Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

A new study offers early validation of the recently released Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definition of technical success after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and highlights its role in patient prognosis.

Results show that one in 10 patients (11.6%) undergoing TAVR with contemporary devices and techniques experiences technical failure, according to VARC-3.

At 30 days, patients with technical failure had significantly higher rates of the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or stroke (11.5% vs. 3.5%), CV death (6.0% vs. 1.0%), and stroke (7.2% vs. 2.9%), compared with those with technical success.

Technical failure after TAVR was also independently associated with a twofold higher risk for CV death or stroke at 1 year (20.0% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.37-2.95).

Other independent predictors were history of peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.97), New York Heart Association III or IV disease (HR, 1.86), baseline moderate or greater mitral regurgitation (HR, 1.48), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.40), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted mortality risk (HR, 1.04).

“We were expecting that we were getting better over time with device iterations, with more experience, so we weren’t surprised by the result. But I think what is somewhat surprising is how much of an impact it has on the outcome,” senior study author Thomas Pilgrim, MD, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland, told this news organization.

The VARC-3 document, introduced last year to some controversy, features a heavier focus on patient outcomes, as well as composite safety and efficacy endpoints. The definition of technical success after TAVR includes freedom from death; successful access, delivery of the device, and retrieval of the delivery system; correct positioning of a prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location; and freedom from surgery or intervention related to the device or to an access-related or cardiac structural complication.

The composite endpoint is meant to replace the VARC-2 definition of “device success,” which also included freedom from death and correct valve positioning but required echocardiographic evaluation. With VARC-3, there is an “immediate measure” of success without having to wait for echocardiography, observed Dr. Pilgrim.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Interventions, TAVR was a technical success in 1,435 of 1,624 (88.4%) patients. Technical failure occurred in 189 patients related to either vascular complications (8.6%) or procedural death or cardiac complications (3.0%).

The VARC-2 endpoint of device success was observed in 66.1% of patients. The high rate of device failure was largely attributed to a 28% incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch.

“If you use the VARC-2 device success [definition], you include this patient–prosthesis mismatch, the [valve] gradients, [and] regurgitation and then device success is always lower,” Dr. Pilgrim said.

Asked whether the VARC-3 definition may be missing case failures, he replied: “At this stage, we don’t know how important these echocardiographic parameters are for hard clinical endpoints. Maybe the VARC-2 endpoint was too sensitive or the VARC-3 endpoint is not sensitive enough. This is something we just don’t know at this stage.”

Marco Barbanti, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Rodolico Polyclinic University Hospital-San Marco, Catania, Italy, and author of an accompanying editorial, said VARC-3 represents a more accurate indicator of immediate success of the procedure.

“It’s a more pertinent definition according to what really has an impact on prognosis, and, according to the results of this paper, actually, the calibration of this new definition is quite good,” Dr. Barbanti said in an interview.

Patients with VARC-3 technical failure were older, had a higher body mass index, and had more advanced heart failure symptoms than those with technical success. There were no significant differences between the two groups in echocardiographic or CT data, anesthetic strategy, valve type or size, or use of pre- or post-dilation.

All patients underwent TAVR with current balloon-expandable (Sapien 3/Sapien Ultra, Edwards Lifesciences) or self-expanding (Evolut R/PRO [Medtronic], Portico [Abbott], Symetis ACURATE/ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific]) devices between March 2012 and December 2019. A transfemoral approach was used in 92.5% of patients.

In a landmark analysis with the landmark set at 30 days, the effect of technical failure on adverse outcome was limited to the first 30 days (composite endpoint 0-30 days: HR, 3.42; P < .001; 30-360 days: HR, 1.36; P = .266; P for interaction = .002).

At 1 year, the composite of CV death and stroke endpoint occurred in 24.1% of patients with cardiac technical failure, in 18.8% of patients with vascular technical failure, and in 10.3% of patients with technical success.

In multivariate analyses, cardiac and vascular technical failures were independently associated with a 2.6-fold and 1.9-fold increased risk, respectively, for the composite of cardiovascular death and stroke at 1 year.

