User login
Valvular AFib heightens risk in TAVR
Atrial fibrillation has been known to confer an increased risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but there’s been no evidence of how the etiology of AFib can influence post-TAVR outcomes.
Now, a group of researchers from Bern (Switzerland) University are reporting that valvular AFib almost triples the risk of death or debilitating stroke, compared with patients with no AFib, and significantly increases the risk over nonvalvular AFib.*
“The present findings may have implications for risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVR,” wrote Taishi Okuno, MD, and colleagues in what they said is the first study “to appreciate the combined effect” of AFib and mitral stenosis in TAVR. “The identification of valvular AFib may refine the estimated risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR,” they wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“The fact that valvular AFib seems to confer a higher risk is an interesting finding,” Fred Welt, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview. “I think it helps to a certain extent in prognostication because we can say to patients who have concomitant mitral valve disease that they are at higher risk.” Dr. Welt is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council.
The analysis included 1,472 patients with aortic stenosis who had TAVR at Bern University Hospital between August 2007 and June 2018, 32% of whom (465) had atrial fibrillation, subcategorized as nonvalvular (26%, 376) and valvular (6%, 89). The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke 1 year after TAVR, occurred in 9.3% of patients with no AFib, 14.5% of those with nonvalvular AFib and 24.2% of patients with valvular AFib.
In terms of hazard ratios, patients with nonvalvular AFib had a 57% greater risk of poor outcomes (P = .009) and those with valvular AFib had a 275% greater risk (P < .001), compared with patients with no AFib. Patients with valvular AFib had a 77% higher rate of cardiovascular death or stroke than those with nonvalvular AFib (P = .027).**
In their analysis, Dr. Okuno and colleagues acknowledged that the definition of valvular AFib used in guidelines and clinical trials isn’t uniform. Valvular atrial fibrillation was defined as AFib with mitral stenosis or a mitral valve prosthesis.
To account for the varying definitions of valvular and nonvalvular AFib, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis of AFib patients with significant valve disease other than mitral stenosis; 42% of patients in the nonvalvular group fit this definition. Patients with AFib and valvular disease other than mitral stenosis had almost twice the risk of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke at 1 year, compared with patients who had AFib but no significant disease of any valve (20.1% vs. 10.9%, P = .03).
Furthermore, when they excluded patients with mild mitral stenosis from the valvular AFib group, “the effect of an increased risk for cardiovascular death or disabling stroke was no longer statistically significant.”
When the researchers separated out the two elements of the composite endpoint, they found valvular AFib carried a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death – 21.1% (P < .002) vs. 7% for no AFib and 12.3% (P = .003) for nonvalvular AFib. However, the incidence of cardiovascular events – disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke and transient ischemic attack – showed no significant difference across the three groups, Dr. Okuno and colleagues noted. Specifically, the rates of disabling stroke were 3.8%, 3.7% and 5.7% in the no-AFib, nonvalvular-AFib, and valvular-AFib groups, respectively
In an invited editorial, Bernard Iung, MD, and Vincent Algalarrondo, MD, PhD, noted the problems with the definitions for valvular and nonvalvular AFib. “The term valvular AFib now frequently refers to patients with AFib associated with moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve,” they wrote. The definition is justified, they noted, because there’s little evidence on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with mitral stenosis.
They noted the term nonvalvular is “ambiguous” because it doesn’t exclude valvular disease but rather only a subset defined by the restrictive use of a class of anticoagulants. Hence, the definition of valvular AFib “is subject to criticisms and remains not standardized.”
“The individualization of valvular AFib in patients undergoing TAVR is debatable, and the definition used in the present study also included mild mitral stenosis and bioprostheses, thereby highlighting again the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the concept of valvular AFib,” they wrote.
While Dr. Welt said the findings may help in stratifying risk in patients with valvular AFib, he’s not certain how that would influence treatment decisions. “In most cases when we’re considering TAVR in these patients it’s because they have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis,” he said.
Surgery as an alternative is fraught with consequences, he said. “Would it be because you would want to repair the mitral valve as well?” he said. “And once you get into that territory, you’re talking about double-valve surgery, which is a much riskier operation than isolated aortic valve replacement.”
The study raises important questions about patients with valvular AFib, Dr. Welt added. “Why are these patients dying at higher rate? Is it some other arrhythmia or some other hemodynamic problem? Are there other things we can learn about these patients that would help us to better treat patients?”
But exploring these findings further with a randomized clinical trial may not be practical, he added. “The number of patients in whom this is an issue is in the scheme of things rather low: 6%,” he said.
Dr. Okuno has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Iung is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Algalarrondo has been a consultant for Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Welt disclosed a relationship with Medtronic.
SOURCE: Okuno T et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.049.
Corrections, 9/29/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the increase in risk of (*) death or debilitating stroke and of (**) a poor outcome in those with valvular Afib.
Atrial fibrillation has been known to confer an increased risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but there’s been no evidence of how the etiology of AFib can influence post-TAVR outcomes.
Now, a group of researchers from Bern (Switzerland) University are reporting that valvular AFib almost triples the risk of death or debilitating stroke, compared with patients with no AFib, and significantly increases the risk over nonvalvular AFib.*
“The present findings may have implications for risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVR,” wrote Taishi Okuno, MD, and colleagues in what they said is the first study “to appreciate the combined effect” of AFib and mitral stenosis in TAVR. “The identification of valvular AFib may refine the estimated risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR,” they wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“The fact that valvular AFib seems to confer a higher risk is an interesting finding,” Fred Welt, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview. “I think it helps to a certain extent in prognostication because we can say to patients who have concomitant mitral valve disease that they are at higher risk.” Dr. Welt is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council.
The analysis included 1,472 patients with aortic stenosis who had TAVR at Bern University Hospital between August 2007 and June 2018, 32% of whom (465) had atrial fibrillation, subcategorized as nonvalvular (26%, 376) and valvular (6%, 89). The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke 1 year after TAVR, occurred in 9.3% of patients with no AFib, 14.5% of those with nonvalvular AFib and 24.2% of patients with valvular AFib.
In terms of hazard ratios, patients with nonvalvular AFib had a 57% greater risk of poor outcomes (P = .009) and those with valvular AFib had a 275% greater risk (P < .001), compared with patients with no AFib. Patients with valvular AFib had a 77% higher rate of cardiovascular death or stroke than those with nonvalvular AFib (P = .027).**
In their analysis, Dr. Okuno and colleagues acknowledged that the definition of valvular AFib used in guidelines and clinical trials isn’t uniform. Valvular atrial fibrillation was defined as AFib with mitral stenosis or a mitral valve prosthesis.
To account for the varying definitions of valvular and nonvalvular AFib, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis of AFib patients with significant valve disease other than mitral stenosis; 42% of patients in the nonvalvular group fit this definition. Patients with AFib and valvular disease other than mitral stenosis had almost twice the risk of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke at 1 year, compared with patients who had AFib but no significant disease of any valve (20.1% vs. 10.9%, P = .03).
Furthermore, when they excluded patients with mild mitral stenosis from the valvular AFib group, “the effect of an increased risk for cardiovascular death or disabling stroke was no longer statistically significant.”
When the researchers separated out the two elements of the composite endpoint, they found valvular AFib carried a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death – 21.1% (P < .002) vs. 7% for no AFib and 12.3% (P = .003) for nonvalvular AFib. However, the incidence of cardiovascular events – disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke and transient ischemic attack – showed no significant difference across the three groups, Dr. Okuno and colleagues noted. Specifically, the rates of disabling stroke were 3.8%, 3.7% and 5.7% in the no-AFib, nonvalvular-AFib, and valvular-AFib groups, respectively
In an invited editorial, Bernard Iung, MD, and Vincent Algalarrondo, MD, PhD, noted the problems with the definitions for valvular and nonvalvular AFib. “The term valvular AFib now frequently refers to patients with AFib associated with moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve,” they wrote. The definition is justified, they noted, because there’s little evidence on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with mitral stenosis.
They noted the term nonvalvular is “ambiguous” because it doesn’t exclude valvular disease but rather only a subset defined by the restrictive use of a class of anticoagulants. Hence, the definition of valvular AFib “is subject to criticisms and remains not standardized.”
“The individualization of valvular AFib in patients undergoing TAVR is debatable, and the definition used in the present study also included mild mitral stenosis and bioprostheses, thereby highlighting again the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the concept of valvular AFib,” they wrote.
While Dr. Welt said the findings may help in stratifying risk in patients with valvular AFib, he’s not certain how that would influence treatment decisions. “In most cases when we’re considering TAVR in these patients it’s because they have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis,” he said.
Surgery as an alternative is fraught with consequences, he said. “Would it be because you would want to repair the mitral valve as well?” he said. “And once you get into that territory, you’re talking about double-valve surgery, which is a much riskier operation than isolated aortic valve replacement.”
The study raises important questions about patients with valvular AFib, Dr. Welt added. “Why are these patients dying at higher rate? Is it some other arrhythmia or some other hemodynamic problem? Are there other things we can learn about these patients that would help us to better treat patients?”
But exploring these findings further with a randomized clinical trial may not be practical, he added. “The number of patients in whom this is an issue is in the scheme of things rather low: 6%,” he said.
Dr. Okuno has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Iung is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Algalarrondo has been a consultant for Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Welt disclosed a relationship with Medtronic.
SOURCE: Okuno T et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.049.
Corrections, 9/29/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the increase in risk of (*) death or debilitating stroke and of (**) a poor outcome in those with valvular Afib.
Atrial fibrillation has been known to confer an increased risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, but there’s been no evidence of how the etiology of AFib can influence post-TAVR outcomes.
Now, a group of researchers from Bern (Switzerland) University are reporting that valvular AFib almost triples the risk of death or debilitating stroke, compared with patients with no AFib, and significantly increases the risk over nonvalvular AFib.*
“The present findings may have implications for risk stratification in patients undergoing TAVR,” wrote Taishi Okuno, MD, and colleagues in what they said is the first study “to appreciate the combined effect” of AFib and mitral stenosis in TAVR. “The identification of valvular AFib may refine the estimated risk for adverse clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR,” they wrote in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
“The fact that valvular AFib seems to confer a higher risk is an interesting finding,” Fred Welt, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview. “I think it helps to a certain extent in prognostication because we can say to patients who have concomitant mitral valve disease that they are at higher risk.” Dr. Welt is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Interventional Council.
The analysis included 1,472 patients with aortic stenosis who had TAVR at Bern University Hospital between August 2007 and June 2018, 32% of whom (465) had atrial fibrillation, subcategorized as nonvalvular (26%, 376) and valvular (6%, 89). The primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke 1 year after TAVR, occurred in 9.3% of patients with no AFib, 14.5% of those with nonvalvular AFib and 24.2% of patients with valvular AFib.
In terms of hazard ratios, patients with nonvalvular AFib had a 57% greater risk of poor outcomes (P = .009) and those with valvular AFib had a 275% greater risk (P < .001), compared with patients with no AFib. Patients with valvular AFib had a 77% higher rate of cardiovascular death or stroke than those with nonvalvular AFib (P = .027).**
In their analysis, Dr. Okuno and colleagues acknowledged that the definition of valvular AFib used in guidelines and clinical trials isn’t uniform. Valvular atrial fibrillation was defined as AFib with mitral stenosis or a mitral valve prosthesis.
To account for the varying definitions of valvular and nonvalvular AFib, the researchers performed a sensitivity analysis of AFib patients with significant valve disease other than mitral stenosis; 42% of patients in the nonvalvular group fit this definition. Patients with AFib and valvular disease other than mitral stenosis had almost twice the risk of cardiovascular death or disabling stroke at 1 year, compared with patients who had AFib but no significant disease of any valve (20.1% vs. 10.9%, P = .03).
Furthermore, when they excluded patients with mild mitral stenosis from the valvular AFib group, “the effect of an increased risk for cardiovascular death or disabling stroke was no longer statistically significant.”
When the researchers separated out the two elements of the composite endpoint, they found valvular AFib carried a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular death – 21.1% (P < .002) vs. 7% for no AFib and 12.3% (P = .003) for nonvalvular AFib. However, the incidence of cardiovascular events – disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke and transient ischemic attack – showed no significant difference across the three groups, Dr. Okuno and colleagues noted. Specifically, the rates of disabling stroke were 3.8%, 3.7% and 5.7% in the no-AFib, nonvalvular-AFib, and valvular-AFib groups, respectively
In an invited editorial, Bernard Iung, MD, and Vincent Algalarrondo, MD, PhD, noted the problems with the definitions for valvular and nonvalvular AFib. “The term valvular AFib now frequently refers to patients with AFib associated with moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve,” they wrote. The definition is justified, they noted, because there’s little evidence on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in patients with mitral stenosis.
They noted the term nonvalvular is “ambiguous” because it doesn’t exclude valvular disease but rather only a subset defined by the restrictive use of a class of anticoagulants. Hence, the definition of valvular AFib “is subject to criticisms and remains not standardized.”
“The individualization of valvular AFib in patients undergoing TAVR is debatable, and the definition used in the present study also included mild mitral stenosis and bioprostheses, thereby highlighting again the lack of a clear and uniform definition of the concept of valvular AFib,” they wrote.
While Dr. Welt said the findings may help in stratifying risk in patients with valvular AFib, he’s not certain how that would influence treatment decisions. “In most cases when we’re considering TAVR in these patients it’s because they have severe symptomatic aortic stenosis,” he said.
Surgery as an alternative is fraught with consequences, he said. “Would it be because you would want to repair the mitral valve as well?” he said. “And once you get into that territory, you’re talking about double-valve surgery, which is a much riskier operation than isolated aortic valve replacement.”
The study raises important questions about patients with valvular AFib, Dr. Welt added. “Why are these patients dying at higher rate? Is it some other arrhythmia or some other hemodynamic problem? Are there other things we can learn about these patients that would help us to better treat patients?”
But exploring these findings further with a randomized clinical trial may not be practical, he added. “The number of patients in whom this is an issue is in the scheme of things rather low: 6%,” he said.
Dr. Okuno has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Iung is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Algalarrondo has been a consultant for Pfizer and Alnylam. Dr. Welt disclosed a relationship with Medtronic.
SOURCE: Okuno T et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Sep 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.05.049.
Corrections, 9/29/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the increase in risk of (*) death or debilitating stroke and of (**) a poor outcome in those with valvular Afib.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
‘Cautious’ DOAC underdosing in AFib may push mortality higher
The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.
A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.
The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.
In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”
Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”
They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.
“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”
Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.
The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.
Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”
The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.
But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.
The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.
The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).
Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.
The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).
Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.
Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.
“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”
Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.
“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”
The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.
A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.
The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.
In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”
Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”
They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.
“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”
Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.
The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.
Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”
The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.
But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.
The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.
The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).
Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.
The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).
Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.
Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.
“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”
Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.
“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”
The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The risk for death goes up for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who are put on direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) at dosages other than those approved for stroke prevention, whether higher or lower than doses specified in the labeling, suggests a large registry study.
A quarter of more than 10,000 patients in the registry took the drugs at such nonrecommended higher or lower dosages. Overwhelmingly it was the latter, perhaps reflecting caution on the part of some practitioners looking to minimize the risk of bleeding complications.
The risk of major bleeding indeed dropped sharply for those taking DOACs at lower-than-recommended levels, but at the cost of a 25% jump in all-cause mortality over 2 years, report investigators from their analysis of patients in the GARFIELD-AF registry published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Risks of major bleeding and of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t climb significantly for patients either under- or overdosed.
In general, “physicians are worried about giving too much anticoagulant, and they tend to favor erring on the low-dose side,” lead author A. John Camm, MD, St. George’s University of London, said in an interview. That’s how it was when an oral anticoagulation meant a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and underdosing was frequent; and it remains an issue in the DOAC era. “It’s not just a little problem. It’s a very big problem.”
Today, clinicians may prescribe DOACs similar to how they prescribed VKAs, by cautiously choosing a lower dosage for selected patients based on their risk profile, Dr. Camm observed. But in contrast to the VKAs, the DOACs “were studied with different dose-reduction strategies, and their labeling requires them to be prescribed according to different parameters.”
They variously base dosage reductions on age, body weight, renal function, or drug-drug interactions, for example, but some clinicians “tend to think that all of those factors should be applied in every instance, with every drug,” he said.
