart Centre, Singapore, in an accompanying editorial.

“Therefore, at least in the later phases of planning antithrombotic therapy, when weighting bleeding risk in these conditions, these estimates should not be ‘discounted’ for the absence or presence of PCI during the initial ACS management,” they wrote.
 

A “proven assumption”

“A great deal of research has previously been conducted to tailor DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] and to minimize bleeding risk following PCI based on the proven assumption that bleeding is associated with adverse clinical outcomes,” Dr. Marques-Gravel explained.

“The prognostic impact of postdischarge bleeding has not been studied thoroughly in patients with ACS who were only treated medically with DAPT without PCI.” Yet this population makes up a large proportion of the ACS population, and patients are “generally older and sicker” and therefore at increased risk for both ischemic and bleeding events, he said.

The researchers explored those issues in a post hoc pooled analysis of four randomized comparisons of antithrombotic strategies in patients with ACS: APPRAISE-2, PLATO, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS. The analyses tracked bleeding events that took place from a landmark time of 7 days after presentation with ACS over a median follow-up of 1 year in 45,011 patients (31.3% female), 48% of whom were managed with PCI.

Those treated with PCI, compared with those medically managed only, tended to be younger, more often male, more likely to have ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as their ACS, and less likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities.

During the total follow-up of 48,717 person-years, the postdischarge rate of moderate, severe, or life-threatening bleeding defined by GUSTO criteria reached 2.6 events per 100 patient-years. A total of 2,149 patients died, and mortality was consistently higher in patients who had such bleeding complications. They showed an adjusted hazard ratio of 15.7 (95% confidence interval, 12.3-20.0) for mortality within 30 days, compared with patients without bleeds. Their HR for mortality at 30 days to 1 year was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.4).

The association between bleeding complications and mortality remained consistent, regardless of whether patients had undergone PCI for their ACS (interaction P = .240).
 

A pragmatic interpretation

Although an observational study can’t show causality between bleeding and mortality, Dr. Marquis-Gravel cautioned, “the fact that the majority of deaths occurred early after the bleeding event, within 30 days, is strongly suggestive of a causal relationship.”

He recommended a “pragmatic interpretation” of the study: “Bleeding avoidance strategies tested in PCI populations, including short-term DAPT or aspirin-free strategies, should also be considered in medically treated patients with ACS deemed at higher risk of bleeding.”

“It is clear that bleeding events after successful PCI for an ACS are independently associated with increased mortality and morbidity,” Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, of Texas Tech University, El Paso, said in an interview.

“Every effort should be made to minimize bleeding events with the use of appropriate access site for PCI, dosing, selection, and duration of antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents, and use of proton pump inhibitors when appropriate,” he said.

The clinical decision-making involved in this individualized approach “is often not easy,” said Dr. Mukherjee, who was not involved in the current study. “Integrating patients and clinical pharmacists in choosing optimal antithrombotic therapies post-MI is likely to be helpful” in the process.

Although “major bleeding following ACS increases the risk of mortality for both medically managed and PCI-managed patients with ACS, the vast majority of deaths, 90%, occur in those that have not had a bleed,” Mamas A. Mamas, DPhil, Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said in an interview.

“It is important to understand the causes of death in this population and think about how interventions may impact on this,” agreed Dr. Mamas, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Marquis-Gravel reported receiving speaking fees and honoraria from Servier and Novartis; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Chew reported receiving speaking fees and institutional grants in aid from Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Tan discloses receiving speaking fees and educational grants from Amgen, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Abbott Vascular. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Mamas report no relevant financial relationships.

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