Female sex, larger device landing zone calcium volume, and earlier procedures (March 2012 to July 2016) were associated with a higher risk for cardiac technical failure, whereas, consistent with previous studies, higher body mass index and use of the Prostar/Manta versus the ProGlide closure device predicted vascular technical failure.

The findings “underscore that technical success is highly clinically relevant and may serve as one of the pivotal endpoints to evaluate the improvement of TAVR or for head-to-head comparisons of new devices in future clinical trials,” the authors conclude.

The findings reflect the experience of a single high-volume center with highly experienced operators in the prospective BERN TAVR registry, however, and may not be generalizable to other heart centers, they note. Although the registry has standardized follow-up, independent analysis of echocardiographic and CT, and independent event adjudication, vascular anatomy was not systematically assessed, and the potential exists for confounding from unmeasured variables.

Dr. Pilgrim reports research grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik, personal fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific, and other from HighLife SAS. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific.

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

A new study offers early validation of the recently released Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definition of technical success after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and highlights its role in patient prognosis.

Results show that one in 10 patients (11.6%) undergoing TAVR with contemporary devices and techniques experiences technical failure, according to VARC-3.

At 30 days, patients with technical failure had significantly higher rates of the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or stroke (11.5% vs. 3.5%), CV death (6.0% vs. 1.0%), and stroke (7.2% vs. 2.9%), compared with those with technical success.

Technical failure after TAVR was also independently associated with a twofold higher risk for CV death or stroke at 1 year (20.0% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.37-2.95).

Other independent predictors were history of peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.97), New York Heart Association III or IV disease (HR, 1.86), baseline moderate or greater mitral regurgitation (HR, 1.48), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.40), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted mortality risk (HR, 1.04).

“We were expecting that we were getting better over time with device iterations, with more experience, so we weren’t surprised by the result. But I think what is somewhat surprising is how much of an impact it has on the outcome,” senior study author Thomas Pilgrim, MD, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland, told this news organization.

The VARC-3 document, introduced last year to some controversy, features a heavier focus on patient outcomes, as well as composite safety and efficacy endpoints. The definition of technical success after TAVR includes freedom from death; successful access, delivery of the device, and retrieval of the delivery system; correct positioning of a prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location; and freedom from surgery or intervention related to the device or to an access-related or cardiac structural complication.

The composite endpoint is meant to replace the VARC-2 definition of “device success,” which also included freedom from death and correct valve positioning but required echocardiographic evaluation. With VARC-3, there is an “immediate measure” of success without having to wait for echocardiography, observed Dr. Pilgrim.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Interventions, TAVR was a technical success in 1,435 of 1,624 (88.4%) patients. Technical failure occurred in 189 patients related to either vascular complications (8.6%) or procedural death or cardiac complications (3.0%).

The VARC-2 endpoint of device success was observed in 66.1% of patients. The high rate of device failure was largely attributed to a 28% incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch.

“If you use the VARC-2 device success [definition], you include this patient–prosthesis mismatch, the [valve] gradients, [and] regurgitation and then device success is always lower,” Dr. Pilgrim said.

Asked whether the VARC-3 definition may be missing case failures, he replied: “At this stage, we don’t know how important these echocardiographic parameters are for hard clinical endpoints. Maybe the VARC-2 endpoint was too sensitive or the VARC-3 endpoint is not sensitive enough. This is something we just don’t know at this stage.”

Marco Barbanti, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Rodolico Polyclinic University Hospital-San Marco, Catania, Italy, and author of an accompanying editorial, said VARC-3 represents a more accurate indicator of immediate success of the procedure.

“It’s a more pertinent definition according to what really has an impact on prognosis, and, according to the results of this paper, actually, the calibration of this new definition is quite good,” Dr. Barbanti said in an interview.

Patients with VARC-3 technical failure were older, had a higher body mass index, and had more advanced heart failure symptoms than those with technical success. There were no significant differences between the two groups in echocardiographic or CT data, anesthetic strategy, valve type or size, or use of pre- or post-dilation.

All patients underwent TAVR with current balloon-expandable (Sapien 3/Sapien Ultra, Edwards Lifesciences) or self-expanding (Evolut R/PRO [Medtronic], Portico [Abbott], Symetis ACURATE/ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific]) devices between March 2012 and December 2019. A transfemoral approach was used in 92.5% of patients.