“So I think there’s some confusion and a lot of caution that physicians use with anticoagulants, and they often forget that the purpose of the anticoagulant is to prevent strokes and adverse outcomes such as mortality,” Dr. Camm said. “But by reducing the dose, they expose their patients to these other major cardiovascular events.”
Numerically, the excess mortality among underdosed patients appeared to be driven by death from heart failure or myocardial infarction. There was little or no contribution from sudden death, fatal strokes, or noncardiovascular death.
The findings “remind clinicians to dose DOACs properly and that there are consequences of dosing errors,” observes Gerald V. Naccarelli, MD, of Penn State University and the Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, in an accompanying editorial.
Based on the major clinical trials that established the drugs as mainstream stroke-preventive therapy in AFib, as well as extensive regulatory review, each DOAC’s label-recommended dosing “is a guidance of the truth to achieve the highest efficacy and most safety in our patients,” Dr. Naccarelli wrote. “As clinicians are risk adverse, underdosing might result in lower major bleeding rates, and physicians are blamed for bleeding but not necessarily for allowing embolic strokes to occur. These data raise the issue that underdosing is associated with worse patient outcomes.”
The GARFIELD-AF analysis covered 10,426 adults with nonvalvular AFib in 35 countries who initiated a DOAC from 2013 to 2016. The drugs were prescribed at dosages consistent with recommendations in each respective country’s labeling for stroke prevention in AFib in 72.9% of the cohort. Most full and adjusted dose levels approved by the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and regulators in Japan were the same or similar.
But there were a few exceptions. All dosing criteria across the three regulatory domains were the same for apixaban (Eliquis). But variations included lower dosage options for rivaroxaban (Xarelto) and edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana) in Japan, and a uniquely low dabigatran (Pradaxa) dosage option in the United States.
The DOAC used least often was the one most frequently underdosed. More than half of patients prescribed edoxaban were given it at a lower-than-recommended dosage.
The adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality at 2 years for DOAC under- or overdosing, compared with dosing at recommended levels, was 1.24 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.48). The difference was driven by underdosing, for which the HR was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.50). The HR for over-dosing was only 1.19 (95% CI, 0.83-1.71).
Multivariate adjustment accounted for age, sex, and ethnicity; type of AFib; diabetes; hypertension; history of bleeding; prior stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism; heart failure; vascular disease; smoking; and heavy alcohol consumption.
The risk of stroke or systemic embolism didn’t go up or down significantly for either overdosed or underdosed patients. Neither group showed an increased risk for major bleeding; however, the HR for major bleeding in underdosed patients fell to 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.88).
Underdosing was more common in some world regions than others. The rate exceeded 30% in all Latin American countries except Argentina, the report stated, and in all Asian countries except Singapore.
Japanese patients have long received oral anticoagulation at lower dosages than are used in the West, Dr. Camm observed. When VKAs were the only choice, for example, international normalized ratio targets were consistently a bit lower in Japan than in, for example, North America or Europe.
“And when [novel] OACs were developed, again, the Japanese took the view that their patients are more vulnerable to bleeding, and therefore a lower dose would be appropriate. In some instances, lower-dose regimens have been specifically studied in the Japanese,” Dr. Camm said. “Having said that, this concept of bleeding being more problematic in Asian patients has expanded well beyond Japan, and therefore in many Asian communities, lower doses of [novel] OACs are chosen.”
Many other factors may contribute to DOAC underdosing, including differences in dosing strategies between primary care practitioners and specialists, or between hospital-based and office-based clinicians, for example.
“It might also be argued that a physician who fails to treat a patient adequately in one arena may also be failing to treat the patient well in other aspects of their care,” Dr. Camm proposed. “Therefore you could have increased mortality due to other cardiovascular causes, or even noncardiovascular events, through absence of good quality care. Our study did not address that specifically. But it might be the case, speculatively.”
The study was supported by a grant from Bayer to the Thrombosis Research Institute, “which sponsors the GARFIELD-AF registry.” Dr. Camm discloses receiving grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Daiichi Sankyo. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Naccarelli disclosed consulting and participating in research for Janssen and serving as a consultant for Milestone, Sanofi, Omeicos, and Acesion Pharma.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Liberalized European sports cardiology guidelines break new ground
New guidelines on sports cardiology from the European Society of Cardiology break fresh ground by green-lighting participation in vigorous competitive sports by selected patients with stable coronary artery disease, heart failure, or mild arrhythmias.
These liberalized guidelines, released at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, thus move well beyond the standard exercise advice to engage in about 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, typically defined as brisk walking or its equivalent.
The guidelines reflect a conviction that exercise is powerful medicine for patients with cardiovascular disease and also affords a means to help curb the epidemics of diabetes and obesity that drive cardiovascular risk, according to Antonio Pelliccia, MD, who cochaired the 24-member task force of European and American experts that developed the guidelines.
In a session highlighting the new sports cardiology guidelines, Mats Borjesson, MD, head of the Center for Health and Performance at Gothenburg (Sweden) University, summarized the section devoted to patients with stable coronary artery disease: “If you have established CAD and a low risk of adverse events during exercise, you are eligible for high-intensity exercise and competitive sports. But if you have persistent ischemia despite medical treatment, or symptoms, then you’re only eligible for leisure-time subthreshold activity.”
Dr. Pelliccia put this new recommendation into context.
“We are not talking anymore in this particular disease just about cardiac rehabilitation or leisure-time activity, but we are also opening the border and talking about competitive sports activity in selected patients where you have the evidence for low risk of exercise-induced adverse events. This is a major achievement now for what is the major disease in our adult population,” said Dr. Pelliccia, chief of cardiology at the Institute of Sports Medicine and Science at the Italian National Olympic Committee and professor of sports cardiology at La Sapienza University of Rome.
The recommendation for individualized consideration of all types of exercise, even including vigorous competitive sports, in low-risk patients with CAD gets a class IIa, level of evidence (LOE) C recommendation in the new guidelines. That’s a big step down from a ringing class Ia endorsement, but since sports cardiology is a relatively young field with little evidence that’s based on randomized trials, the guidelines are rife with many other class IIa, LOE C recommendations as well.
“The level of evidence is rather low, so these guidelines are very much the personal perspective of the expert panel,” explained Martin Halle, MD, professor and head of the department of prevention, rehabilitation, and sports cardiology at Technical University of Munich.
The high-risk features for exercise-induced cardiac adverse events in patients with longstanding stable CAD, as cited in the guidelines, include a critical coronary stenosis, defined as a more than 70% lesion in a major coronary artery or a greater than 50% stenosis in the left main, and/or a fractional flow reserve score of less than 0.8; a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less with wall-motion abnormalities; inducible myocardial ischemia on maximal exercise testing; nonsustained ventricular tachycardia; polymorphic or very frequent ventricular premature beats at rest and during maximum stress; and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). These features call for an exercise prescription tailored to remain below the patient’s angina and ischemia thresholds.
“It’s important for cardiologists out there to understand that we definitely need a maximal exercise test. In somebody who is running and has an ACS and then wants to start running again, 200 watts on an ergometer is too low. We have to push them up to the end, and then if everything is okay – left ventricular function is okay, no ischemia, no arrhythmias under exercise testing – then it’s fine,” Dr. Halle said.
Dr. Pelliccia added that close follow-up is needed, because this is an evolving disease.”
Exercise and heart failure
Massimo F. Piepoli, MD, PhD, noted that the guidelines give a class IIb, LOE C recommendation for consideration of high-intensity recreational endurance and power sports in patients with heart failure with either midrange or preserved ejection fraction, provided they are stable, asymptomatic, on optimal guideline-directed medical therapy, and without abnormalities on a maximal exercise stress test.
However, such intense physical activity is not recommended in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, regardless of their symptom status, added Dr. Piepoli of Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital in Placenza, Italy.
“We’re talking here, I think for the first time, about possible competitive sports participation in individuals with heart failure, depending on their clinical condition. We are really opening the barriers to sports participation, even in these patients in whom we never thought of it before,” Dr. Pelliccia observed.
Valvular heart disease and exercise
Guidelines panelist Sabiha Gati, MRCP, PhD, said asymptomatic individuals with mild valvular abnormalities can participate in all recreational and competitive sports; that’s a class I, LOE C recommendation.
“Moderate regurgitant lesions are better tolerated than stenotic lesions, and those with preserved systolic function, good functional capacity, without any exercise-induced arrhythmias or ischemia or abnormal hemodynamic response are considered to be low risk and can participate in all sports,” added Dr. Gati, a cardiologist at Royal Brompton Hospital, London.
The two most common valvular abnormalities encountered in clinical practice are bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse. Dr. Gati noted that, while mitral valve prolapse has a benign prognosis in the great majority of affected individuals, the presence of specific features indicative of increased risk for sudden cardiac death precludes participation in strenuous exercise. These include T-wave inversion in the inferior leads on a 12-lead ECG, long QT, bileaflet mitral valve prolapse, basal inferolateral wall fibrosis, severe mitral regurgitation, or a family history of sudden cardiac death.
Bicuspid aortic valve has a prevalence of 1%-2% in the general population. It can be associated with aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and increased risk of ascending aortic aneurysm and dissection. Since it remains unclear whether intensive exercise accelerates aortic dilatation, a cautious approach to sports participation is recommended in patients with an ascending aorta above the normal limit of 40 mm, she said.
The 80-page ESC sports cardiology guidelines, published online simultaneously with their presentation, cover a broad range of additional topics, including exercise recommendations for the general public, for the elderly, as well as for patients with cardiomyopathies, adult congenital heart disease, arrhythmias, and channelopathies. Gaps in evidence are also highlighted.
SOURCE: Pelliccia A. ESC 2020 and Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa605.
New guidelines on sports cardiology from the European Society of Cardiology break fresh ground by green-lighting participation in vigorous competitive sports by selected patients with stable coronary artery disease, heart failure, or mild arrhythmias.
These liberalized guidelines, released at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, thus move well beyond the standard exercise advice to engage in about 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, typically defined as brisk walking or its equivalent.
The guidelines reflect a conviction that exercise is powerful medicine for patients with cardiovascular disease and also affords a means to help curb the epidemics of diabetes and obesity that drive cardiovascular risk, according to Antonio Pelliccia, MD, who cochaired the 24-member task force of European and American experts that developed the guidelines.
In a session highlighting the new sports cardiology guidelines, Mats Borjesson, MD, head of the Center for Health and Performance at Gothenburg (Sweden) University, summarized the section devoted to patients with stable coronary artery disease: “If you have established CAD and a low risk of adverse events during exercise, you are eligible for high-intensity exercise and competitive sports. But if you have persistent ischemia despite medical treatment, or symptoms, then you’re only eligible for leisure-time subthreshold activity.”
Dr. Pelliccia put this new recommendation into context.
“We are not talking anymore in this particular disease just about cardiac rehabilitation or leisure-time activity, but we are also opening the border and talking about competitive sports activity in selected patients where you have the evidence for low risk of exercise-induced adverse events. This is a major achievement now for what is the major disease in our adult population,” said Dr. Pelliccia, chief of cardiology at the Institute of Sports Medicine and Science at the Italian National Olympic Committee and professor of sports cardiology at La Sapienza University of Rome.
The recommendation for individualized consideration of all types of exercise, even including vigorous competitive sports, in low-risk patients with CAD gets a class IIa, level of evidence (LOE) C recommendation in the new guidelines. That’s a big step down from a ringing class Ia endorsement, but since sports cardiology is a relatively young field with little evidence that’s based on randomized trials, the guidelines are rife with many other class IIa, LOE C recommendations as well.
“The level of evidence is rather low, so these guidelines are very much the personal perspective of the expert panel,” explained Martin Halle, MD, professor and head of the department of prevention, rehabilitation, and sports cardiology at Technical University of Munich.
The high-risk features for exercise-induced cardiac adverse events in patients with longstanding stable CAD, as cited in the guidelines, include a critical coronary stenosis, defined as a more than 70% lesion in a major coronary artery or a greater than 50% stenosis in the left main, and/or a fractional flow reserve score of less than 0.8; a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less with wall-motion abnormalities; inducible myocardial ischemia on maximal exercise testing; nonsustained ventricular tachycardia; polymorphic or very frequent ventricular premature beats at rest and during maximum stress; and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). These features call for an exercise prescription tailored to remain below the patient’s angina and ischemia thresholds.
“It’s important for cardiologists out there to understand that we definitely need a maximal exercise test. In somebody who is running and has an ACS and then wants to start running again, 200 watts on an ergometer is too low. We have to push them up to the end, and then if everything is okay – left ventricular function is okay, no ischemia, no arrhythmias under exercise testing – then it’s fine,” Dr. Halle said.
Dr. Pelliccia added that close follow-up is needed, because this is an evolving disease.”
Exercise and heart failure
Massimo F. Piepoli, MD, PhD, noted that the guidelines give a class IIb, LOE C recommendation for consideration of high-intensity recreational endurance and power sports in patients with heart failure with either midrange or preserved ejection fraction, provided they are stable, asymptomatic, on optimal guideline-directed medical therapy, and without abnormalities on a maximal exercise stress test.
However, such intense physical activity is not recommended in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, regardless of their symptom status, added Dr. Piepoli of Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital in Placenza, Italy.
“We’re talking here, I think for the first time, about possible competitive sports participation in individuals with heart failure, depending on their clinical condition. We are really opening the barriers to sports participation, even in these patients in whom we never thought of it before,” Dr. Pelliccia observed.
Valvular heart disease and exercise
Guidelines panelist Sabiha Gati, MRCP, PhD, said asymptomatic individuals with mild valvular abnormalities can participate in all recreational and competitive sports; that’s a class I, LOE C recommendation.
“Moderate regurgitant lesions are better tolerated than stenotic lesions, and those with preserved systolic function, good functional capacity, without any exercise-induced arrhythmias or ischemia or abnormal hemodynamic response are considered to be low risk and can participate in all sports,” added Dr. Gati, a cardiologist at Royal Brompton Hospital, London.
The two most common valvular abnormalities encountered in clinical practice are bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse. Dr. Gati noted that, while mitral valve prolapse has a benign prognosis in the great majority of affected individuals, the presence of specific features indicative of increased risk for sudden cardiac death precludes participation in strenuous exercise. These include T-wave inversion in the inferior leads on a 12-lead ECG, long QT, bileaflet mitral valve prolapse, basal inferolateral wall fibrosis, severe mitral regurgitation, or a family history of sudden cardiac death.
Bicuspid aortic valve has a prevalence of 1%-2% in the general population. It can be associated with aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and increased risk of ascending aortic aneurysm and dissection. Since it remains unclear whether intensive exercise accelerates aortic dilatation, a cautious approach to sports participation is recommended in patients with an ascending aorta above the normal limit of 40 mm, she said.
The 80-page ESC sports cardiology guidelines, published online simultaneously with their presentation, cover a broad range of additional topics, including exercise recommendations for the general public, for the elderly, as well as for patients with cardiomyopathies, adult congenital heart disease, arrhythmias, and channelopathies. Gaps in evidence are also highlighted.
SOURCE: Pelliccia A. ESC 2020 and Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa605.
New guidelines on sports cardiology from the European Society of Cardiology break fresh ground by green-lighting participation in vigorous competitive sports by selected patients with stable coronary artery disease, heart failure, or mild arrhythmias.
These liberalized guidelines, released at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, thus move well beyond the standard exercise advice to engage in about 150 minutes per week of moderate physical activity, typically defined as brisk walking or its equivalent.
The guidelines reflect a conviction that exercise is powerful medicine for patients with cardiovascular disease and also affords a means to help curb the epidemics of diabetes and obesity that drive cardiovascular risk, according to Antonio Pelliccia, MD, who cochaired the 24-member task force of European and American experts that developed the guidelines.
In a session highlighting the new sports cardiology guidelines, Mats Borjesson, MD, head of the Center for Health and Performance at Gothenburg (Sweden) University, summarized the section devoted to patients with stable coronary artery disease: “If you have established CAD and a low risk of adverse events during exercise, you are eligible for high-intensity exercise and competitive sports. But if you have persistent ischemia despite medical treatment, or symptoms, then you’re only eligible for leisure-time subthreshold activity.”
Dr. Pelliccia put this new recommendation into context.
“We are not talking anymore in this particular disease just about cardiac rehabilitation or leisure-time activity, but we are also opening the border and talking about competitive sports activity in selected patients where you have the evidence for low risk of exercise-induced adverse events. This is a major achievement now for what is the major disease in our adult population,” said Dr. Pelliccia, chief of cardiology at the Institute of Sports Medicine and Science at the Italian National Olympic Committee and professor of sports cardiology at La Sapienza University of Rome.
The recommendation for individualized consideration of all types of exercise, even including vigorous competitive sports, in low-risk patients with CAD gets a class IIa, level of evidence (LOE) C recommendation in the new guidelines. That’s a big step down from a ringing class Ia endorsement, but since sports cardiology is a relatively young field with little evidence that’s based on randomized trials, the guidelines are rife with many other class IIa, LOE C recommendations as well.
“The level of evidence is rather low, so these guidelines are very much the personal perspective of the expert panel,” explained Martin Halle, MD, professor and head of the department of prevention, rehabilitation, and sports cardiology at Technical University of Munich.
The high-risk features for exercise-induced cardiac adverse events in patients with longstanding stable CAD, as cited in the guidelines, include a critical coronary stenosis, defined as a more than 70% lesion in a major coronary artery or a greater than 50% stenosis in the left main, and/or a fractional flow reserve score of less than 0.8; a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less with wall-motion abnormalities; inducible myocardial ischemia on maximal exercise testing; nonsustained ventricular tachycardia; polymorphic or very frequent ventricular premature beats at rest and during maximum stress; and a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). These features call for an exercise prescription tailored to remain below the patient’s angina and ischemia thresholds.
“It’s important for cardiologists out there to understand that we definitely need a maximal exercise test. In somebody who is running and has an ACS and then wants to start running again, 200 watts on an ergometer is too low. We have to push them up to the end, and then if everything is okay – left ventricular function is okay, no ischemia, no arrhythmias under exercise testing – then it’s fine,” Dr. Halle said.
Dr. Pelliccia added that close follow-up is needed, because this is an evolving disease.”
Exercise and heart failure
Massimo F. Piepoli, MD, PhD, noted that the guidelines give a class IIb, LOE C recommendation for consideration of high-intensity recreational endurance and power sports in patients with heart failure with either midrange or preserved ejection fraction, provided they are stable, asymptomatic, on optimal guideline-directed medical therapy, and without abnormalities on a maximal exercise stress test.
However, such intense physical activity is not recommended in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, regardless of their symptom status, added Dr. Piepoli of Guglielmo da Saliceto Hospital in Placenza, Italy.
“We’re talking here, I think for the first time, about possible competitive sports participation in individuals with heart failure, depending on their clinical condition. We are really opening the barriers to sports participation, even in these patients in whom we never thought of it before,” Dr. Pelliccia observed.
Valvular heart disease and exercise
Guidelines panelist Sabiha Gati, MRCP, PhD, said asymptomatic individuals with mild valvular abnormalities can participate in all recreational and competitive sports; that’s a class I, LOE C recommendation.
“Moderate regurgitant lesions are better tolerated than stenotic lesions, and those with preserved systolic function, good functional capacity, without any exercise-induced arrhythmias or ischemia or abnormal hemodynamic response are considered to be low risk and can participate in all sports,” added Dr. Gati, a cardiologist at Royal Brompton Hospital, London.
The two most common valvular abnormalities encountered in clinical practice are bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse. Dr. Gati noted that, while mitral valve prolapse has a benign prognosis in the great majority of affected individuals, the presence of specific features indicative of increased risk for sudden cardiac death precludes participation in strenuous exercise. These include T-wave inversion in the inferior leads on a 12-lead ECG, long QT, bileaflet mitral valve prolapse, basal inferolateral wall fibrosis, severe mitral regurgitation, or a family history of sudden cardiac death.
Bicuspid aortic valve has a prevalence of 1%-2% in the general population. It can be associated with aortic stenosis, aortic regurgitation, and increased risk of ascending aortic aneurysm and dissection. Since it remains unclear whether intensive exercise accelerates aortic dilatation, a cautious approach to sports participation is recommended in patients with an ascending aorta above the normal limit of 40 mm, she said.
The 80-page ESC sports cardiology guidelines, published online simultaneously with their presentation, cover a broad range of additional topics, including exercise recommendations for the general public, for the elderly, as well as for patients with cardiomyopathies, adult congenital heart disease, arrhythmias, and channelopathies. Gaps in evidence are also highlighted.
SOURCE: Pelliccia A. ESC 2020 and Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa605.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020
IMPACT-AFib: Single mailing fails to budge oral anticoagulant uptake for AFib
A single educational mailing sent by several U.S. health plans to their patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for oral anticoagulation, but had not yet started a regimen, failed to boost them over their prescription hurdle and facilitate starting an antithrombotic regimen.
By 1 year following the intervention, a mere 10% of patients in both the intervention and a control arm of the randomized trial had begun treatment, with no signal of incremental uptake because of the mailing, Sean D. Pokorney, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Included in the mailing was an educational letter citing the patient’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis, a statement regarding their suitability for oral anticoagulation, some information about the treatment, and a suggestion that recipients discuss this with their personal physician.
Dr. Pokorney acknowledged that the single mailing to patients may not have been adequate to capture patients’ attention and trigger an action, and that repeated messaging via multiple platforms and in coordination with interventions aimed at their health care providers may be what’s needed.
“It will take repeated interventions and engagements. We will need different methods to move the needle,” said Dr. Pokorney, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The goal is to “empower patients to talk with their health care providers, and to become agents of change” in their care, he explained, but the single, mailed prod wasn’t enough.
An earlier study run by Dr. Pokorney and several of his colleagues used a broader panel of interventions aimed at both patients and clinicians to encourage increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants in five middle income countries, and documented successfully increasing the uptake rate by threefold compared with control patients (Lancet. 2017 Oct 14;390[10104]:1737-46). The current study tested the efficacy of a “much lower-impact intervention,” he admitted.
“The data are “sobering and eye-opening,” said Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We’re stuck with this big challenge,” the gap between “what medicine can do and what it actually does” when evidence-based interventions fail to gain traction in everyday practice, he said in an interview.
The numbers collected during the new study highlighted the treatment gap. The IMPACT-AFib study randomized 23,546 patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, denoting a stroke risk that warrants oral anticoagulation, to the intervention group, and 23,787 patients to the control arm. The patient selection process began with nearly 200,000 patients who met these criteria, but the researchers excluded 67% because they were already on an oral anticoagulant regimen, an uptake level that roughly matched the 50%-60% level usually seen among U.S. patients, Dr. Pokorney noted. That number coupled with the incremental uptake rate of only 10% of the enrolled patients during the trial, despite their uniform suitability for treatment, underscored how low uptake rates tend to remain stuck over time.
Enrolled patients averaged 78 years of age, with nearly two-thirds at least 75 years old, and with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.5.
The trial featured a novel design as the first clinical trial to take advantage of the Sentinel program for phase 4 data collection and study devised by the Food and Drug Administration, said Dr. Pokorney. The Sentinel program relies on data partners to provide information; for the IMPACT-AFib study, data came from five large U.S. health systems: Aetna, HealthCore, Humana, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Optum. Each of these systems sent the mailing to their targeted member patients.
In addition to sending just a single, mailed intervention, the study may have also been limited by the mailing’s content. The educational text, presented by Dr. Pokorney during his talk, focused largely on the potential risks of oral anticoagulation, the limited availability of antidote agents, potential drug and food interactions, and a brief entry about the risk for stroke associated with AFib along with a chart that a patient could use to hand calculate their CHA2DS2-VASc score. What the mailing lacked was discussion of the benefits of oral anticoagulation, noted study discussant Christophe LeClercq, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of cardiology at the University of Rennes, France.
IMPACT-AFib received no commercial funding, and Dr. Pokorney and Dr. Shivkumar had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic.
A single educational mailing sent by several U.S. health plans to their patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for oral anticoagulation, but had not yet started a regimen, failed to boost them over their prescription hurdle and facilitate starting an antithrombotic regimen.
By 1 year following the intervention, a mere 10% of patients in both the intervention and a control arm of the randomized trial had begun treatment, with no signal of incremental uptake because of the mailing, Sean D. Pokorney, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Included in the mailing was an educational letter citing the patient’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis, a statement regarding their suitability for oral anticoagulation, some information about the treatment, and a suggestion that recipients discuss this with their personal physician.
Dr. Pokorney acknowledged that the single mailing to patients may not have been adequate to capture patients’ attention and trigger an action, and that repeated messaging via multiple platforms and in coordination with interventions aimed at their health care providers may be what’s needed.
“It will take repeated interventions and engagements. We will need different methods to move the needle,” said Dr. Pokorney, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The goal is to “empower patients to talk with their health care providers, and to become agents of change” in their care, he explained, but the single, mailed prod wasn’t enough.
An earlier study run by Dr. Pokorney and several of his colleagues used a broader panel of interventions aimed at both patients and clinicians to encourage increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants in five middle income countries, and documented successfully increasing the uptake rate by threefold compared with control patients (Lancet. 2017 Oct 14;390[10104]:1737-46). The current study tested the efficacy of a “much lower-impact intervention,” he admitted.
“The data are “sobering and eye-opening,” said Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We’re stuck with this big challenge,” the gap between “what medicine can do and what it actually does” when evidence-based interventions fail to gain traction in everyday practice, he said in an interview.
The numbers collected during the new study highlighted the treatment gap. The IMPACT-AFib study randomized 23,546 patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, denoting a stroke risk that warrants oral anticoagulation, to the intervention group, and 23,787 patients to the control arm. The patient selection process began with nearly 200,000 patients who met these criteria, but the researchers excluded 67% because they were already on an oral anticoagulant regimen, an uptake level that roughly matched the 50%-60% level usually seen among U.S. patients, Dr. Pokorney noted. That number coupled with the incremental uptake rate of only 10% of the enrolled patients during the trial, despite their uniform suitability for treatment, underscored how low uptake rates tend to remain stuck over time.
Enrolled patients averaged 78 years of age, with nearly two-thirds at least 75 years old, and with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.5.
The trial featured a novel design as the first clinical trial to take advantage of the Sentinel program for phase 4 data collection and study devised by the Food and Drug Administration, said Dr. Pokorney. The Sentinel program relies on data partners to provide information; for the IMPACT-AFib study, data came from five large U.S. health systems: Aetna, HealthCore, Humana, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Optum. Each of these systems sent the mailing to their targeted member patients.
In addition to sending just a single, mailed intervention, the study may have also been limited by the mailing’s content. The educational text, presented by Dr. Pokorney during his talk, focused largely on the potential risks of oral anticoagulation, the limited availability of antidote agents, potential drug and food interactions, and a brief entry about the risk for stroke associated with AFib along with a chart that a patient could use to hand calculate their CHA2DS2-VASc score. What the mailing lacked was discussion of the benefits of oral anticoagulation, noted study discussant Christophe LeClercq, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of cardiology at the University of Rennes, France.
IMPACT-AFib received no commercial funding, and Dr. Pokorney and Dr. Shivkumar had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic.
A single educational mailing sent by several U.S. health plans to their patients with atrial fibrillation who were candidates for oral anticoagulation, but had not yet started a regimen, failed to boost them over their prescription hurdle and facilitate starting an antithrombotic regimen.
By 1 year following the intervention, a mere 10% of patients in both the intervention and a control arm of the randomized trial had begun treatment, with no signal of incremental uptake because of the mailing, Sean D. Pokorney, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. Included in the mailing was an educational letter citing the patient’s atrial fibrillation (AFib) diagnosis, a statement regarding their suitability for oral anticoagulation, some information about the treatment, and a suggestion that recipients discuss this with their personal physician.
Dr. Pokorney acknowledged that the single mailing to patients may not have been adequate to capture patients’ attention and trigger an action, and that repeated messaging via multiple platforms and in coordination with interventions aimed at their health care providers may be what’s needed.
“It will take repeated interventions and engagements. We will need different methods to move the needle,” said Dr. Pokorney, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. The goal is to “empower patients to talk with their health care providers, and to become agents of change” in their care, he explained, but the single, mailed prod wasn’t enough.
An earlier study run by Dr. Pokorney and several of his colleagues used a broader panel of interventions aimed at both patients and clinicians to encourage increased prescribing of oral anticoagulants in five middle income countries, and documented successfully increasing the uptake rate by threefold compared with control patients (Lancet. 2017 Oct 14;390[10104]:1737-46). The current study tested the efficacy of a “much lower-impact intervention,” he admitted.
“The data are “sobering and eye-opening,” said Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. “We’re stuck with this big challenge,” the gap between “what medicine can do and what it actually does” when evidence-based interventions fail to gain traction in everyday practice, he said in an interview.
The numbers collected during the new study highlighted the treatment gap. The IMPACT-AFib study randomized 23,546 patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, denoting a stroke risk that warrants oral anticoagulation, to the intervention group, and 23,787 patients to the control arm. The patient selection process began with nearly 200,000 patients who met these criteria, but the researchers excluded 67% because they were already on an oral anticoagulant regimen, an uptake level that roughly matched the 50%-60% level usually seen among U.S. patients, Dr. Pokorney noted. That number coupled with the incremental uptake rate of only 10% of the enrolled patients during the trial, despite their uniform suitability for treatment, underscored how low uptake rates tend to remain stuck over time.
Enrolled patients averaged 78 years of age, with nearly two-thirds at least 75 years old, and with an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.5.
The trial featured a novel design as the first clinical trial to take advantage of the Sentinel program for phase 4 data collection and study devised by the Food and Drug Administration, said Dr. Pokorney. The Sentinel program relies on data partners to provide information; for the IMPACT-AFib study, data came from five large U.S. health systems: Aetna, HealthCore, Humana, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Optum. Each of these systems sent the mailing to their targeted member patients.
In addition to sending just a single, mailed intervention, the study may have also been limited by the mailing’s content. The educational text, presented by Dr. Pokorney during his talk, focused largely on the potential risks of oral anticoagulation, the limited availability of antidote agents, potential drug and food interactions, and a brief entry about the risk for stroke associated with AFib along with a chart that a patient could use to hand calculate their CHA2DS2-VASc score. What the mailing lacked was discussion of the benefits of oral anticoagulation, noted study discussant Christophe LeClercq, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of cardiology at the University of Rennes, France.
IMPACT-AFib received no commercial funding, and Dr. Pokorney and Dr. Shivkumar had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Livanova, and Medtronic.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020
HOME-PE trial clarifies which pulmonary embolism patients to treat at home
The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.
The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).
The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).
HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.
However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.
Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.
Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”
“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).
In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.
The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.
The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).
The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).
HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.
However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.
Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.
Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”
“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).
In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.
The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
The pragmatic Hestia criteria proved as safe as the more structured, points-based simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score for selection of patients with acute pulmonary embolism for outpatient care in the large, randomized HOME-PE trial presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“These results support outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism patients using either the Hestia method or the sPESI score with the option for the physician-in-charge to override the decision. In hospitals organized for outpatient management, both triaging strategies enable more than a third of pulmonary embolism patients to be managed at home with a low rate of complications,” Pierre-Marie Roy, MD, said in presenting the HOME-PE findings.
The study clarifies a transatlantic controversy regarding how best to triage patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient care. The answer? It’s basically a tie between the points-based sPESI score recommended in the current ESC guidelines (Eur Respir J. 2019 Oct 9;54[3]:1901647) and the Hestia method endorsed in the American College of Chest Physician guidelines (Chest. 2016 Feb;149[2]:315-52).
The sPESI is a validated tool that grants 1 point each for age over 80 years, background cardiopulmonary disease, a systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, cancer, a heart rate of 110 bpm or more, and an oxygen saturation level below 90%. A patient needs a score of zero to be eligible for outpatient management. In contrast, the Hestia method relies upon 11 simple bedside criteria rather than a points system, explained Dr. Roy of University Hospital of Angers, France (J Thromb Haemost. 2011 Aug;9[8]:1500-7).
HOME-PE was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted at 26 hospitals in France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The study included 1,974 patients presenting to the emergency department with non–high-risk acute PE as defined by hemodynamic stability. About 39% of patients in the Hestia group were eligible for outpatient care on the basis of ‘no’ answers regarding all 11 criteria, while 48% of patients had an sPESI score of 0 and were thus initially considered appropriate for outpatient management.