In a landmark analysis with the landmark set at 30 days, the effect of technical failure on adverse outcome was limited to the first 30 days (composite endpoint 0-30 days: HR, 3.42; P < .001; 30-360 days: HR, 1.36; P = .266; P for interaction = .002).

At 1 year, the composite of CV death and stroke endpoint occurred in 24.1% of patients with cardiac technical failure, in 18.8% of patients with vascular technical failure, and in 10.3% of patients with technical success.

In multivariate analyses, cardiac and vascular technical failures were independently associated with a 2.6-fold and 1.9-fold increased risk, respectively, for the composite of cardiovascular death and stroke at 1 year.

Female sex, larger device landing zone calcium volume, and earlier procedures (March 2012 to July 2016) were associated with a higher risk for cardiac technical failure, whereas, consistent with previous studies, higher body mass index and use of the Prostar/Manta versus the ProGlide closure device predicted vascular technical failure.

The findings “underscore that technical success is highly clinically relevant and may serve as one of the pivotal endpoints to evaluate the improvement of TAVR or for head-to-head comparisons of new devices in future clinical trials,” the authors conclude.

The findings reflect the experience of a single high-volume center with highly experienced operators in the prospective BERN TAVR registry, however, and may not be generalizable to other heart centers, they note. Although the registry has standardized follow-up, independent analysis of echocardiographic and CT, and independent event adjudication, vascular anatomy was not systematically assessed, and the potential exists for confounding from unmeasured variables.

Dr. Pilgrim reports research grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik, personal fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific, and other from HighLife SAS. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific.

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

A new study offers early validation of the recently released Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) definition of technical success after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and highlights its role in patient prognosis.

Results show that one in 10 patients (11.6%) undergoing TAVR with contemporary devices and techniques experiences technical failure, according to VARC-3.

At 30 days, patients with technical failure had significantly higher rates of the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or stroke (11.5% vs. 3.5%), CV death (6.0% vs. 1.0%), and stroke (7.2% vs. 2.9%), compared with those with technical success.

Technical failure after TAVR was also independently associated with a twofold higher risk for CV death or stroke at 1 year (20.0% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.37-2.95).

Other independent predictors were history of peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.97), New York Heart Association III or IV disease (HR, 1.86), baseline moderate or greater mitral regurgitation (HR, 1.48), atrial fibrillation (HR, 1.40), and Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted mortality risk (HR, 1.04).

“We were expecting that we were getting better over time with device iterations, with more experience, so we weren’t surprised by the result. But I think what is somewhat surprising is how much of an impact it has on the outcome,” senior study author Thomas Pilgrim, MD, Inselspital, University of Bern, Switzerland, told this news organization.

The VARC-3 document, introduced last year to some controversy, features a heavier focus on patient outcomes, as well as composite safety and efficacy endpoints. The definition of technical success after TAVR includes freedom from death; successful access, delivery of the device, and retrieval of the delivery system; correct positioning of a prosthetic heart valve into the proper anatomical location; and freedom from surgery or intervention related to the device or to an access-related or cardiac structural complication.

The composite endpoint is meant to replace the VARC-2 definition of “device success,” which also included freedom from death and correct valve positioning but required echocardiographic evaluation. With VARC-3, there is an “immediate measure” of success without having to wait for echocardiography, observed Dr. Pilgrim.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Interventions, TAVR was a technical success in 1,435 of 1,624 (88.4%) patients. Technical failure occurred in 189 patients related to either vascular complications (8.6%) or procedural death or cardiac complications (3.0%).

The VARC-2 endpoint of device success was observed in 66.1% of patients. The high rate of device failure was largely attributed to a 28% incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch.

“If you use the VARC-2 device success [definition], you include this patient–prosthesis mismatch, the [valve] gradients, [and] regurgitation and then device success is always lower,” Dr. Pilgrim said.

Asked whether the VARC-3 definition may be missing case failures, he replied: “At this stage, we don’t know how important these echocardiographic parameters are for hard clinical endpoints. Maybe the VARC-2 endpoint was too sensitive or the VARC-3 endpoint is not sensitive enough. This is something we just don’t know at this stage.”