However, the investigators recognized that no scoring system for acute PE is perfect, and that the judgment of a physician with extensive experience in managing this life-threatening condition counts for a lot. So they stipulated that a patient’s physician-in-charge could overrule a decision for early discharge. This happened 29% of the time in patients with a sPESI score of 0, as compared with a 3% overrule rate with the Hestia rule. The physician-in-charge also moved small numbers of patients who were Hestia or sPESI positive into the outpatient care group. As a result, a similar proportion of patients in both groups were discharged home within 24 hours for outpatient treatment: 38% of the total Hestia group and 37% in the sPESI arm.
Major adverse event rates were reassuringly low in both groups managed on an outpatient basis. The composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or death within 30 days occurred in 1.3% of Hestia outpatients and 1.1% of sPESI outpatients. Among patients managed in the hospital, these rates were 5.6% in the Hestia group and 4.7% in the sPESI group.
Discussant Stavros V. Konstantinides, MD, who chaired the ESC guideline committee, asked rhetorically, “who’s happy with the HOME-PE trial? I think everybody.”
“The Hestia criteria integrate the feasibility of family support of the individual patient. This is a good thing. And eligibility based on the Hestia criteria, unlike sPESI, does not require age younger than 80 years or no cancer, and it appears from the HOME-PE study that this is okay,” observed Dr. Konstantinides of the Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis at the University of Mainz (Germany).
In an interview, Hadley Wilson, MD, called the HOME-PE trial “transformative” and predicted it will change clinical practice. He was particularly impressed with the high quality of the trial, noting that 87% of participants managed as outpatients received a direct oral anticoagulant.
The Hestia rule is simpler and more user-friendly. And greater use of this triaging strategy might have advantages in terms of economics and health care utilization by potentially encouraging movement of decision-making regarding outpatient management of acute PE out of the hospital wards and into emergency departments, said Dr. Wilson, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute and a cardiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Dr. Roy reported receiving research grants to conduct HOME-PE from the French Ministry of Health, the study sponsor. In addition, he is on scientific advisory boards and/or speakers’ panels for Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Aspen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Sanofi Aventis.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020
RATE-AF trial boosts digoxin for rate control in permanent AFib
Digoxin now deserves to be considered first-line therapy for long-term heart rate control in older patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure, Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, MSc, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He presented the 12-month results of RATE-AF (Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation), in which 160 seniors (mean age, 76 years) with moderate or severe symptoms caused by permanent atrial fibrillation (AFib) as well as heart failure symptoms were randomized to low-dose digoxin or the beta-blocker bisoprolol for rate control.
The open-label trial was designed to address a centuries-old unmet need: “Although digoxin has been in use since 1785, we have no longer-term clinical trials of digoxin in patients with AFib or AFib with heart failure,” noted Dr. Kotecha, professor of cardiology at the University of Birmingham (England).
Not only is digoxin greatly understudied in AFib, but permanent AFib – the most common form of the arrhythmia – has received only a tiny fraction of the research attention that’s been devoted to paroxysmal or persistent AFib, he added.
In RATE-AF, digoxin and bisoprolol proved similarly effective at reducing heart rate, from about 100 bpm at baseline to the mid-70s at 6 and 12 months. Notably, only a handful of study participants required an additional rate control drug during the 12-month study. Nor did the two drugs differ in terms of their impact on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as reflected by their Short Form–36 physical component score, the primary study endpoint. And both drugs were well tolerated, with 96% of patients in the digoxin group still on the drug at a mean of 161 mcg/day at 6 months, and 89% still on their beta-blocker.
But that’s pretty much where the similarities in outcomes ended.
For example, at 12 months, the digoxin group scored significantly higher than the beta-blocker group on several domains of the Short Form–36 physical component score, including vitality, physical function, and global health. More than half of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement in modified European Heart Rhythm Association AFib-related symptoms at 6 months, compared with 10% of the beta-blocker group. At 12 months, nearly 70% of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement, as did 30% on bisoprolol.
Heart failure symptoms in the digoxin group improved from a mean baseline New York Heart Association class of 2.4 to 1.5 at both 6 and 12 months; the improvement was more modest in the beta-blocker group, going from NYHA 2.4 at baseline to 2.0 at both 6 and 12 months. And while N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels improved in the digoxin group from a baseline of 1,095 pg/mL to 1,058 at 6 months and 960 at 12 months, NT-proBNP actually went up in the beta-blocker group, from 1,041 to 1,209-1,250 pg/mL at 12 months.
Moreover, Dr. Kotecha continued, while RATE-AF was underpowered to assess clinical events, it’s nevertheless noteworthy that a total of 29 adverse events occurred in 12 months in the digoxin group, compared with 142 with beta-blocker therapy. There were 12 unplanned hospital admissions in the digoxin group and 28 in the beta-blocker group, and 22 primary care visits for either AFib or cardiovascular symptoms in patients on digoxin versus 64 in the beta-blocker group.
“Our results suggest a wider use of digoxin for stable patients with permanent AFib,” Dr. Kotecha concluded. However, in an interview, Jonathan Piccini, MD, had a different take on the study results.
“I don’t think this study should widely impact clinical practice in the U.S.,” according to Dr. Piccini, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
His reservations included RATE-AF’s modest sample size as well as uncertainty as to the trial’s generalizability, given that bisoprolol isn’t much used in the United States. Also, these were elderly patients with shortness of breath, and it’s unclear how effective digoxin would be for rate control in patients with permanent AFib who are more active.
“The classic teaching is that digoxin is great for rate control at rest, but when people are active it’s not nearly as good as beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers,” the cardiologist said.
“A beta-blocker is still going to be my first-line rate control agent. But the results of RATE-AF do open my mind that for an older sedentary patient I may very well think twice now about using digoxin, because in that situation it looks like it achieves similar goals as a beta-blocker,” Dr. Piccini added.
On the plus side for RATE-AF: “I am very pleased to see that we have a randomized controlled trial focused on rate control in permanent AFib. It also tickles me pink to see a randomized, controlled study of digoxin. And I’m really excited to see a clinical trial that focuses on quality of life. It should give some confidence to know that from a quality of life perspective clinicians can consider using either digoxin or a beta-blocker for rate control,” he said.
American College of Cardiology vice president Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, said she’d need to see a much larger randomized trial including a calcium-channel blocker as a third-rate control arm before she’d consider digoxin as first-line rate control therapy in patients with AFib with or without heart failure. Also, she has reservations about drawing definitive conclusions from an open, unblinded study in which patient-reported outcomes are the primary endpoint.
“I think these were surprising findings given what we all think about digoxin in this country. In general, digoxin fell out of favor for rate control, mainly because of observational studies showing increased mortality. So most of us choose a beta-blocker,” she observed in an interview.
But of course, a randomized trial, even a 160-patient randomized trial, constitutes a higher level of evidence.
“I don’t think I’m going to convert tomorrow and make digoxin my first-line rate control therapy without more data. But RATE-AF does makes me stop and think about using it more than I did before in some of my permanent AFib patients,” said Dr. Itchhaporia, director of disease management at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, Calif.
Dr. Kotecha reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, and the European Union.
Digoxin now deserves to be considered first-line therapy for long-term heart rate control in older patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure, Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, MSc, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He presented the 12-month results of RATE-AF (Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation), in which 160 seniors (mean age, 76 years) with moderate or severe symptoms caused by permanent atrial fibrillation (AFib) as well as heart failure symptoms were randomized to low-dose digoxin or the beta-blocker bisoprolol for rate control.
The open-label trial was designed to address a centuries-old unmet need: “Although digoxin has been in use since 1785, we have no longer-term clinical trials of digoxin in patients with AFib or AFib with heart failure,” noted Dr. Kotecha, professor of cardiology at the University of Birmingham (England).
Not only is digoxin greatly understudied in AFib, but permanent AFib – the most common form of the arrhythmia – has received only a tiny fraction of the research attention that’s been devoted to paroxysmal or persistent AFib, he added.
In RATE-AF, digoxin and bisoprolol proved similarly effective at reducing heart rate, from about 100 bpm at baseline to the mid-70s at 6 and 12 months. Notably, only a handful of study participants required an additional rate control drug during the 12-month study. Nor did the two drugs differ in terms of their impact on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as reflected by their Short Form–36 physical component score, the primary study endpoint. And both drugs were well tolerated, with 96% of patients in the digoxin group still on the drug at a mean of 161 mcg/day at 6 months, and 89% still on their beta-blocker.
But that’s pretty much where the similarities in outcomes ended.
For example, at 12 months, the digoxin group scored significantly higher than the beta-blocker group on several domains of the Short Form–36 physical component score, including vitality, physical function, and global health. More than half of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement in modified European Heart Rhythm Association AFib-related symptoms at 6 months, compared with 10% of the beta-blocker group. At 12 months, nearly 70% of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement, as did 30% on bisoprolol.
Heart failure symptoms in the digoxin group improved from a mean baseline New York Heart Association class of 2.4 to 1.5 at both 6 and 12 months; the improvement was more modest in the beta-blocker group, going from NYHA 2.4 at baseline to 2.0 at both 6 and 12 months. And while N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels improved in the digoxin group from a baseline of 1,095 pg/mL to 1,058 at 6 months and 960 at 12 months, NT-proBNP actually went up in the beta-blocker group, from 1,041 to 1,209-1,250 pg/mL at 12 months.
Moreover, Dr. Kotecha continued, while RATE-AF was underpowered to assess clinical events, it’s nevertheless noteworthy that a total of 29 adverse events occurred in 12 months in the digoxin group, compared with 142 with beta-blocker therapy. There were 12 unplanned hospital admissions in the digoxin group and 28 in the beta-blocker group, and 22 primary care visits for either AFib or cardiovascular symptoms in patients on digoxin versus 64 in the beta-blocker group.
“Our results suggest a wider use of digoxin for stable patients with permanent AFib,” Dr. Kotecha concluded. However, in an interview, Jonathan Piccini, MD, had a different take on the study results.
“I don’t think this study should widely impact clinical practice in the U.S.,” according to Dr. Piccini, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
His reservations included RATE-AF’s modest sample size as well as uncertainty as to the trial’s generalizability, given that bisoprolol isn’t much used in the United States. Also, these were elderly patients with shortness of breath, and it’s unclear how effective digoxin would be for rate control in patients with permanent AFib who are more active.
“The classic teaching is that digoxin is great for rate control at rest, but when people are active it’s not nearly as good as beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers,” the cardiologist said.
“A beta-blocker is still going to be my first-line rate control agent. But the results of RATE-AF do open my mind that for an older sedentary patient I may very well think twice now about using digoxin, because in that situation it looks like it achieves similar goals as a beta-blocker,” Dr. Piccini added.
On the plus side for RATE-AF: “I am very pleased to see that we have a randomized controlled trial focused on rate control in permanent AFib. It also tickles me pink to see a randomized, controlled study of digoxin. And I’m really excited to see a clinical trial that focuses on quality of life. It should give some confidence to know that from a quality of life perspective clinicians can consider using either digoxin or a beta-blocker for rate control,” he said.
American College of Cardiology vice president Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, said she’d need to see a much larger randomized trial including a calcium-channel blocker as a third-rate control arm before she’d consider digoxin as first-line rate control therapy in patients with AFib with or without heart failure. Also, she has reservations about drawing definitive conclusions from an open, unblinded study in which patient-reported outcomes are the primary endpoint.
“I think these were surprising findings given what we all think about digoxin in this country. In general, digoxin fell out of favor for rate control, mainly because of observational studies showing increased mortality. So most of us choose a beta-blocker,” she observed in an interview.
But of course, a randomized trial, even a 160-patient randomized trial, constitutes a higher level of evidence.
“I don’t think I’m going to convert tomorrow and make digoxin my first-line rate control therapy without more data. But RATE-AF does makes me stop and think about using it more than I did before in some of my permanent AFib patients,” said Dr. Itchhaporia, director of disease management at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, Calif.
Dr. Kotecha reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, and the European Union.
Digoxin now deserves to be considered first-line therapy for long-term heart rate control in older patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure, Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, PhD, MSc, declared at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
He presented the 12-month results of RATE-AF (Rate Control Therapy Evaluation in Permanent Atrial Fibrillation), in which 160 seniors (mean age, 76 years) with moderate or severe symptoms caused by permanent atrial fibrillation (AFib) as well as heart failure symptoms were randomized to low-dose digoxin or the beta-blocker bisoprolol for rate control.
The open-label trial was designed to address a centuries-old unmet need: “Although digoxin has been in use since 1785, we have no longer-term clinical trials of digoxin in patients with AFib or AFib with heart failure,” noted Dr. Kotecha, professor of cardiology at the University of Birmingham (England).
Not only is digoxin greatly understudied in AFib, but permanent AFib – the most common form of the arrhythmia – has received only a tiny fraction of the research attention that’s been devoted to paroxysmal or persistent AFib, he added.
In RATE-AF, digoxin and bisoprolol proved similarly effective at reducing heart rate, from about 100 bpm at baseline to the mid-70s at 6 and 12 months. Notably, only a handful of study participants required an additional rate control drug during the 12-month study. Nor did the two drugs differ in terms of their impact on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as reflected by their Short Form–36 physical component score, the primary study endpoint. And both drugs were well tolerated, with 96% of patients in the digoxin group still on the drug at a mean of 161 mcg/day at 6 months, and 89% still on their beta-blocker.
But that’s pretty much where the similarities in outcomes ended.
For example, at 12 months, the digoxin group scored significantly higher than the beta-blocker group on several domains of the Short Form–36 physical component score, including vitality, physical function, and global health. More than half of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement in modified European Heart Rhythm Association AFib-related symptoms at 6 months, compared with 10% of the beta-blocker group. At 12 months, nearly 70% of the digoxin group had a two-class improvement, as did 30% on bisoprolol.
Heart failure symptoms in the digoxin group improved from a mean baseline New York Heart Association class of 2.4 to 1.5 at both 6 and 12 months; the improvement was more modest in the beta-blocker group, going from NYHA 2.4 at baseline to 2.0 at both 6 and 12 months. And while N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide levels improved in the digoxin group from a baseline of 1,095 pg/mL to 1,058 at 6 months and 960 at 12 months, NT-proBNP actually went up in the beta-blocker group, from 1,041 to 1,209-1,250 pg/mL at 12 months.
Moreover, Dr. Kotecha continued, while RATE-AF was underpowered to assess clinical events, it’s nevertheless noteworthy that a total of 29 adverse events occurred in 12 months in the digoxin group, compared with 142 with beta-blocker therapy. There were 12 unplanned hospital admissions in the digoxin group and 28 in the beta-blocker group, and 22 primary care visits for either AFib or cardiovascular symptoms in patients on digoxin versus 64 in the beta-blocker group.
“Our results suggest a wider use of digoxin for stable patients with permanent AFib,” Dr. Kotecha concluded. However, in an interview, Jonathan Piccini, MD, had a different take on the study results.
“I don’t think this study should widely impact clinical practice in the U.S.,” according to Dr. Piccini, director of cardiac electrophysiology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
His reservations included RATE-AF’s modest sample size as well as uncertainty as to the trial’s generalizability, given that bisoprolol isn’t much used in the United States. Also, these were elderly patients with shortness of breath, and it’s unclear how effective digoxin would be for rate control in patients with permanent AFib who are more active.
“The classic teaching is that digoxin is great for rate control at rest, but when people are active it’s not nearly as good as beta-blockers or calcium-channel blockers,” the cardiologist said.
“A beta-blocker is still going to be my first-line rate control agent. But the results of RATE-AF do open my mind that for an older sedentary patient I may very well think twice now about using digoxin, because in that situation it looks like it achieves similar goals as a beta-blocker,” Dr. Piccini added.
On the plus side for RATE-AF: “I am very pleased to see that we have a randomized controlled trial focused on rate control in permanent AFib. It also tickles me pink to see a randomized, controlled study of digoxin. And I’m really excited to see a clinical trial that focuses on quality of life. It should give some confidence to know that from a quality of life perspective clinicians can consider using either digoxin or a beta-blocker for rate control,” he said.
American College of Cardiology vice president Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, said she’d need to see a much larger randomized trial including a calcium-channel blocker as a third-rate control arm before she’d consider digoxin as first-line rate control therapy in patients with AFib with or without heart failure. Also, she has reservations about drawing definitive conclusions from an open, unblinded study in which patient-reported outcomes are the primary endpoint.
“I think these were surprising findings given what we all think about digoxin in this country. In general, digoxin fell out of favor for rate control, mainly because of observational studies showing increased mortality. So most of us choose a beta-blocker,” she observed in an interview.
But of course, a randomized trial, even a 160-patient randomized trial, constitutes a higher level of evidence.
“I don’t think I’m going to convert tomorrow and make digoxin my first-line rate control therapy without more data. But RATE-AF does makes me stop and think about using it more than I did before in some of my permanent AFib patients,” said Dr. Itchhaporia, director of disease management at Hoag Memorial Hospital in Newport Beach, Calif.
Dr. Kotecha reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the British Heart Foundation, and the European Union.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020
New ESC/EACTS guideline on atrial fibrillation
New atrial fibrillation (AFib) management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) call for diagnostic confirmation and structured characterization of AFib and the need to streamline integrated care with the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway.
“It’s as simple as CC to ABC,” quipped one task force member during the virtual unveiling of the guidelines at the ESC Congress 2020.
The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and published simultaneously August 29 in the European Heart Journal.
Acknowledging the slew of novel screening tools now available and their reported sensitivity and specificity rates, the document supports opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse taking or electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm strip in patients at least 65 years of age, with a class 1 recommendation, evidence level B.
Systematic ECG screening should also be considered to detect AFib in individuals at least 75 years of age or in those at high risk for stroke (class IIa, level B).
Other new class I screening recommendations are to inform individuals undergoing screening about the significance and treatment implications of detecting AFib and to have a structured referral platform in place for further physician-led evaluation.
A definite diagnosis of clinical AFib is established only after confirmation by a conventional 12-lead ECG or single-lead ECG strip with at least 30 seconds of AFib.
In line with ESC’s 2016 AFib guidelines, the new iteration classifies AFib as first diagnosed, paroxysmal, persistent, long-standing persistent, and permanent. But it’s also important to classify the clinical profile of AFib, task force member Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD, University of Modena, Italy, said in the first of five presentations.
“So the novelty of the 2020 guidelines is related to the proposal of the 4S-AF scheme for a structured characterization of atrial fibrillation that takes into account Stroke risk, severity of Symptoms, Severity of atrial fibrillation burden, and Substrate severity,” he said.
This represents a paradigm shift from a single-domain conventional classification of AFib toward a structured characterization that streamlines assessment, informs treatment decision-making, and facilitates communication among physicians of various specialties, said Tatjana Potpara, MD, PhD, guideline co-chair and head of the Department for Intensive Arrhythmia Care, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.
“The beauty of this approach is that, at present, the assessment of the ‘S’ components are performed using available tools, but in the future, the 4S-AF has a great potential to incorporate whatever becomes available for a more precision assessment of substrate or symptoms or arrhythmia burden and so forth,” she said.
ABC pathway
The guidelines advocate the previously described ABC pathway for integrated care management, which includes ‘A’ for Anticoagulation/Avoid stroke, ‘B’ for Better symptom control, and ‘C’ for Comorbidity/Cardiovascular risk factor optimization.
The document strengthens support for formal risk score–based assessment of bleeding risk in all patients, including use of the HAS-BLED score to help address modifiable bleeding risk factors and to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3) for early and more frequent follow-up.
These assessments should be done regularly, given that both stroke and bleeding risk are dynamic and change over time with aging and comorbidities, Dr. Potpara stressed. In patients with AFib initially at low risk for stroke, the next assessment should be optimally performed at 4-6 months.
The guideline also targets weight loss in patients who are obese and have AFib, particularly those being evaluated for ablation, and good blood pressure control in patients with AFib and hypertension to reduce AFib recurrences and risk for stroke and bleeding (both class I, up from IIa). 
It’s particularly important that these risk factors are addressed, and that modifiable risk factors that go along with increased AFib occurrence and persistence are addressed and communicated to patients, said Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, guideline cochair and medical director of the Rhythmology Department, Heart Centre Leipzig (Germany).
“I have to confess, as an interventional electrophysiologist, there has been a time where I have not appreciated these risk factors intensely enough,” he said. “But we have learned, also in the field of catheter ablation, that weight loss is an essential basis for a good procedure. If we can motivate patients to lose weight and then come to the intervention with better outcome, it’s a true benefit for the patient and addresses patient values. So I’m particularly happy we have introduced that with such intensity in the guidelines.”
Rate and rhythm control
The guidelines make no recommendation of one novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) over another. However, in patients already receiving vitamin K antagonists with low time in the therapeutic range, they recommend switching to a different NOAC but ensuring good adherence and persistence with therapy (class I recommendation) or efforts to improve time in therapeutic range (class IIa).
Catheter ablation takes on a more prominent role for rhythm control and is now recommended after one antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails to improve symptoms of AF recurrence in patients with paroxysmal AFib, or persistent AFib with or without major risk factors for recurrence. The class I recommendation is based on results from the CAPTAF and CABANA trials, said task force member Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, MD, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Catheter ablation is also now a first-line therapy for patients with AFib who have a high likelihood of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, independent of symptom status. “In this subset of patients, catheter ablation may offer a lot with respect to restoration of left ventricular function,” observed Dr. Hindricks.
Complete electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins is recommended during all AFib catheter ablation procedures (class I).
“Even as a medical conservative, I think it is totally reasonable to move to catheter ablation after a failed drug trial,” commented John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., who was not a part of the guideline development.
Although the chance of a second drug working after one failure is low, he noted that operators in the United States have dofetilide, which is not used much in Europe, and sometimes works surprisingly well.
“That said, the caveat is that moving to catheter ablation after drug failure is only appropriate if we have addressed all the pertinent risk factors: sleep apnea, weight loss, lack of fitness, blood pressure control, and alcohol excess,” he said.
As for tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, this too can be reasonable, Dr. Mandrola said. “I often get people ‘out of a hole’ with amiodarone plus cardioversion for a few months and then proceed to ablation.”
Notably, the 2020 iteration sharpens its recommendation that amiodarone not be used first-line for long-term rhythm control in all patients with AFib, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, given its extracardiac toxicity (class I, up from IIa).
Quality counts
In response to growing evidence that guideline-adherence is associated with significantly better outcomes in AFib, the 2020 ESC/EACTS guidelines explicitly included a recommendation on the need to measure quality of care to identify opportunities for improvement.
With this framework in mind, a task force with 23 people – including members from ESC and heart rhythm societies in the United States, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, along with patient representatives – was created to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs), ultimately settling on 17 main QIs and 17 secondary ones, said Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, University of Barcelona.
The QIs are classified into six domains: patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor modification, and, importantly, outcome measures. A full list is accessible in a paper, simultaneously published in EP EuroPace.
Five patient-reported outcomes fall under the outcomes domain but only one – health-related quality of life – is a main quality indicator. The remaining outcomes are still important but are listed as secondary because of the lack of evidence to sustain or defend their systematic implementation, particularly evidence on how to measure them appropriately, Dr. Arbelo said.
“Hopefully, following the [class I] recommendation by the 2020 ESC guidelines to routinely collect patient-reported outcomes will allow us to collect further evidence and in the future have sufficient evidence to include these as a main outcome,” she said.
The QI work was driven in parallel with the guidelines and had a huge impact on its development, including inclusion of clear recommendations on how to measure quality, Dr. Hindricks said. “I believe that the whole issue of quality management in the treatment of patients with a focus on patient values cannot be overestimated.”
Disclosure information for all writing committee members is in the report. Dr. Mandrola is a writer and podcaster for Medscape.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New atrial fibrillation (AFib) management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) call for diagnostic confirmation and structured characterization of AFib and the need to streamline integrated care with the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway.
“It’s as simple as CC to ABC,” quipped one task force member during the virtual unveiling of the guidelines at the ESC Congress 2020.
The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and published simultaneously August 29 in the European Heart Journal.
Acknowledging the slew of novel screening tools now available and their reported sensitivity and specificity rates, the document supports opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse taking or electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm strip in patients at least 65 years of age, with a class 1 recommendation, evidence level B.
Systematic ECG screening should also be considered to detect AFib in individuals at least 75 years of age or in those at high risk for stroke (class IIa, level B).
Other new class I screening recommendations are to inform individuals undergoing screening about the significance and treatment implications of detecting AFib and to have a structured referral platform in place for further physician-led evaluation.
A definite diagnosis of clinical AFib is established only after confirmation by a conventional 12-lead ECG or single-lead ECG strip with at least 30 seconds of AFib.
In line with ESC’s 2016 AFib guidelines, the new iteration classifies AFib as first diagnosed, paroxysmal, persistent, long-standing persistent, and permanent. But it’s also important to classify the clinical profile of AFib, task force member Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD, University of Modena, Italy, said in the first of five presentations.
“So the novelty of the 2020 guidelines is related to the proposal of the 4S-AF scheme for a structured characterization of atrial fibrillation that takes into account Stroke risk, severity of Symptoms, Severity of atrial fibrillation burden, and Substrate severity,” he said.
This represents a paradigm shift from a single-domain conventional classification of AFib toward a structured characterization that streamlines assessment, informs treatment decision-making, and facilitates communication among physicians of various specialties, said Tatjana Potpara, MD, PhD, guideline co-chair and head of the Department for Intensive Arrhythmia Care, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.
“The beauty of this approach is that, at present, the assessment of the ‘S’ components are performed using available tools, but in the future, the 4S-AF has a great potential to incorporate whatever becomes available for a more precision assessment of substrate or symptoms or arrhythmia burden and so forth,” she said.
ABC pathway
The guidelines advocate the previously described ABC pathway for integrated care management, which includes ‘A’ for Anticoagulation/Avoid stroke, ‘B’ for Better symptom control, and ‘C’ for Comorbidity/Cardiovascular risk factor optimization.
The document strengthens support for formal risk score–based assessment of bleeding risk in all patients, including use of the HAS-BLED score to help address modifiable bleeding risk factors and to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3) for early and more frequent follow-up.
These assessments should be done regularly, given that both stroke and bleeding risk are dynamic and change over time with aging and comorbidities, Dr. Potpara stressed. In patients with AFib initially at low risk for stroke, the next assessment should be optimally performed at 4-6 months.
The guideline also targets weight loss in patients who are obese and have AFib, particularly those being evaluated for ablation, and good blood pressure control in patients with AFib and hypertension to reduce AFib recurrences and risk for stroke and bleeding (both class I, up from IIa).
It’s particularly important that these risk factors are addressed, and that modifiable risk factors that go along with increased AFib occurrence and persistence are addressed and communicated to patients, said Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, guideline cochair and medical director of the Rhythmology Department, Heart Centre Leipzig (Germany).
“I have to confess, as an interventional electrophysiologist, there has been a time where I have not appreciated these risk factors intensely enough,” he said. “But we have learned, also in the field of catheter ablation, that weight loss is an essential basis for a good procedure. If we can motivate patients to lose weight and then come to the intervention with better outcome, it’s a true benefit for the patient and addresses patient values. So I’m particularly happy we have introduced that with such intensity in the guidelines.”
Rate and rhythm control
The guidelines make no recommendation of one novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) over another. However, in patients already receiving vitamin K antagonists with low time in the therapeutic range, they recommend switching to a different NOAC but ensuring good adherence and persistence with therapy (class I recommendation) or efforts to improve time in therapeutic range (class IIa).
Catheter ablation takes on a more prominent role for rhythm control and is now recommended after one antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails to improve symptoms of AF recurrence in patients with paroxysmal AFib, or persistent AFib with or without major risk factors for recurrence. The class I recommendation is based on results from the CAPTAF and CABANA trials, said task force member Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, MD, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Catheter ablation is also now a first-line therapy for patients with AFib who have a high likelihood of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, independent of symptom status. “In this subset of patients, catheter ablation may offer a lot with respect to restoration of left ventricular function,” observed Dr. Hindricks.
Complete electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins is recommended during all AFib catheter ablation procedures (class I).
“Even as a medical conservative, I think it is totally reasonable to move to catheter ablation after a failed drug trial,” commented John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., who was not a part of the guideline development.
Although the chance of a second drug working after one failure is low, he noted that operators in the United States have dofetilide, which is not used much in Europe, and sometimes works surprisingly well.
“That said, the caveat is that moving to catheter ablation after drug failure is only appropriate if we have addressed all the pertinent risk factors: sleep apnea, weight loss, lack of fitness, blood pressure control, and alcohol excess,” he said.
As for tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, this too can be reasonable, Dr. Mandrola said. “I often get people ‘out of a hole’ with amiodarone plus cardioversion for a few months and then proceed to ablation.”
Notably, the 2020 iteration sharpens its recommendation that amiodarone not be used first-line for long-term rhythm control in all patients with AFib, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, given its extracardiac toxicity (class I, up from IIa).
Quality counts
In response to growing evidence that guideline-adherence is associated with significantly better outcomes in AFib, the 2020 ESC/EACTS guidelines explicitly included a recommendation on the need to measure quality of care to identify opportunities for improvement.
With this framework in mind, a task force with 23 people – including members from ESC and heart rhythm societies in the United States, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, along with patient representatives – was created to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs), ultimately settling on 17 main QIs and 17 secondary ones, said Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, University of Barcelona.
The QIs are classified into six domains: patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor modification, and, importantly, outcome measures. A full list is accessible in a paper, simultaneously published in EP EuroPace.
Five patient-reported outcomes fall under the outcomes domain but only one – health-related quality of life – is a main quality indicator. The remaining outcomes are still important but are listed as secondary because of the lack of evidence to sustain or defend their systematic implementation, particularly evidence on how to measure them appropriately, Dr. Arbelo said.
“Hopefully, following the [class I] recommendation by the 2020 ESC guidelines to routinely collect patient-reported outcomes will allow us to collect further evidence and in the future have sufficient evidence to include these as a main outcome,” she said.
The QI work was driven in parallel with the guidelines and had a huge impact on its development, including inclusion of clear recommendations on how to measure quality, Dr. Hindricks said. “I believe that the whole issue of quality management in the treatment of patients with a focus on patient values cannot be overestimated.”
Disclosure information for all writing committee members is in the report. Dr. Mandrola is a writer and podcaster for Medscape.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New atrial fibrillation (AFib) management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) call for diagnostic confirmation and structured characterization of AFib and the need to streamline integrated care with the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway.
“It’s as simple as CC to ABC,” quipped one task force member during the virtual unveiling of the guidelines at the ESC Congress 2020.
The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and published simultaneously August 29 in the European Heart Journal.
Acknowledging the slew of novel screening tools now available and their reported sensitivity and specificity rates, the document supports opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse taking or electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm strip in patients at least 65 years of age, with a class 1 recommendation, evidence level B.
Systematic ECG screening should also be considered to detect AFib in individuals at least 75 years of age or in those at high risk for stroke (class IIa, level B).
Other new class I screening recommendations are to inform individuals undergoing screening about the significance and treatment implications of detecting AFib and to have a structured referral platform in place for further physician-led evaluation.
A definite diagnosis of clinical AFib is established only after confirmation by a conventional 12-lead ECG or single-lead ECG strip with at least 30 seconds of AFib.
In line with ESC’s 2016 AFib guidelines, the new iteration classifies AFib as first diagnosed, paroxysmal, persistent, long-standing persistent, and permanent. But it’s also important to classify the clinical profile of AFib, task force member Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD, University of Modena, Italy, said in the first of five presentations.
“So the novelty of the 2020 guidelines is related to the proposal of the 4S-AF scheme for a structured characterization of atrial fibrillation that takes into account Stroke risk, severity of Symptoms, Severity of atrial fibrillation burden, and Substrate severity,” he said.
This represents a paradigm shift from a single-domain conventional classification of AFib toward a structured characterization that streamlines assessment, informs treatment decision-making, and facilitates communication among physicians of various specialties, said Tatjana Potpara, MD, PhD, guideline co-chair and head of the Department for Intensive Arrhythmia Care, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.
“The beauty of this approach is that, at present, the assessment of the ‘S’ components are performed using available tools, but in the future, the 4S-AF has a great potential to incorporate whatever becomes available for a more precision assessment of substrate or symptoms or arrhythmia burden and so forth,” she said.
ABC pathway
The guidelines advocate the previously described ABC pathway for integrated care management, which includes ‘A’ for Anticoagulation/Avoid stroke, ‘B’ for Better symptom control, and ‘C’ for Comorbidity/Cardiovascular risk factor optimization.
The document strengthens support for formal risk score–based assessment of bleeding risk in all patients, including use of the HAS-BLED score to help address modifiable bleeding risk factors and to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3) for early and more frequent follow-up.
These assessments should be done regularly, given that both stroke and bleeding risk are dynamic and change over time with aging and comorbidities, Dr. Potpara stressed. In patients with AFib initially at low risk for stroke, the next assessment should be optimally performed at 4-6 months.