Marco Barbanti, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Rodolico Polyclinic University Hospital-San Marco, Catania, Italy, and author of an accompanying editorial, said VARC-3 represents a more accurate indicator of immediate success of the procedure.

“It’s a more pertinent definition according to what really has an impact on prognosis, and, according to the results of this paper, actually, the calibration of this new definition is quite good,” Dr. Barbanti said in an interview.

Patients with VARC-3 technical failure were older, had a higher body mass index, and had more advanced heart failure symptoms than those with technical success. There were no significant differences between the two groups in echocardiographic or CT data, anesthetic strategy, valve type or size, or use of pre- or post-dilation.

All patients underwent TAVR with current balloon-expandable (Sapien 3/Sapien Ultra, Edwards Lifesciences) or self-expanding (Evolut R/PRO [Medtronic], Portico [Abbott], Symetis ACURATE/ACURATE neo [Boston Scientific]) devices between March 2012 and December 2019. A transfemoral approach was used in 92.5% of patients.

In a landmark analysis with the landmark set at 30 days, the effect of technical failure on adverse outcome was limited to the first 30 days (composite endpoint 0-30 days: HR, 3.42; P < .001; 30-360 days: HR, 1.36; P = .266; P for interaction = .002).

At 1 year, the composite of CV death and stroke endpoint occurred in 24.1% of patients with cardiac technical failure, in 18.8% of patients with vascular technical failure, and in 10.3% of patients with technical success.

In multivariate analyses, cardiac and vascular technical failures were independently associated with a 2.6-fold and 1.9-fold increased risk, respectively, for the composite of cardiovascular death and stroke at 1 year.

Female sex, larger device landing zone calcium volume, and earlier procedures (March 2012 to July 2016) were associated with a higher risk for cardiac technical failure, whereas, consistent with previous studies, higher body mass index and use of the Prostar/Manta versus the ProGlide closure device predicted vascular technical failure.

The findings “underscore that technical success is highly clinically relevant and may serve as one of the pivotal endpoints to evaluate the improvement of TAVR or for head-to-head comparisons of new devices in future clinical trials,” the authors conclude.

The findings reflect the experience of a single high-volume center with highly experienced operators in the prospective BERN TAVR registry, however, and may not be generalizable to other heart centers, they note. Although the registry has standardized follow-up, independent analysis of echocardiographic and CT, and independent event adjudication, vascular anatomy was not systematically assessed, and the potential exists for confounding from unmeasured variables.

Dr. Pilgrim reports research grants to the institution from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik, personal fees from Biotronik and Boston Scientific, and other from HighLife SAS. Dr. Barbanti is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences and Boston Scientific.

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

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

“Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it,” the WHF said in the brief.

“The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease,” Monika Arora, PhD, member of the WHF advocacy committee and coauthor of the brief, said in a news release.

“These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product,” Dr. Arora added.

The WHF conclusions follow a report in the Lancet based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), which found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

In 2019, nearly 2.4 million deaths were attributed to alcohol, accounting for 4.3% of all deaths globally and 12.6% of deaths in men 15 to 49 years of age.

Even small amounts of alcohol have been shown to raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm, the WHF notes.

Studies that claim otherwise are largely based on purely observational research, which fails to account for relevant cofactors, the organization writes.

Based on their summary of the evidence to date, there is no reliable correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk for cardiovascular disease.

Alcohol use is also a “major avoidable risk factor” for cancer, digestive diseases, intentional and unintentional injuries, and several infectious diseases, the WHF says.

Alcohol use also has significant economic and social costs, which include costs to individuals and health systems, productivity losses, as well as the increased risk for violence, homelessness, and criminal activity.

The WHF policy brief calls for “urgent and decisive action” to tackle the unprecedented rise in alcohol-related death and disability worldwide.

Recommended actions include boosting restrictions on alcohol availability; advancing and enforcing drinking and driving countermeasures; increasing access to screening, brief interventions, and treatment for alcohol use disorder; enforcing bans on alcohol advertising; establishing a uniform minimum legal drinking age; and mandating health warnings on alcohol products.

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

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

“Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it,” the WHF said in the brief.

“The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease,” Monika Arora, PhD, member of the WHF advocacy committee and coauthor of the brief, said in a news release.

“These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product,” Dr. Arora added.

The WHF conclusions follow a report in the Lancet based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), which found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

In 2019, nearly 2.4 million deaths were attributed to alcohol, accounting for 4.3% of all deaths globally and 12.6% of deaths in men 15 to 49 years of age.

Even small amounts of alcohol have been shown to raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm, the WHF notes.

Studies that claim otherwise are largely based on purely observational research, which fails to account for relevant cofactors, the organization writes.

Based on their summary of the evidence to date, there is no reliable correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk for cardiovascular disease.

Alcohol use is also a “major avoidable risk factor” for cancer, digestive diseases, intentional and unintentional injuries, and several infectious diseases, the WHF says.

Alcohol use also has significant economic and social costs, which include costs to individuals and health systems, productivity losses, as well as the increased risk for violence, homelessness, and criminal activity.

The WHF policy brief calls for “urgent and decisive action” to tackle the unprecedented rise in alcohol-related death and disability worldwide.

Recommended actions include boosting restrictions on alcohol availability; advancing and enforcing drinking and driving countermeasures; increasing access to screening, brief interventions, and treatment for alcohol use disorder; enforcing bans on alcohol advertising; establishing a uniform minimum legal drinking age; and mandating health warnings on alcohol products.

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

The widely held notion that consuming small to moderate amounts of alcohol is good for cardiovascular health is not supported by the data, the World Heart Federation says in a new policy brief.

In fact, the evidence is clear that any level of drinking can contribute to loss of a healthy life, the organization says.

“Over the past several decades, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease has nearly doubled, and alcohol has played a major role in the incidence of much of it,” the WHF said in the brief.

“The portrayal of alcohol as necessary for a vibrant social life has diverted attention from the harms of alcohol use, as have the frequent and widely publicized claims that moderate drinking, such as a glass of red wine a day, can offer protection against cardiovascular disease,” Monika Arora, PhD, member of the WHF advocacy committee and coauthor of the brief, said in a news release.

“These claims are at best misinformed and at worst an attempt by the alcohol industry to mislead the public about the danger of their product,” Dr. Arora added.

The WHF conclusions follow a report in the Lancet based on the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD), which found that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.

In 2019, nearly 2.4 million deaths were attributed to alcohol, accounting for 4.3% of all deaths globally and 12.6% of deaths in men 15 to 49 years of age.

Even small amounts of alcohol have been shown to raise the risk for cardiovascular disease, including coronary disease, stroke, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and aneurysm, the WHF notes.

Studies that claim otherwise are largely based on purely observational research, which fails to account for relevant cofactors, the organization writes.

Based on their summary of the evidence to date, there is no reliable correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and a lower risk for cardiovascular disease.

Alcohol use is also a “major avoidable risk factor” for cancer, digestive diseases, intentional and unintentional injuries, and several infectious diseases, the WHF says.

Alcohol use also has significant economic and social costs, which include costs to individuals and health systems, productivity losses, as well as the increased risk for violence, homelessness, and criminal activity.

The WHF policy brief calls for “urgent and decisive action” to tackle the unprecedented rise in alcohol-related death and disability worldwide.

Recommended actions include boosting restrictions on alcohol availability; advancing and enforcing drinking and driving countermeasures; increasing access to screening, brief interventions, and treatment for alcohol use disorder; enforcing bans on alcohol advertising; establishing a uniform minimum legal drinking age; and mandating health warnings on alcohol products.

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

Medtronic has recalled 95,110 HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems because of the risk of the guidewire within the catheter moving downward or prolapsing during use, which may damage the tip of the catheter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy system is used during procedures intended to remove blockage from peripheral arteries and improve blood flow.

If the guideline moves downward or prolapses during use, the “catheter tip may break off or separate, and this could lead to serious adverse events, including a tear along the inside wall of an artery (arterial dissection), a rupture or breakage of an artery (arterial rupture), decrease in blood flow to a part of the body because of a blocked artery (ischemia), and/or blood vessel complications that could require surgical repair and additional procedures to capture and remove the detached and/or migrated (embolized) tip,” the FDA says in a recall notice posted today on its website.