The guideline also targets weight loss in patients who are obese and have AFib, particularly those being evaluated for ablation, and good blood pressure control in patients with AFib and hypertension to reduce AFib recurrences and risk for stroke and bleeding (both class I, up from IIa).
It’s particularly important that these risk factors are addressed, and that modifiable risk factors that go along with increased AFib occurrence and persistence are addressed and communicated to patients, said Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, guideline cochair and medical director of the Rhythmology Department, Heart Centre Leipzig (Germany).
“I have to confess, as an interventional electrophysiologist, there has been a time where I have not appreciated these risk factors intensely enough,” he said. “But we have learned, also in the field of catheter ablation, that weight loss is an essential basis for a good procedure. If we can motivate patients to lose weight and then come to the intervention with better outcome, it’s a true benefit for the patient and addresses patient values. So I’m particularly happy we have introduced that with such intensity in the guidelines.”
Rate and rhythm control
The guidelines make no recommendation of one novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) over another. However, in patients already receiving vitamin K antagonists with low time in the therapeutic range, they recommend switching to a different NOAC but ensuring good adherence and persistence with therapy (class I recommendation) or efforts to improve time in therapeutic range (class IIa).
Catheter ablation takes on a more prominent role for rhythm control and is now recommended after one antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails to improve symptoms of AF recurrence in patients with paroxysmal AFib, or persistent AFib with or without major risk factors for recurrence. The class I recommendation is based on results from the CAPTAF and CABANA trials, said task force member Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, MD, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Catheter ablation is also now a first-line therapy for patients with AFib who have a high likelihood of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, independent of symptom status. “In this subset of patients, catheter ablation may offer a lot with respect to restoration of left ventricular function,” observed Dr. Hindricks.
Complete electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins is recommended during all AFib catheter ablation procedures (class I).
“Even as a medical conservative, I think it is totally reasonable to move to catheter ablation after a failed drug trial,” commented John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., who was not a part of the guideline development.
Although the chance of a second drug working after one failure is low, he noted that operators in the United States have dofetilide, which is not used much in Europe, and sometimes works surprisingly well.
“That said, the caveat is that moving to catheter ablation after drug failure is only appropriate if we have addressed all the pertinent risk factors: sleep apnea, weight loss, lack of fitness, blood pressure control, and alcohol excess,” he said.
As for tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, this too can be reasonable, Dr. Mandrola said. “I often get people ‘out of a hole’ with amiodarone plus cardioversion for a few months and then proceed to ablation.”
Notably, the 2020 iteration sharpens its recommendation that amiodarone not be used first-line for long-term rhythm control in all patients with AFib, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, given its extracardiac toxicity (class I, up from IIa).
Quality counts
In response to growing evidence that guideline-adherence is associated with significantly better outcomes in AFib, the 2020 ESC/EACTS guidelines explicitly included a recommendation on the need to measure quality of care to identify opportunities for improvement.
With this framework in mind, a task force with 23 people – including members from ESC and heart rhythm societies in the United States, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, along with patient representatives – was created to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs), ultimately settling on 17 main QIs and 17 secondary ones, said Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, University of Barcelona.
The QIs are classified into six domains: patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor modification, and, importantly, outcome measures. A full list is accessible in a paper, simultaneously published in EP EuroPace.
Five patient-reported outcomes fall under the outcomes domain but only one – health-related quality of life – is a main quality indicator. The remaining outcomes are still important but are listed as secondary because of the lack of evidence to sustain or defend their systematic implementation, particularly evidence on how to measure them appropriately, Dr. Arbelo said.
“Hopefully, following the [class I] recommendation by the 2020 ESC guidelines to routinely collect patient-reported outcomes will allow us to collect further evidence and in the future have sufficient evidence to include these as a main outcome,” she said.
The QI work was driven in parallel with the guidelines and had a huge impact on its development, including inclusion of clear recommendations on how to measure quality, Dr. Hindricks said. “I believe that the whole issue of quality management in the treatment of patients with a focus on patient values cannot be overestimated.”
Disclosure information for all writing committee members is in the report. Dr. Mandrola is a writer and podcaster for Medscape.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Early rhythm control in AFib gains new life
Initiation of rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and/or ablation in patients with early, recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) led to a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with a rate-control strategy, during more than 5 years of follow-up in the large randomized EAST-AFNET 4 trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Previous trials of rate versus rhythm control in AFib, such as AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management), failed to show an advantage for rhythm over rate control in terms of clinical outcomes. Why was EAST-AFNET 4 different? Dr. Kirchhof offered two major reasons: The study incorporated AFib ablation as an option in the rhythm control strategy, and treatment started soon after diagnosis of the arrhythmia. Indeed, nearly 40% of patients had their first-ever AFib episode at the time of randomization, and the median time from diagnosis to randomization was just 36 days.
“Once you are in AFib for a few months, the atrium suffers severe damage, some of it irreversible, so it becomes more difficult to restore and maintain sinus rhythm when you wait longer,” explained Dr. Kirchhof, director of the department of cardiology at the University Heart and Vascular Center in Hamburg (Ger.) and professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Birmingham, England.
Also, epidemiologic studies show that the risk of cardiovascular complications is heightened in the first year following diagnosis of AFib. “So there’s a window of opportunity to prevent complications,” he added.
The impetus for conducting EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial ) was straightforward, according to the cardiologist: “The question of whether rhythm control is beneficial or not has been in the field for several decades. Most people, like me, always believed that maintaining sinus rhythm would help, but we didn’t have the data to show it.”
Early rhythm control shows sustained benefits
EAST-AFNET 4 was a prospective, open, blinded-outcome-assessement trial. It included 2,789 patients with early AFib and an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.4 who were randomized at 135 sites in 11 European countries to early rhythm control or guideline-recommended rate control. At a median 5.1 years of follow-up, the primary outcome – a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure – occurred at a pace of 3.9% per year in the rhythm control group and 5% per year with rate control. This translated to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 21% relative risk reduction favoring early rhythm control.
The 28% reduction in cardiovascular death with rhythm control was statistically significant, as was the 35% reduction in stroke. However, the 19% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and 17% decrease in hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome were not.
The co–primary endpoint – the mean number of nights spent in the hospital per year, which served as a proxy for the cost of treatment to a health care system – didn’t differ between the two treatment arms, at roughly 5 nights per year.
The clinical benefit of early rhythm control was consistent across all 19 prespecified patient subgroups, including those who were asymptomatic and patients with or without heart failure.
Serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy – most often drug-related bradycardia – occurred in 4.9% of patients over the course of 5.1 years, compared to a 1.4% serious event rate in patients assigned to rate control. Dr. Kirchhof called the roughly 1% per year serious event rate in the rhythm control group quite acceptable.
“To put that in perspective, the annualized rate of severe bleeds on oral anticoagulation – a very beneficial therapy used by more than 90% of participants at 2 years – is about 2%,” the cardiologist noted.
Only 8% of patients randomized to rhythm control received AFib ablation as initial therapy, consistent with current clinical practice. By 2 years, 19.4% of the rhythm control group had undergone AFib ablation. Also at that time, 15% of the rate control group was receiving rhythm control therapy to help manage AFib-related symptoms.
One of the big surprises in the study, he said, was that nearly three-quarters of patients in both groups were asymptomatic at 2 years.
“I think that shows how well we control symptoms, even without rhythm control,” he observed.
Results ‘move the field forward’
Dr. Kirchhof stressed that this was a trial of two different treatment strategies, and it’s not yet possible to single out any specific component of the rhythm control strategy as being responsible for the improved outcomes.
“I cannot tell you whether the outcome difference was due to AFib ablation or early treatment or the fact that we’re now better at using antiarrhythmic drugs than we were 20 years ago,” he said.
Asked if the EAST-AFNET 4 findings warrant more aggressive screening for AFib in order to detect and intervene early in the arrhythmia, Dr. Kirchhof replied with an unambiguous yes.
“My conclusion is that every patient with newly diagnosed AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more should not only receive anticoagulation and rate control, but should also be offered rhythm control therapy at the time of diagnosis, which also means that all of these people have to be seen by a cardiologist who has expertise in the domain of AFib management. It’s a big clinical challenge, but it leads to a 21% improvement in outcomes, and I think we have to do what’s best for our patients,” he said.
In an interview, Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, PhD, called EAST-AFNET 4 “a very important study.”
“It moves the field forward, for sure. I think it will change clinical practice, and it should,” commented Dr. Shivkumar, who was not involved in the study.
“Now there are so many wearable technologies out there – the Apple Watch and others – which will enable rhythm abnormalities to be detected early on. This bodes well for the field,” said Dr. Shivkumar, who is editor-in-chief of JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. He is also professor of medicine, radiology, and bioengineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center.
Dr. Kirchhof reported receiving research grants to conduct the EAST-AFNET 4 trial from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, the Atrial Fibrillation Network, the European Heart Rhythm Association, St. Jude Medical, Abbott, Sanofi, the German Heart Foundation, the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ESC Congress 2020, the study results were published online at NEJM.org.
SOURCE: Kirchhof P. ESC Congress 2020. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
Initiation of rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and/or ablation in patients with early, recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) led to a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with a rate-control strategy, during more than 5 years of follow-up in the large randomized EAST-AFNET 4 trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Previous trials of rate versus rhythm control in AFib, such as AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management), failed to show an advantage for rhythm over rate control in terms of clinical outcomes. Why was EAST-AFNET 4 different? Dr. Kirchhof offered two major reasons: The study incorporated AFib ablation as an option in the rhythm control strategy, and treatment started soon after diagnosis of the arrhythmia. Indeed, nearly 40% of patients had their first-ever AFib episode at the time of randomization, and the median time from diagnosis to randomization was just 36 days.
“Once you are in AFib for a few months, the atrium suffers severe damage, some of it irreversible, so it becomes more difficult to restore and maintain sinus rhythm when you wait longer,” explained Dr. Kirchhof, director of the department of cardiology at the University Heart and Vascular Center in Hamburg (Ger.) and professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Birmingham, England.
Also, epidemiologic studies show that the risk of cardiovascular complications is heightened in the first year following diagnosis of AFib. “So there’s a window of opportunity to prevent complications,” he added.
The impetus for conducting EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial ) was straightforward, according to the cardiologist: “The question of whether rhythm control is beneficial or not has been in the field for several decades. Most people, like me, always believed that maintaining sinus rhythm would help, but we didn’t have the data to show it.”
Early rhythm control shows sustained benefits
EAST-AFNET 4 was a prospective, open, blinded-outcome-assessement trial. It included 2,789 patients with early AFib and an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.4 who were randomized at 135 sites in 11 European countries to early rhythm control or guideline-recommended rate control. At a median 5.1 years of follow-up, the primary outcome – a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure – occurred at a pace of 3.9% per year in the rhythm control group and 5% per year with rate control. This translated to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 21% relative risk reduction favoring early rhythm control.
The 28% reduction in cardiovascular death with rhythm control was statistically significant, as was the 35% reduction in stroke. However, the 19% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and 17% decrease in hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome were not.
The co–primary endpoint – the mean number of nights spent in the hospital per year, which served as a proxy for the cost of treatment to a health care system – didn’t differ between the two treatment arms, at roughly 5 nights per year.
The clinical benefit of early rhythm control was consistent across all 19 prespecified patient subgroups, including those who were asymptomatic and patients with or without heart failure.
Serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy – most often drug-related bradycardia – occurred in 4.9% of patients over the course of 5.1 years, compared to a 1.4% serious event rate in patients assigned to rate control. Dr. Kirchhof called the roughly 1% per year serious event rate in the rhythm control group quite acceptable.
“To put that in perspective, the annualized rate of severe bleeds on oral anticoagulation – a very beneficial therapy used by more than 90% of participants at 2 years – is about 2%,” the cardiologist noted.
Only 8% of patients randomized to rhythm control received AFib ablation as initial therapy, consistent with current clinical practice. By 2 years, 19.4% of the rhythm control group had undergone AFib ablation. Also at that time, 15% of the rate control group was receiving rhythm control therapy to help manage AFib-related symptoms.
One of the big surprises in the study, he said, was that nearly three-quarters of patients in both groups were asymptomatic at 2 years.
“I think that shows how well we control symptoms, even without rhythm control,” he observed.
Results ‘move the field forward’
Dr. Kirchhof stressed that this was a trial of two different treatment strategies, and it’s not yet possible to single out any specific component of the rhythm control strategy as being responsible for the improved outcomes.
“I cannot tell you whether the outcome difference was due to AFib ablation or early treatment or the fact that we’re now better at using antiarrhythmic drugs than we were 20 years ago,” he said.
Asked if the EAST-AFNET 4 findings warrant more aggressive screening for AFib in order to detect and intervene early in the arrhythmia, Dr. Kirchhof replied with an unambiguous yes.
“My conclusion is that every patient with newly diagnosed AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more should not only receive anticoagulation and rate control, but should also be offered rhythm control therapy at the time of diagnosis, which also means that all of these people have to be seen by a cardiologist who has expertise in the domain of AFib management. It’s a big clinical challenge, but it leads to a 21% improvement in outcomes, and I think we have to do what’s best for our patients,” he said.
In an interview, Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, PhD, called EAST-AFNET 4 “a very important study.”
“It moves the field forward, for sure. I think it will change clinical practice, and it should,” commented Dr. Shivkumar, who was not involved in the study.
“Now there are so many wearable technologies out there – the Apple Watch and others – which will enable rhythm abnormalities to be detected early on. This bodes well for the field,” said Dr. Shivkumar, who is editor-in-chief of JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. He is also professor of medicine, radiology, and bioengineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center.
Dr. Kirchhof reported receiving research grants to conduct the EAST-AFNET 4 trial from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, the Atrial Fibrillation Network, the European Heart Rhythm Association, St. Jude Medical, Abbott, Sanofi, the German Heart Foundation, the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ESC Congress 2020, the study results were published online at NEJM.org.
SOURCE: Kirchhof P. ESC Congress 2020. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
Initiation of rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and/or ablation in patients with early, recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) led to a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes, compared with a rate-control strategy, during more than 5 years of follow-up in the large randomized EAST-AFNET 4 trial, Paulus Kirchhof, MD, said at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Previous trials of rate versus rhythm control in AFib, such as AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management), failed to show an advantage for rhythm over rate control in terms of clinical outcomes. Why was EAST-AFNET 4 different? Dr. Kirchhof offered two major reasons: The study incorporated AFib ablation as an option in the rhythm control strategy, and treatment started soon after diagnosis of the arrhythmia. Indeed, nearly 40% of patients had their first-ever AFib episode at the time of randomization, and the median time from diagnosis to randomization was just 36 days.
“Once you are in AFib for a few months, the atrium suffers severe damage, some of it irreversible, so it becomes more difficult to restore and maintain sinus rhythm when you wait longer,” explained Dr. Kirchhof, director of the department of cardiology at the University Heart and Vascular Center in Hamburg (Ger.) and professor of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Birmingham, England.
Also, epidemiologic studies show that the risk of cardiovascular complications is heightened in the first year following diagnosis of AFib. “So there’s a window of opportunity to prevent complications,” he added.
The impetus for conducting EAST-AFNET 4 (Early Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation for Stroke Prevention Trial ) was straightforward, according to the cardiologist: “The question of whether rhythm control is beneficial or not has been in the field for several decades. Most people, like me, always believed that maintaining sinus rhythm would help, but we didn’t have the data to show it.”
Early rhythm control shows sustained benefits
EAST-AFNET 4 was a prospective, open, blinded-outcome-assessement trial. It included 2,789 patients with early AFib and an average CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.4 who were randomized at 135 sites in 11 European countries to early rhythm control or guideline-recommended rate control. At a median 5.1 years of follow-up, the primary outcome – a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, acute coronary syndrome, or hospitalization for worsening heart failure – occurred at a pace of 3.9% per year in the rhythm control group and 5% per year with rate control. This translated to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 21% relative risk reduction favoring early rhythm control.
The 28% reduction in cardiovascular death with rhythm control was statistically significant, as was the 35% reduction in stroke. However, the 19% reduction in heart failure hospitalizations and 17% decrease in hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome were not.
The co–primary endpoint – the mean number of nights spent in the hospital per year, which served as a proxy for the cost of treatment to a health care system – didn’t differ between the two treatment arms, at roughly 5 nights per year.
The clinical benefit of early rhythm control was consistent across all 19 prespecified patient subgroups, including those who were asymptomatic and patients with or without heart failure.
Serious adverse events related to rhythm control therapy – most often drug-related bradycardia – occurred in 4.9% of patients over the course of 5.1 years, compared to a 1.4% serious event rate in patients assigned to rate control. Dr. Kirchhof called the roughly 1% per year serious event rate in the rhythm control group quite acceptable.
“To put that in perspective, the annualized rate of severe bleeds on oral anticoagulation – a very beneficial therapy used by more than 90% of participants at 2 years – is about 2%,” the cardiologist noted.
Only 8% of patients randomized to rhythm control received AFib ablation as initial therapy, consistent with current clinical practice. By 2 years, 19.4% of the rhythm control group had undergone AFib ablation. Also at that time, 15% of the rate control group was receiving rhythm control therapy to help manage AFib-related symptoms.
One of the big surprises in the study, he said, was that nearly three-quarters of patients in both groups were asymptomatic at 2 years.
“I think that shows how well we control symptoms, even without rhythm control,” he observed.
Results ‘move the field forward’
Dr. Kirchhof stressed that this was a trial of two different treatment strategies, and it’s not yet possible to single out any specific component of the rhythm control strategy as being responsible for the improved outcomes.
“I cannot tell you whether the outcome difference was due to AFib ablation or early treatment or the fact that we’re now better at using antiarrhythmic drugs than we were 20 years ago,” he said.
Asked if the EAST-AFNET 4 findings warrant more aggressive screening for AFib in order to detect and intervene early in the arrhythmia, Dr. Kirchhof replied with an unambiguous yes.
“My conclusion is that every patient with newly diagnosed AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or more should not only receive anticoagulation and rate control, but should also be offered rhythm control therapy at the time of diagnosis, which also means that all of these people have to be seen by a cardiologist who has expertise in the domain of AFib management. It’s a big clinical challenge, but it leads to a 21% improvement in outcomes, and I think we have to do what’s best for our patients,” he said.
In an interview, Kalyanam Shivkumar, MD, PhD, called EAST-AFNET 4 “a very important study.”
“It moves the field forward, for sure. I think it will change clinical practice, and it should,” commented Dr. Shivkumar, who was not involved in the study.
“Now there are so many wearable technologies out there – the Apple Watch and others – which will enable rhythm abnormalities to be detected early on. This bodes well for the field,” said Dr. Shivkumar, who is editor-in-chief of JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. He is also professor of medicine, radiology, and bioengineering at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the UCLA Cardiac Arrhythmia Center.
Dr. Kirchhof reported receiving research grants to conduct the EAST-AFNET 4 trial from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the German Center for Cardiovascular Research, the Atrial Fibrillation Network, the European Heart Rhythm Association, St. Jude Medical, Abbott, Sanofi, the German Heart Foundation, the European Union, the British Heart Foundation, and the Leducq Foundation.
Simultaneous with his presentation at ESC Congress 2020, the study results were published online at NEJM.org.
SOURCE: Kirchhof P. ESC Congress 2020. N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019422.
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020
ESC 2020 looks to make its mark in ‘new era’ of virtual meetings
The coronavirus may have quashed plans to socialize and stroll the canals of Amsterdam while at this year’s European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, but organizers are promising a historic digital experience that will “once again, be a celebration of discovery and ground-breaking science.”
“My message — if I have to choose only one thing why ESC 2020 will be a historic event — is that the physician working at the Cleveland Clinic, who was planning to attend this year in Amsterdam, as well as the colleague in a bush hospital in Uganda, who would have never have dreamed to be part of the ESC Congress, both will have for the first time the same access at the same time to knowledge shared at the worldwide leading cardiovascular meeting,” Marco Roffi, MD, co-chair of the scientific program, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
Taking a page from the American College of Cardiology, which set the virtual bar early in the pandemic with its highly interactive ACC 2020, ESC is taking some 80 Hot Line, clinical practice guidelines, and special sessions live with question-and-answer interactions and panel discussions.
The latest COVID-19 research and four new guideline documents — including recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease — will be featured at the ESC Congress 2020, scheduled for August 29 to September 1.
Presentations will be shorter and sessions more focused, but more than 500 scientific and educational sessions will be streamed in addition to more than 4000 abstracts available live or on demand as full presentations or e-posters, said Roffi, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.
To pull off the virtual event, a digital studio in Amsterdam will host hundreds of key opinion leaders, and ESC employed more than 1000 satellite studios around the world to gather contributions from scientists and experts with the help of 70 behind-the-scenes experts.
Nevertheless, a “strategic decision” was made to provide free access to the event and its content for 30 days — a strategy that has attracted some 58,000 registrants thus far, up from a record 32,000 attendees at last year’s congress in Paris, Roffi said.
“Obviously, the income will not be the same as a physical congress, but we felt there was too much at stake to make a compromise,” he said. “We believe we are the leaders in cardiovascular meetings in the physical ones and we want to keep this position even in the new era. And we believe this is the beginning of a new era in whatever form will be.”
Hot Line Sessions 1-3, Saturday (14:00 CEST)
The Hot Line sessions will feature 13 clinical trials and kick off with EMPEROR-Reduced, which compared the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) added to standard care in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without diabetes.
Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim already announced the trial met its composite primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization risk but the details will be important given the SGLT2 inhibitors› rapid shift beyond diabetes to HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Results presented at ESC 2019 from the landmark DAPA-HF trial led to the recent new indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for HFrEF in the absence of diabetes. New data will be released in a Sunday Hot Line session looking at the SGLT2 inhibitor among diabetic and nondiabetic CKD patients in DAPA-CKD, which was halted early because of overwhelming efficacy.
As the indication evolved, the SGLT2 inhibitors became truly cardiovascular disease drugs, Roffi said, “so all the cardiologists will have to become familiar with these agents.”
Hot Line 2 will look at the oral cardiac myosin inhibitor mavacamten as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous interventions to treat obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The first-in-class investigational agent is thought to reduce the hypercontractility characteristic of HCM by inhibiting excessive actin-myosin cross-bridges, and it showed promise in the recent phase 2 dose-finding MAVERICK HCM trial.
Investigators are expected to flesh out details from the 251-patient phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, which reported functional and symptomatic gains with once-daily dosing in top-line results released by developer MyoKardia.
“This is really a revolutionary way to treat — hopefully successfully — this very complex disease,” Roffi said.
Rounding out the day is the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, which has been almost 10 years in the making and examined whether early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation can prevent adverse outcomes in patients with AF compared with usual care alone based on the ESC 2010 AF treatment guidelines.
Hot Line Sessions 4-6, Sunday (14:00 CEST)
Hot Line 4 features the ATPCI study examining the addition of the oral antianginal agent trimetazidine to standard of care in 6007 patients with angina after recent successful percutaneous coronary intervention.
Next up is POPULAR-TAVI looking at aspirin with or without clopidogrel in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
“This is a dilemma that we have every day in the cath lab when we perform a TAVI because we have in front of us patients who, by definition, are at high bleeding risk, are old, and have comorbidities such as renal insufficiencies,” Roffi said. “I like this very much because it’s a very practical study. Whatever the response will be of this study, it will impact clinical practice.”
Hot Line 6 is devoted to the PARALLAX trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) with individualized medical therapy in 2569 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. The primary outcomes are 12-week change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and 24-week change in 6-minute walk distance.
Hot Line Sessions 7-9, Monday (14:00 CEST)
The next day starts with the timely topic of inflammation with the LoDoCo2 trial, in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomized to low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo on top of optimal medical therapy. The primary composite endpoint is CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.
Additional colchicine data also will be presented in a late-breaking science session on Saturday that includes the Australian COPS trial in acute coronary syndromes and new analyses from COLCOT, which demonstrated a 23% reduction in the risk of first ischemic CV events following an MI but no mortality benefit. The low-cost anti-inflammatory drug is also being tested in the mammoth 6000-patient phase 3 Colchicine Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COLCORONA) trial, expected to be completed by the end of September.
Hot Line 8 switches gears with the open-label randomized HOME-PE trial comparing outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE) in 1975 select patients based on either the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score, featured in the most recent ESC acute PE guidelines, or the HESTIA criteria, developed in the HESTIA study. The event-driven primary end point is the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death at 30 days.
Last up on Monday is a new analysis on the effects of lowering blood pressure for prevention of CV events across various BP levels from the BPLTTC, which is the largest resource of patient-level randomized clinical trial data, at more than 350,000 patients.
Tuesday Hot Line Sessions 10-12 (14:00 CEST)
The final day of the Congress ends with bang, with the randomized BRACE-CORONA trial examining the effect of continuing or suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in 700 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Although several cardiovascular societies including ESC recommend continuation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in COVID-19 patients, randomized data are lacking and patients have been rattled by early observations suggesting that ACE2 upregulation from RAAS antagonists could increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19.
“BRACE-CORONA will answer the question that everybody’s been asking, whether or not you should continue ARBs and ACE inhibitors in COVID-19 patients. This is a randomized trial and we are all very excited about it,” Roffi said.
COVID-19 will also be discussed in a late-breaking science session on Sunday and in three industry Q&A sessions scattered over the 4 days.
Rounding out the last Hot Line session is IMPACT-AFib, a claims database analysis of early vs delayed educational interventions to improve oral anticoagulation use in a whopping 80,000 patients with AF, and REALITY, a much-needed cost-effectiveness analysis of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in 630 patients with acute MI and anemia.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The coronavirus may have quashed plans to socialize and stroll the canals of Amsterdam while at this year’s European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, but organizers are promising a historic digital experience that will “once again, be a celebration of discovery and ground-breaking science.”
“My message — if I have to choose only one thing why ESC 2020 will be a historic event — is that the physician working at the Cleveland Clinic, who was planning to attend this year in Amsterdam, as well as the colleague in a bush hospital in Uganda, who would have never have dreamed to be part of the ESC Congress, both will have for the first time the same access at the same time to knowledge shared at the worldwide leading cardiovascular meeting,” Marco Roffi, MD, co-chair of the scientific program, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
Taking a page from the American College of Cardiology, which set the virtual bar early in the pandemic with its highly interactive ACC 2020, ESC is taking some 80 Hot Line, clinical practice guidelines, and special sessions live with question-and-answer interactions and panel discussions.
The latest COVID-19 research and four new guideline documents — including recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease — will be featured at the ESC Congress 2020, scheduled for August 29 to September 1.
Presentations will be shorter and sessions more focused, but more than 500 scientific and educational sessions will be streamed in addition to more than 4000 abstracts available live or on demand as full presentations or e-posters, said Roffi, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.
To pull off the virtual event, a digital studio in Amsterdam will host hundreds of key opinion leaders, and ESC employed more than 1000 satellite studios around the world to gather contributions from scientists and experts with the help of 70 behind-the-scenes experts.
Nevertheless, a “strategic decision” was made to provide free access to the event and its content for 30 days — a strategy that has attracted some 58,000 registrants thus far, up from a record 32,000 attendees at last year’s congress in Paris, Roffi said.
“Obviously, the income will not be the same as a physical congress, but we felt there was too much at stake to make a compromise,” he said. “We believe we are the leaders in cardiovascular meetings in the physical ones and we want to keep this position even in the new era. And we believe this is the beginning of a new era in whatever form will be.”
Hot Line Sessions 1-3, Saturday (14:00 CEST)
The Hot Line sessions will feature 13 clinical trials and kick off with EMPEROR-Reduced, which compared the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) added to standard care in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without diabetes.
Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim already announced the trial met its composite primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization risk but the details will be important given the SGLT2 inhibitors› rapid shift beyond diabetes to HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Results presented at ESC 2019 from the landmark DAPA-HF trial led to the recent new indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for HFrEF in the absence of diabetes. New data will be released in a Sunday Hot Line session looking at the SGLT2 inhibitor among diabetic and nondiabetic CKD patients in DAPA-CKD, which was halted early because of overwhelming efficacy.
As the indication evolved, the SGLT2 inhibitors became truly cardiovascular disease drugs, Roffi said, “so all the cardiologists will have to become familiar with these agents.”
Hot Line 2 will look at the oral cardiac myosin inhibitor mavacamten as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous interventions to treat obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The first-in-class investigational agent is thought to reduce the hypercontractility characteristic of HCM by inhibiting excessive actin-myosin cross-bridges, and it showed promise in the recent phase 2 dose-finding MAVERICK HCM trial.
Investigators are expected to flesh out details from the 251-patient phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, which reported functional and symptomatic gains with once-daily dosing in top-line results released by developer MyoKardia.
“This is really a revolutionary way to treat — hopefully successfully — this very complex disease,” Roffi said.
Rounding out the day is the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, which has been almost 10 years in the making and examined whether early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation can prevent adverse outcomes in patients with AF compared with usual care alone based on the ESC 2010 AF treatment guidelines.
Hot Line Sessions 4-6, Sunday (14:00 CEST)
Hot Line 4 features the ATPCI study examining the addition of the oral antianginal agent trimetazidine to standard of care in 6007 patients with angina after recent successful percutaneous coronary intervention.
Next up is POPULAR-TAVI looking at aspirin with or without clopidogrel in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
“This is a dilemma that we have every day in the cath lab when we perform a TAVI because we have in front of us patients who, by definition, are at high bleeding risk, are old, and have comorbidities such as renal insufficiencies,” Roffi said. “I like this very much because it’s a very practical study. Whatever the response will be of this study, it will impact clinical practice.”
Hot Line 6 is devoted to the PARALLAX trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) with individualized medical therapy in 2569 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. The primary outcomes are 12-week change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and 24-week change in 6-minute walk distance.
Hot Line Sessions 7-9, Monday (14:00 CEST)
The next day starts with the timely topic of inflammation with the LoDoCo2 trial, in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomized to low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo on top of optimal medical therapy. The primary composite endpoint is CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.
Additional colchicine data also will be presented in a late-breaking science session on Saturday that includes the Australian COPS trial in acute coronary syndromes and new analyses from COLCOT, which demonstrated a 23% reduction in the risk of first ischemic CV events following an MI but no mortality benefit. The low-cost anti-inflammatory drug is also being tested in the mammoth 6000-patient phase 3 Colchicine Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COLCORONA) trial, expected to be completed by the end of September.
Hot Line 8 switches gears with the open-label randomized HOME-PE trial comparing outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE) in 1975 select patients based on either the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score, featured in the most recent ESC acute PE guidelines, or the HESTIA criteria, developed in the HESTIA study. The event-driven primary end point is the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death at 30 days.
Last up on Monday is a new analysis on the effects of lowering blood pressure for prevention of CV events across various BP levels from the BPLTTC, which is the largest resource of patient-level randomized clinical trial data, at more than 350,000 patients.
Tuesday Hot Line Sessions 10-12 (14:00 CEST)
The final day of the Congress ends with bang, with the randomized BRACE-CORONA trial examining the effect of continuing or suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in 700 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Although several cardiovascular societies including ESC recommend continuation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in COVID-19 patients, randomized data are lacking and patients have been rattled by early observations suggesting that ACE2 upregulation from RAAS antagonists could increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19.
“BRACE-CORONA will answer the question that everybody’s been asking, whether or not you should continue ARBs and ACE inhibitors in COVID-19 patients. This is a randomized trial and we are all very excited about it,” Roffi said.
COVID-19 will also be discussed in a late-breaking science session on Sunday and in three industry Q&A sessions scattered over the 4 days.
Rounding out the last Hot Line session is IMPACT-AFib, a claims database analysis of early vs delayed educational interventions to improve oral anticoagulation use in a whopping 80,000 patients with AF, and REALITY, a much-needed cost-effectiveness analysis of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in 630 patients with acute MI and anemia.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The coronavirus may have quashed plans to socialize and stroll the canals of Amsterdam while at this year’s European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, but organizers are promising a historic digital experience that will “once again, be a celebration of discovery and ground-breaking science.”
“My message — if I have to choose only one thing why ESC 2020 will be a historic event — is that the physician working at the Cleveland Clinic, who was planning to attend this year in Amsterdam, as well as the colleague in a bush hospital in Uganda, who would have never have dreamed to be part of the ESC Congress, both will have for the first time the same access at the same time to knowledge shared at the worldwide leading cardiovascular meeting,” Marco Roffi, MD, co-chair of the scientific program, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
Taking a page from the American College of Cardiology, which set the virtual bar early in the pandemic with its highly interactive ACC 2020, ESC is taking some 80 Hot Line, clinical practice guidelines, and special sessions live with question-and-answer interactions and panel discussions.