To date, there have been 55 injuries, no deaths, and 163 complaints reported for this device.

The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Jan. 22, 2018 and Oct. 4, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.

Medtronic sent an urgent field safety notice to customers Dec. 6, 2021, requesting that they alert parties of the defect, review the instructions for use before using the device, and note the warnings and precautions listed in the letter.

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to [email protected].

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Medtronic has recalled 95,110 HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems because of the risk of the guidewire within the catheter moving downward or prolapsing during use, which may damage the tip of the catheter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy system is used during procedures intended to remove blockage from peripheral arteries and improve blood flow.

If the guideline moves downward or prolapses during use, the “catheter tip may break off or separate, and this could lead to serious adverse events, including a tear along the inside wall of an artery (arterial dissection), a rupture or breakage of an artery (arterial rupture), decrease in blood flow to a part of the body because of a blocked artery (ischemia), and/or blood vessel complications that could require surgical repair and additional procedures to capture and remove the detached and/or migrated (embolized) tip,” the FDA says in a recall notice posted today on its website.

To date, there have been 55 injuries, no deaths, and 163 complaints reported for this device.

The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Jan. 22, 2018 and Oct. 4, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.

Medtronic sent an urgent field safety notice to customers Dec. 6, 2021, requesting that they alert parties of the defect, review the instructions for use before using the device, and note the warnings and precautions listed in the letter.

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to [email protected].

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Medtronic has recalled 95,110 HawkOne Directional Atherectomy Systems because of the risk of the guidewire within the catheter moving downward or prolapsing during use, which may damage the tip of the catheter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a Class I recall, the most serious type, because of the potential for serious injury or death.

The HawkOne Directional Atherectomy system is used during procedures intended to remove blockage from peripheral arteries and improve blood flow.

If the guideline moves downward or prolapses during use, the “catheter tip may break off or separate, and this could lead to serious adverse events, including a tear along the inside wall of an artery (arterial dissection), a rupture or breakage of an artery (arterial rupture), decrease in blood flow to a part of the body because of a blocked artery (ischemia), and/or blood vessel complications that could require surgical repair and additional procedures to capture and remove the detached and/or migrated (embolized) tip,” the FDA says in a recall notice posted today on its website.

To date, there have been 55 injuries, no deaths, and 163 complaints reported for this device.

The recalled devices were distributed in the United States between Jan. 22, 2018 and Oct. 4, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers pertaining to the devices are listed on the FDA website.

Medtronic sent an urgent field safety notice to customers Dec. 6, 2021, requesting that they alert parties of the defect, review the instructions for use before using the device, and note the warnings and precautions listed in the letter.

Customers were also asked to complete the enclosed confirmation form and email to [email protected].

Health care providers can report adverse reactions or quality problems they experience using these devices to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

Patients who do not receive care for non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) within 24 hours have a substantially increased risk of mortality 3 years later when compared with those receiving earlier intervention, according to a population-based study evaluating more than 6,000 patients.

The characteristics of patients receiving NSTEMI care more than 24 hours after symptom onset were different from those treated earlier, but understanding these differences might provide clues for improved pathways to care, according to the investigators of this study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In a study of 6,544 NSTEMI patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, 1,827 (27%) were evaluated and treated 24 hours or more after symptom onset. When compared with the group with a shorter symptom-to-door time, outcomes at a median follow-up of 1,098 days were substantially worse.

Most importantly, this included a more than 50% absolute unadjusted increase in death from any cause (17.0% vs. 10.5%). On a 3-year adjusted multivariate hazard ratio, the increase was 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.56; P < .001)

The absolute relative increase in cardiac death was similar in the delayed treatment group (10.8% vs. 6.4%) with a 37% increase in the 3-year multivariate adjustment (HR, 1.37; 95% CI 1.14-1.65; P < .001).
 

Delay raises composite adverse outcome >50%

On a composite of events that included mortality, recurrent MI, or hospitalization for heart failure, the rates climbed from 15.7% in the group treated within 24 hours to 23.3% (P < .001) when treatment was delayed. Heart failure, which was not significantly increased when evaluated separately, was not a major contributor to adverse outcomes, but those with delayed treatment did have more recurrent MIs (5.3% vs. 3.7%; P = .02).

Among a long list of differences between groups, those with delayed care had higher rates of atypical chest pain (25.1% vs. 14.8%; P < .001) and dyspnea (32.6% vs. 23.4%; P < .001). Expressed in odds ratios, they were also significantly more likely to be female (OR, 1.23), be aged 75 years or older (OR, 1.44), have diabetes (OR, 1.31), and to arrive at the hospital without aid from emergency medical services (OR, 3.44).

NSTEMI patients with delayed symptom-to-door time were also less likely to have hypertension (54.8% vs. 59.1%; P < .001), chronic kidney disease (20.8% vs. 25.5%), or a family history of cardiovascular disease (4.7% vs. 7.4%; P < .001). They were more likely to have left main and multivessel disease (57.1% vs. 50.5%; P < .001).

The value of early treatment has already been demonstrated for STEMI, which is reflected in guidelines, most of which now emphasize minimizing the door-to-balloon angioplasty time in order to more rapidly restore perfusion, thereby preserving more functional cardiac tissue. This study suggests that benefit from early intervention is also true of NSTEMI.

Reducing prehospital delay in care “should be emphasized as a crucial factor that increases the risk of all-cause mortality in NSTEMI patients,” reported the authors, led by Jung-Joon Cha, MD, PhD, division of cardiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul.
 

Public health campaigns needed

When asked about the take-home message, Dr. Cha, along with the senior author, Tae Hoon Ahn, MD, PhD, contend that delays can be addressed by educating both the public and clinicians.

“We would like to emphasize the need for public health campaigns to make patients more aware of atypical symptoms,” Dr. Cha said in an interview.

Dr. Ahn also believes that there is not enough current emphasis within medical systems to recognize and urgently treat NSTEMI patients with a nontraditional profile.

“Atypical symptoms in NSTEMI patients may lead physicians to underestimate the disease severity,” according to Dr. Ahn, who participated in an interview on the significance of these results. He said that atypical symptoms should induce clinicians to exercise “more caution rather than to neglect them.”

For understanding the value of prompt care in NSTEMI patients, this is important information. However, the importance of the 24-hour threshold as a discriminator of long-term risk was questioned by José A. Barrabés, MD, PhD, head of the acute cardiac care unit, University Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona.

The cutoff in this study was 24 hours, but Dr. Barrabés in an accompanying editorial pointed out that the median delay in those with a symptom-to-door time of at least 24 hours was in fact 72.0 hours.
 

Intermediate delay effect unknown

“This time lag is unusual and reduces the generalizability of the results,” according to Dr. Barrabés. He suggested that the exceptional delay increases the likelihood that the characteristics of the patients, such as more comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status, might have played a role in the differences in outcomes.

Asked to elaborate, Dr. Barrabés explained that delays in treatment, such as antithrombotic therapy, are plausible explanations for the worse outcomes at 3 years, but it is unclear from this data whether the risk starts at a delay of 24 hours.

“It is certainly plausible that intermediate delays are also associated with a worse prognosis,” Dr. Barrabés said in an interview, but “the risk associated with an intermediate delay in symptom-to-door time cannot be quantified with the data collected in this study.”

Dr. Cha and coinvestigators reported no potential conflicts of interest for this study. Dr. Barrabés has financial relationship with AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Rovi.

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

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

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

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

BUENOS AIRES – The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) has demanded “urgent reconsideration” of the decision to downgrade the strength of the recommendation for revascularization or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery for multivessel disease in the new guideline on coronary artery revascularization, putting it in the same class as the recommendation for percutaneous coronary intervention, which has no apparent advantage over optimal medical therapy.

With the prevalence of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with multivessel disease, the contradiction between the evidence and the new recommendation “may affect the lives and survival of millions of patients worldwide and have a major socio-economic impact,” the association warned in a public letter.

In the 2011 guideline, CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease was given a class I recommendation, which means that it is considered useful and effective and should be performed in the majority of patients in most circumstances. But the new, much weaker class IIb recommendation suggests that the benefit only marginally exceeds the risk and that it should be used selectively and only after careful consideration.

“It is an incomprehensible rollercoaster drop in the recommendation level. We totally disagree. In the absence of evidence, a IIb level provides equal freedom to send a patient to surgery or not. And in patients who are not being sent to surgery, it could take years of survival before we can be sure that we are doing the right thing,” said LACES president Víctor Dayan, MD, PhD, from the cardiovascular center at the Hospital de Clínicas “Dr. Manuel Quintela”, which is part of the School of Medicine at the University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay.

The change in the recommendation for this indication “reflects new evidence showing no advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over medical therapy alone to improve survival in patients with three-vessel coronary disease with preserved left ventricular function and no left main disease,” according to the authors of the guideline, issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI). In particular, they cite the 2019 ISCHEMIA clinical study that failed to show that an early invasive strategy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with optimal medical therapy and a handful of meta-analyses.

However, ISCHEMIA did not discriminate between the two types of invasive strategy – CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – so cannot be considered as a basis to downgrade the CABG recommendation, Dr. Dayan explained.

“Furthermore, the authors neglected previous RCTs that have shown the survival benefit of CABG in these patients and decided to put PCI in the same [class of recommendation], although no RCT has been able to show any survival advantage of PCI compared to optimal medical treatment,” the LACES letter states.

Basis should be evidence, ‘not inferences’

Three large randomized clinical trials and a 1994 meta-analysis with individual patient data from seven studies firmly established that survival is better with CABG than with medical treatment, the letter continues. However, the guideline authors did not provide any additional randomized clinical trials that refute this evidence.

“Furthermore, the committee disregarded data from the Ten-Year Follow-up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) randomized control[led] trial, which showed a lower incidence of cardiac mortality (as part of its secondary outcomes) following CABG compared to optimal medical therapy and PCI,” the letter explains.

The guideline authors might have judged current optimal medical therapy to be better than what existed 10, 15, or 30 years ago, diluting the relative benefits of surgery, but the “recommendation in a guideline must act on evidence, not inferences. And there is no evidence to support this drop in recommendation class,” Dr. Dayan said.

Other experts have drawn attention to the fact that two surgical societies – the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AAST) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) – did not endorse the final document, despite having participated in its review, reported this news organization.

“This is a very disappointing update that will negatively affect the lives of many people,” tweeted Marc Pelletier, MD, head of cardiac surgery at University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Contradictions in the text that examines the evidence and the final recommendations, are “unclear” and “open to various interpretations, when they should be a pillar for decisionmaking,” said Javier Ferrari Ayarragaray, MD, president of the Argentine College of Cardiovascular Surgeons (CACCV) and vice president of LACES.

The new guidelines “show no additional randomized controlled trial to support this downgrade in the level of evidence,” according to a recent CACCV statement. “The inclusion, approval and endorsement of this type of [recommendation,] including [other] international surgical scientific societies, such as STS, AATS, EACTS, LACES[,] is necessary to obtain a better understanding and agreement on the current evidence.”

In a Dec. 17, 2021 response to LACES, Patrick O’Gara, MD, who was chair of the ACC/AHA Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines at the time, and his successor, Joshua Beckman, MD, explained that both organizations approved the guideline for publication and support its authors “in their interpretation of the published evidence and findings.”

The pair pointed out that the drafting committee members, who have extensive clinical judgment and experience, deliberated extensively on the issue and that the change from a class I to a class IIb recommendation was “carefully considered after a review of the entire available and relevant evidence.”

“When we bring together multiple organizations to review and summarize the evidence, we work collaboratively to interpret the extensive catalog of published and peer-reviewed literature and create clinical practice recommendations,” said Thomas Getchius, director of guideline strategy and operations at the AHA.

“The final guideline reflects the latest evidence-based recommendations for coronary artery revascularization, as agreed upon by the ACC, AHA, SCAI, and the full drafting committee,” Mr. Getchius said.

Dr. Dayan and Dr. Ferrari Ayarragaray have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Mr. Getchius is an employee of the American Heart Association.

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