The latest COVID-19 research and four new guideline documents — including recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease — will be featured at the ESC Congress 2020, scheduled for August 29 to September 1.
Presentations will be shorter and sessions more focused, but more than 500 scientific and educational sessions will be streamed in addition to more than 4000 abstracts available live or on demand as full presentations or e-posters, said Roffi, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.
To pull off the virtual event, a digital studio in Amsterdam will host hundreds of key opinion leaders, and ESC employed more than 1000 satellite studios around the world to gather contributions from scientists and experts with the help of 70 behind-the-scenes experts.
Nevertheless, a “strategic decision” was made to provide free access to the event and its content for 30 days — a strategy that has attracted some 58,000 registrants thus far, up from a record 32,000 attendees at last year’s congress in Paris, Roffi said.
“Obviously, the income will not be the same as a physical congress, but we felt there was too much at stake to make a compromise,” he said. “We believe we are the leaders in cardiovascular meetings in the physical ones and we want to keep this position even in the new era. And we believe this is the beginning of a new era in whatever form will be.”
Hot Line Sessions 1-3, Saturday (14:00 CEST)
The Hot Line sessions will feature 13 clinical trials and kick off with EMPEROR-Reduced, which compared the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) added to standard care in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without diabetes.
Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim already announced the trial met its composite primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization risk but the details will be important given the SGLT2 inhibitors› rapid shift beyond diabetes to HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Results presented at ESC 2019 from the landmark DAPA-HF trial led to the recent new indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for HFrEF in the absence of diabetes. New data will be released in a Sunday Hot Line session looking at the SGLT2 inhibitor among diabetic and nondiabetic CKD patients in DAPA-CKD, which was halted early because of overwhelming efficacy.
As the indication evolved, the SGLT2 inhibitors became truly cardiovascular disease drugs, Roffi said, “so all the cardiologists will have to become familiar with these agents.”
Hot Line 2 will look at the oral cardiac myosin inhibitor mavacamten as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous interventions to treat obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The first-in-class investigational agent is thought to reduce the hypercontractility characteristic of HCM by inhibiting excessive actin-myosin cross-bridges, and it showed promise in the recent phase 2 dose-finding MAVERICK HCM trial.
Investigators are expected to flesh out details from the 251-patient phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, which reported functional and symptomatic gains with once-daily dosing in top-line results released by developer MyoKardia.
“This is really a revolutionary way to treat — hopefully successfully — this very complex disease,” Roffi said.
Rounding out the day is the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, which has been almost 10 years in the making and examined whether early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation can prevent adverse outcomes in patients with AF compared with usual care alone based on the ESC 2010 AF treatment guidelines.
Hot Line Sessions 4-6, Sunday (14:00 CEST)
Hot Line 4 features the ATPCI study examining the addition of the oral antianginal agent trimetazidine to standard of care in 6007 patients with angina after recent successful percutaneous coronary intervention.
Next up is POPULAR-TAVI looking at aspirin with or without clopidogrel in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).
“This is a dilemma that we have every day in the cath lab when we perform a TAVI because we have in front of us patients who, by definition, are at high bleeding risk, are old, and have comorbidities such as renal insufficiencies,” Roffi said. “I like this very much because it’s a very practical study. Whatever the response will be of this study, it will impact clinical practice.”
Hot Line 6 is devoted to the PARALLAX trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) with individualized medical therapy in 2569 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. The primary outcomes are 12-week change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and 24-week change in 6-minute walk distance.
Hot Line Sessions 7-9, Monday (14:00 CEST)
The next day starts with the timely topic of inflammation with the LoDoCo2 trial, in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomized to low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo on top of optimal medical therapy. The primary composite endpoint is CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.
Additional colchicine data also will be presented in a late-breaking science session on Saturday that includes the Australian COPS trial in acute coronary syndromes and new analyses from COLCOT, which demonstrated a 23% reduction in the risk of first ischemic CV events following an MI but no mortality benefit. The low-cost anti-inflammatory drug is also being tested in the mammoth 6000-patient phase 3 Colchicine Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COLCORONA) trial, expected to be completed by the end of September.
Hot Line 8 switches gears with the open-label randomized HOME-PE trial comparing outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE) in 1975 select patients based on either the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score, featured in the most recent ESC acute PE guidelines, or the HESTIA criteria, developed in the HESTIA study. The event-driven primary end point is the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death at 30 days.
Last up on Monday is a new analysis on the effects of lowering blood pressure for prevention of CV events across various BP levels from the BPLTTC, which is the largest resource of patient-level randomized clinical trial data, at more than 350,000 patients.
Tuesday Hot Line Sessions 10-12 (14:00 CEST)
The final day of the Congress ends with bang, with the randomized BRACE-CORONA trial examining the effect of continuing or suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in 700 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Although several cardiovascular societies including ESC recommend continuation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in COVID-19 patients, randomized data are lacking and patients have been rattled by early observations suggesting that ACE2 upregulation from RAAS antagonists could increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19.
“BRACE-CORONA will answer the question that everybody’s been asking, whether or not you should continue ARBs and ACE inhibitors in COVID-19 patients. This is a randomized trial and we are all very excited about it,” Roffi said.
COVID-19 will also be discussed in a late-breaking science session on Sunday and in three industry Q&A sessions scattered over the 4 days.
Rounding out the last Hot Line session is IMPACT-AFib, a claims database analysis of early vs delayed educational interventions to improve oral anticoagulation use in a whopping 80,000 patients with AF, and REALITY, a much-needed cost-effectiveness analysis of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in 630 patients with acute MI and anemia.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Machine learning shows ability to predict diastolic dysfunction with ECG
A machine-learning model that uses readily available clinical and electrocardiography data may have the potential to identify left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, a key biomarker in predicting heart failure, without echocardiography, but a workable clinical platform is still far off, a team of North American researchers reported.
“This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients,” Nobuyuki Kagiyama, MD, PhD, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology.
The researchers reported on a multicenter, prospective study that evaluated 1,202 patients from three centers in the United States and one in Canada. To develop machine-learning models, the study pooled 814 patients from the U.S. institutions as an internal cohort. They were then randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set on an 80:20 basis (651 and 163). The 388 Canadian patients were reserved as an external set to test the model.
All patients had 12-lead ECG and simultaneous body surface signal-processed ECG (spECG) along with comprehensive two-dimensional Doppler ECG on the same day.
How the model works
The machine-learning model estimated echocardiographic LV relaxation velocities (e’) values using traditional ECG and spECG features. The model also took into account 10 basic clinical features: age; sex; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; and comorbid conditions such as cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease.
Patient characteristics were starkly different between the internal (United States) and external (Canadian) cohorts, with the latter being 10 years older on average (65 vs. 44; P < .001), predominantly male (58.2% vs. 47.3%; P < .001) and with significantly lower rates of coronary artery disease (1.8% vs. 21.1%; P < .001), although average blood pressure was similar between the two groups.
The study used area under the curve (AUC) to calculate the predictability of the machine-learning estimated e’ values versus the guideline-based reduced e’, finding close correlation between the internal (AUC, 0.83; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%; negative predictive value, 73%; and positive predictive value, 82%) and external test sets (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 61%; NPV, 81%; and PPV, 77%).
Similar variations between the two cohorts were reported for global LV diastolic dysfunction and reduced LV ejection fraction.
The final model used 18 features in all, including 3 clinical features (age, dyslipidemia, and hypertension), 7 scores from spECG features, and 8 from traditional ECG features.
Interpreting the results
Dr. Kagiyama and colleagues noted that, because impaired myocardial relaxation is an early sign of cardiac tissue deterioration, screening for it can aid in early detection of subclinical LVDD and earlier treatment for hypertension and diabetes. But they acknowledged that further studies are needed.
In an invited editorial, Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, of Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Rohan Khera, MD, MS, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote that the machine-learning model has a way to go.
They noted that the 73%-77% accuracy of the model in identifying diastolic dysfunction impedes its imminent use. “Although we are excited about the prospects of such developments, we hold out for better evidence for their actual use,” they wrote, adding that the algorithms have limited use in the clinic because most patients already get “definitive testing” if they need it.
Developing a machine-learning model that obviates the need for ECG for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction seems dubious at this time, said Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, section head of electrophysiology and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. “The echo is not a difficult test. It’s the most proven usable tool that we have in cardiology because it’s easy to reproduce, low cost, and noninvasive – so we have all that we want in medicine.”
But machine learning does have potential, added Dr. Di Biase, who’s also a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership Council. “If this application could predict the people that would develop diastolic dysfunction that leads to heart failure – because an echo at that time may be negative but there may be other features that tell me this patient will develop disease – then it would have a much different clinical impact.”
The National Science Foundation provided funding for the study. Heart Test Laboratories, doing business as Heart Sciences, provided funding and spECG devices. Dr. Kagiyama reported receiving a research grant from Hitachi Healthcare. A coauthor disclosed financial relationships with Heart Sciences, Ultronics, and Kencor Health.
Dr. Nasir, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Di Biase have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Kagiyama N et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:930-41.
A machine-learning model that uses readily available clinical and electrocardiography data may have the potential to identify left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, a key biomarker in predicting heart failure, without echocardiography, but a workable clinical platform is still far off, a team of North American researchers reported.
“This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients,” Nobuyuki Kagiyama, MD, PhD, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology.
The researchers reported on a multicenter, prospective study that evaluated 1,202 patients from three centers in the United States and one in Canada. To develop machine-learning models, the study pooled 814 patients from the U.S. institutions as an internal cohort. They were then randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set on an 80:20 basis (651 and 163). The 388 Canadian patients were reserved as an external set to test the model.
All patients had 12-lead ECG and simultaneous body surface signal-processed ECG (spECG) along with comprehensive two-dimensional Doppler ECG on the same day.
How the model works
The machine-learning model estimated echocardiographic LV relaxation velocities (e’) values using traditional ECG and spECG features. The model also took into account 10 basic clinical features: age; sex; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; and comorbid conditions such as cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease.
Patient characteristics were starkly different between the internal (United States) and external (Canadian) cohorts, with the latter being 10 years older on average (65 vs. 44; P < .001), predominantly male (58.2% vs. 47.3%; P < .001) and with significantly lower rates of coronary artery disease (1.8% vs. 21.1%; P < .001), although average blood pressure was similar between the two groups.
The study used area under the curve (AUC) to calculate the predictability of the machine-learning estimated e’ values versus the guideline-based reduced e’, finding close correlation between the internal (AUC, 0.83; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%; negative predictive value, 73%; and positive predictive value, 82%) and external test sets (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 61%; NPV, 81%; and PPV, 77%).
Similar variations between the two cohorts were reported for global LV diastolic dysfunction and reduced LV ejection fraction.
The final model used 18 features in all, including 3 clinical features (age, dyslipidemia, and hypertension), 7 scores from spECG features, and 8 from traditional ECG features.
Interpreting the results
Dr. Kagiyama and colleagues noted that, because impaired myocardial relaxation is an early sign of cardiac tissue deterioration, screening for it can aid in early detection of subclinical LVDD and earlier treatment for hypertension and diabetes. But they acknowledged that further studies are needed.
In an invited editorial, Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, of Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Rohan Khera, MD, MS, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote that the machine-learning model has a way to go.
They noted that the 73%-77% accuracy of the model in identifying diastolic dysfunction impedes its imminent use. “Although we are excited about the prospects of such developments, we hold out for better evidence for their actual use,” they wrote, adding that the algorithms have limited use in the clinic because most patients already get “definitive testing” if they need it.
Developing a machine-learning model that obviates the need for ECG for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction seems dubious at this time, said Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, section head of electrophysiology and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. “The echo is not a difficult test. It’s the most proven usable tool that we have in cardiology because it’s easy to reproduce, low cost, and noninvasive – so we have all that we want in medicine.”
But machine learning does have potential, added Dr. Di Biase, who’s also a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership Council. “If this application could predict the people that would develop diastolic dysfunction that leads to heart failure – because an echo at that time may be negative but there may be other features that tell me this patient will develop disease – then it would have a much different clinical impact.”
The National Science Foundation provided funding for the study. Heart Test Laboratories, doing business as Heart Sciences, provided funding and spECG devices. Dr. Kagiyama reported receiving a research grant from Hitachi Healthcare. A coauthor disclosed financial relationships with Heart Sciences, Ultronics, and Kencor Health.
Dr. Nasir, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Di Biase have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Kagiyama N et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:930-41.
A machine-learning model that uses readily available clinical and electrocardiography data may have the potential to identify left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, a key biomarker in predicting heart failure, without echocardiography, but a workable clinical platform is still far off, a team of North American researchers reported.
“This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients,” Nobuyuki Kagiyama, MD, PhD, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, and colleagues, wrote in the Journal of the American Academy of Cardiology.
The researchers reported on a multicenter, prospective study that evaluated 1,202 patients from three centers in the United States and one in Canada. To develop machine-learning models, the study pooled 814 patients from the U.S. institutions as an internal cohort. They were then randomly divided into a training set and an internal test set on an 80:20 basis (651 and 163). The 388 Canadian patients were reserved as an external set to test the model.
All patients had 12-lead ECG and simultaneous body surface signal-processed ECG (spECG) along with comprehensive two-dimensional Doppler ECG on the same day.
How the model works
The machine-learning model estimated echocardiographic LV relaxation velocities (e’) values using traditional ECG and spECG features. The model also took into account 10 basic clinical features: age; sex; systolic and diastolic blood pressure; and comorbid conditions such as cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and chronic kidney disease.
Patient characteristics were starkly different between the internal (United States) and external (Canadian) cohorts, with the latter being 10 years older on average (65 vs. 44; P < .001), predominantly male (58.2% vs. 47.3%; P < .001) and with significantly lower rates of coronary artery disease (1.8% vs. 21.1%; P < .001), although average blood pressure was similar between the two groups.
The study used area under the curve (AUC) to calculate the predictability of the machine-learning estimated e’ values versus the guideline-based reduced e’, finding close correlation between the internal (AUC, 0.83; sensitivity, 78%; specificity, 77%; negative predictive value, 73%; and positive predictive value, 82%) and external test sets (AUC, 0.84; sensitivity, 90%; specificity, 61%; NPV, 81%; and PPV, 77%).
Similar variations between the two cohorts were reported for global LV diastolic dysfunction and reduced LV ejection fraction.
The final model used 18 features in all, including 3 clinical features (age, dyslipidemia, and hypertension), 7 scores from spECG features, and 8 from traditional ECG features.
Interpreting the results
Dr. Kagiyama and colleagues noted that, because impaired myocardial relaxation is an early sign of cardiac tissue deterioration, screening for it can aid in early detection of subclinical LVDD and earlier treatment for hypertension and diabetes. But they acknowledged that further studies are needed.
In an invited editorial, Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, of Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center and Rohan Khera, MD, MS, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote that the machine-learning model has a way to go.
They noted that the 73%-77% accuracy of the model in identifying diastolic dysfunction impedes its imminent use. “Although we are excited about the prospects of such developments, we hold out for better evidence for their actual use,” they wrote, adding that the algorithms have limited use in the clinic because most patients already get “definitive testing” if they need it.
Developing a machine-learning model that obviates the need for ECG for evaluating LV diastolic dysfunction seems dubious at this time, said Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, section head of electrophysiology and director of arrhythmia services at Montefiore Medical Center and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York. “The echo is not a difficult test. It’s the most proven usable tool that we have in cardiology because it’s easy to reproduce, low cost, and noninvasive – so we have all that we want in medicine.”
But machine learning does have potential, added Dr. Di Biase, who’s also a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Electrophysiology Section Leadership Council. “If this application could predict the people that would develop diastolic dysfunction that leads to heart failure – because an echo at that time may be negative but there may be other features that tell me this patient will develop disease – then it would have a much different clinical impact.”
The National Science Foundation provided funding for the study. Heart Test Laboratories, doing business as Heart Sciences, provided funding and spECG devices. Dr. Kagiyama reported receiving a research grant from Hitachi Healthcare. A coauthor disclosed financial relationships with Heart Sciences, Ultronics, and Kencor Health.
Dr. Nasir, Dr. Khera, and Dr. Di Biase have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
SOURCE: Kagiyama N et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:930-41.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY