User login
CMS to broaden transcatheter mitral valve repair coverage, and change its name
The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.
The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.
(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)
The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.
The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.
Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.
Further specifications
Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.
“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”
The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.
The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.
In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.
“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.
“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.
The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.
The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”
“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”
Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.
CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.
Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.
The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.
(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)
The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.
The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.
Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.
Further specifications
Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.
“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”
The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.
The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.
In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.
“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.
“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.
The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.
The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”
“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”
Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.
CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.
Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first order of business in the long-awaited, recently released Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed national coverage decision (NCD) for transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR) was to get rid of its familiar moniker.
The document tosses the term TMVR in favor of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) “to more precisely define the treatment addressed in this NCD” and differentiate it from other therapies that repair or replace the mitral valve.
(In an off-the-cuff Twitter poll launched right after the CMS document’s release, 80.3% of respondents answered that they “hate” the new acronym and the remainder said they “love” it; those two were the poll’s only choices.)
The NCD proposal goes on to say that CMS coverage of TEER would expand to include treatment of symptomatic moderate-to-severe or severe functional mitral regurgitation (MR) when used with maximally tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy.
The proposed NCD has been expected since March 2019 when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular) for secondary functional MR. Medicare has covered MitraClip for primary degenerative MR since 2014.
Abbott announced in October 2019 that it would ramp up production of the MitraClip, which is currently the only FDA-approved TEER device.
Further specifications
Even as the new proposed NCD would add CMS coverage for functional MR, it would also decline a coverage statement for degenerative MR. Instead, it proposes to leave such coverage decisions to local Medical Administrative Contractors (MACs), given a relatively low incidence of clip intervention for degenerative MR. Less than 1% of the Medicare population undergo TEER of the mitral valve for that indication, the document says.
“The MACs are structured to be able to take into account local patient, physician, and institutional factors, which are especially important when overall prevalence is very low.”
The proposal also emphasizes that patients undergoing such covered TEER procedures be “under the care of a heart failure physician specialist experienced in the care and treatment of mitral valve disease,» with additional care provided by a heart team that includes a cardiac surgeon, interventional cardiologist, interventional echocardiographer.
The new document is generally consistent with a Consensus Statement from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons published in December 2019 and covered then by theheart.org / Medscape Cardiology.
In anticipation the CMS coverage proposal, the ACC earlier this year published a Focused Update of the 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation to reflect new evidence in the field, mainly the recent clinical trial data on functional MR from the MITRA-FR and COAPT trials.
“The proposed criteria are nicely guided by the multisociety consensus document, which sought to foster optimal patient outcomes while also maintaining access to TEER,” Sammy Elmariah, MD, MPH, from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, commented by email.
“These criteria, in conjunction with results of the COAPT trial, establish TEER as the standard of care for patients with symptomatic functional MR despite guideline-directed medical therapy who do not possess an alternative indication for cardiac surgery,” said Elmariah, a coauthor on both the Consensus Statement and the Focused Update.
The proposed NCD seems “reasonable,” cardiothoracic surgeon Michael J. Reardon, MD, Houston Methodist Hospital, said by email. But he thought there might be some objections to the requirement for TEER centers to have a surgery program with a minimum annual volume for mitral-valve surgeries.
The proposed NCD says a hospital must have “a surgical program that performs ≥25 total mitral valve surgical procedures for severe MR per year, of which at least 10 must be mitral valve repairs.”
“There is a very definite relationship between mitral valve surgery volume and surgical outcomes and between TEER volume and TEER outcomes, but no real relationship between mitral valve surgery volumes and TEER outcomes,” Reardon said. “A mitral valve surgery program is important, but how many cases do you need to be able to start and run a TEER program?”
Edwards Lifesciences is currently testing its own device for TEER: the PASCAL transcatheter mitral valve repair system. Early findings from the company’s ongoing CLASP IID trial, a head-to-head comparison of Pascal and MitraClip, are expected in December 2023.
CMS is seeking comments on the proposed national coverage determination, and will render a final decision within 60 days of the end of the 30-day public comment period.
Elmariah discloses receiving research grants from the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health, Edwards Lifesciences, Svelte Medical, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca. Reardon recently reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Primary prevention statins cut mortality even in the very elderly: VHA study
Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.
Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.
The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.
“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.
Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.
Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.
The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”
Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.
Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.
Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.
“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.
But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.
Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.
The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.
Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.
“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”
There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.
However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”
Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.
Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.
The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.
“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.
Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.
Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.
The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”
Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.
Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.
Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.
“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.
But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.
Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.
The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.
Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.
“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”
There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.
However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”
Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system 75 years or older, free of cardiovascular (CV) disease and prescribed statins for the first time, had a one-fourth lower risk for death and a 20% lower risk for CV death over an average 7 years than that of comparable patients not prescribed the drugs in an observational study.
Ariela R. Orkaby, MD, MPH, lead author on the study, published in the July 7 issue of JAMA, said in an interview.
The very elderly are frequently undertreated, particularly in primary prevention, as many physicians consider it unnecessary for them to initiate or continue preventive measures, said Dr. Orkaby, of VA Boston Healthcare System and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“From available data, we don’t really expect statins to start providing benefit in primary prevention until they’ve been taken for about 2 to 5 years. So for people who have very limited life expectancy, it may not be a great idea to add to their pill burden or increase the possibility that they might decline functionally,” Dr. Orkaby said.
“But what we saw in this study is that there is benefit to prescribing statins even in elderly patients, even within 2 years” of follow-up.
Despite being among the most studied drugs in the world, statins are understudied in older people. Fewer than 2% of the 186,854 participants in 28 statin trials were aged 75 years or older, wrote Dr. Orkaby and associates.
Most of what is known about initiating statin therapy in the 75-and-older age group comes from underpowered subgroup analyses and a few observational studies, Steven J. Nicholls, MBBS, PhD, Monash University, Melbourne, and Adam J. Nelson, MBBS, PhD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial. As a result, the evidence is conflicting, with some reports suggesting marked benefit and others possible harm.
The current findings, they wrote, “provide additional support for treatment guidelines that have increasingly advocated for more widespread use of statin therapy for ASCVD prevention in older individuals.”
Of the 326,981 people in the analysis, 57,178 (17.5%) were new statin users or initiated a statin during the study period, usually simvastatin. Their mean age was about 81 years, and 97.3% of the patients were men, 90% were white, and 72% were former smokers.
Using propensity scoring, the authors compared statin users with the other remaining patients who had the same likelihood of being prescribed a statin based on clinical characteristics but did not receive a prescription for a statin.
Michael W. Rich, MD, Washington University, St. Louis, who was not involved in the study but has previously worked with Dr. Orkaby, praised the analysis.
“It’s one of the best studies I’ve seen addressing this particular issue. It’s a large sample size, the analysis was very well done, and I think that it comes to a pretty unequivocal conclusion that, at least in this population, those individuals who were started on statins for the first time, and having no known prior ASCVD, clearly had a lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, as well as a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events,” he said in an interview.
But the data have limitations, he added. The findings are still observational and could be confounded by unknown variables, and the select population – mostly white, male veterans – is known to be at somewhat higher risk for events than the general population.
Perhaps even more impressive than the risk reductions seen at a mean 6.8 years of follow-up, Dr. Rich said, are the sensitivity analyses at 2, 4, and 6 years that showed the benefit manifesting early.
The researchers saw a 32% reduction in all-cause mortality risk (P < .05) at 2 years, 21% at 4 years, and 13% at 6 years (P < .05 for all). Risk reductions for CV death followed a similar pattern, they wrote.
Dr. Rich said that the trial, although not a “slam dunk,” has persuaded him to shift from being very conservative about prescribing statins to elderly patients to being much more willing to consider it.
“This doesn’t mean that I will be running to routinely prescribe my 90-plus patients a statin, nor should we should be starting statins in everyone over 75, not even in all male former smokers over 75 – the type of people in this study – but I do think that it provides a stronger basis for talking to these patients about the possibility of starting a statin.”
There are two ongoing trials that may provide greater clarity, the authors observed. The STAREE trial has enrolled adults 70 years and older in Australia and includes serial evaluation of cognitive scores. Also, PREVENTABLE will examine the role of statins for prevention of dementia and disability-free survival in adults 75 years and older.
However, neither trial may fully resolve the question of primary prevention statin use in the elderly, they wrote. “While these trials are necessary to broaden the evidence base for older adults, it is unlikely that any trial will enroll large numbers of individuals at very advanced ages, black individuals, and those with dementia, as were included in this study.”
Dr. Orkaby had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Rich reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Nicholls disclosed receiving research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Cerenis, The Medicines Company, Resverlogix, InfraReDx, Roche, Sanofi-Regeneron, and LipoScience; and receiving consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Anthera, Omthera, Merck, Takeda, Resverlogix, Sanofi-Regeneron, CSL Behring, Esperion, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Nelson had no disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
VA readmissions program not linked to increased death
with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.
Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.
“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.
The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).
“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.
Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.
Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.
“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.
Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.
In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.
In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.
“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.
In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.
“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.
“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.
“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.
“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”
Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.
Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.
“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.
The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).
“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.
Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.
Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.
“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.
Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.
In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.
In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.
“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.
In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.
“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.
“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.
“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.
“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”
Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.
Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.
“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.
The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).
“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.
Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.
Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.
“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.
Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.
In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.
In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.
“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.
In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.
“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.
“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.
Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.
“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.
“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”
Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Renal denervation response similar regardless of CV risks, comorbidities
In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.
At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).
“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.
“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.
As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.
Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
Analyses limited by incomplete data
Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.
“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”
Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).
Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.
“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.
“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.
On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.
“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.
Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.
No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.
In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.
SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.
Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.
SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.
This article was updated 6/16/20.
In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.
At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).
“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.
“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.
As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.
Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
Analyses limited by incomplete data
Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.
“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”
Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).
Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.
“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.
“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.
On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.
“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.
Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.
No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.
In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.
SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.
Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.
SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.
This article was updated 6/16/20.
In a new analysis of international registry data, renal denervation resulted in similar reduced blood pressure levels in patients with varying high-risk comorbidities and across a range of cardiovascular risk scores.
At 3 years, 24-hour systolic BP was reduced by an average of –8.9 mm Hg overall, with slightly higher or lower readings seen in those with higher cardiovascular risk scores (–10.4 mm Hg) and 65 years or older (–10.2 mm Hg). Similar reductions were seen in those with resistant hypertension (–8.7 mm Hg), diabetes (–8.6 mm Hg), isolated systolic hypertension (–10.1 mm Hg), chronic kidney disease (–10.1 mm Hg), or atrial fibrillation (–10.0 mm Hg).
“In the largest international registry of its kind, the efficacy of renal denervation was similar in patients with and without baseline conditions associated with increased sympathetic activity and irrespective of ASCVD [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] risk,” first author Felix Mahfoud, MD, said in an interview.
Dr. Mahfoud, from University Hospital of Saarland, Homburg, Germany, and colleagues published their analysis in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The article reported a post hoc analysis of data from the Global SYMPLICITY Registry (GSR), an international, Medtronic-funded effort that includes 2,652 patients with uncontrolled hypertension treated with a Symplicity denervation system. Data were obtained from 196 centers in 45 countries.
“Blood pressure reductions were durable and sustained to 3 years and the rates of new-onset, end-stage renal disease and elevation in serum creatinine levels were very low in patients at high and low [cardiovascular] risk,” reported Dr. Mahfoud.
As expected, adverse event rates were higher for patients with higher baseline cardiovascular risk. “Elevated rates were also seen in patients with [atrial fibrillation] and diabetes, identifying these subgroups who might derive even greater clinical benefit from improved BP control using renal denervation,” said Dr. Mahfoud.
Asked which patients might be optimal candidates for renal denervation, Dr. Mahfoud recommended the technology for “patients with uncontrolled hypertension on medication, patients with nonadherence, unwillingness, or intolerability to medication, and patients with combined systolic and diastolic hypertension.”
Analyses limited by incomplete data
Stephen C. Textor, MD, has concerns over the amount of missing data in the GSR database and its continued use as a repository of information on renal denervation.
“I am a bit lukewarm on this paper in part because of the nature of the registry data they’re using,” he added in an interview. “The problem I see is that the registry is not terribly uniform as to what information they collect on each patient, not terribly uniform in terms of how the procedure is performed, and not terribly uniform on how they follow up patients.”
Indeed, the post hoc subgroup analyses represent only a limited subset because of incomplete data, added Dr. Textor, a nephrologist at the Cleveland Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
“Remarkably, only 504 [patients] had “matched” data for office [systolic BP] levels at the time points defined in the report,” he wrote in an editorial comment accompanying the registry report (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jun 16;75[23]:2889-91).
Similarly, the researchers were able to calculate baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk scores in only 1,485 patients (56% of total), primarily because of missing cholesterol measurements.
“They simply did these paired comparison that may have included a couple hundred cases, and on average, there were no differences in response, but what I would have liked to see is a multivariate analysis, where you have all the data on everybody and look at what are the factors that impact response?” Dr. Textor said in the interview.
“They really couldn’t do that because they just, they’re just too many holes in the data,” he added.
On the bright side, Dr. Textor noted that, while the impact overall on systolic BP was “modest,” the standard deviations in some cases were large, indicating that some people had large reductions of systolic BP of more than 30-40 mm Hg.
“There is a belief out there that there are some people that really benefit from this, but how to identify them has been the question,” Dr. Textor said.
Enthusiasm for renal denervation plummeted after results from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 showed the procedure failing to meet its efficacy endpoint in resistant hypertension. The procedure was associated with a 14–mm Hg fall in systolic BP, compared with an 11–mm Hg drop in the “sham” control group (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370:1393-401). However, post hoc analysis of the trial revealed significant shortcomings in design and execution.
No renal denervation device is approved in the United States. The Symplicity device used in this registry is approved in the European Union.
In early 2020, the Food and Drug Administration promised a rigorous review of new renal denervation trials. Subsequently, primary results from the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED pivotal trial were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in March and showed promising efficacy.
SPYRAL HTN OFF-MED was designed in collaboration with the FDA to obtain meaningful evidence of whether renal denervation performed with the Symplicity Spyral multielectrode catheter (Medtronic Vascular) could reduce BP in patients not taking antihypertensive medication.
Dr. Mahfoud reported he has received speaking honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor. Two other authors are employees of Medtronic. Dr. Textor reported no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper. The Global SYMPLICITY Registry is funded by Medtronic Vascular.
SOURCE: Mahfoud F et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 June 16;75:2879-88.
This article was updated 6/16/20.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Framingham risk score may also predict cognitive decline
“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.
“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”
Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition
The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).
Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.
A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.
Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.
At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.
Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.
The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.
Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early
Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.
“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.
“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”
Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.
Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.
Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.
Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.
The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.
Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.
Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.
This article appeared on Medscape.com.
“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.
“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”
Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition
The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).
Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.
A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.
Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.
At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.
Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.
The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.
Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early
Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.
“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.
“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”
Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.
Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.
Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.
Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.
The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.
Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.
Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.
This article appeared on Medscape.com.
“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.
“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”
Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition
The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).
Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.
A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.
Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.
At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.
Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.
The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.
Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early
Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.
“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.
“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”
Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.
Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.
Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.
Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.
The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.
Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.
Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.
This article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Repeat TAVR outcomes ‘reassuring’
Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.
“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.
Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).
From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.
“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.
In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.
For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).
Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).
No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.
At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (320 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.
Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.
Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.
“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.
“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.
Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.
That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.
On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.
“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.
Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.
“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.
Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.
“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.
Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).
From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.
“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.
In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.
For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).
Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).
No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.
At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (320 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.
Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.
Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.
“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.
“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.
Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.
That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.
On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.
“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.
Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.
“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.
Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reasonably safe and effective option for selected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR, new registry data suggest.
“Redo TAVR is about to become a much more common procedure and it’s reassuring to see that the outcomes that can be achieved by these procedures are quite good,” said Uri Landes, MD, Vancouver General Hospital, British Columbia, Canada.
Landes and colleagues reported results from the Redo-TAVR Registry in the April 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The Redo-TAVR Registry is an investigator-initiated effort designed to collect information on patients who undergo a second TAVR within a dysfunctional transcatheter heart valve (THV).
From 63,876 TAVR procedures done at 37 participating centers, 212 (0.33%) were redo-TAVR procedures. Seventy-four of the redo procedures were done within 1 year of the initial TAVR and the remaining 138 were beyond 1 year. Median time from TAVR-to-redo-TAVR for these two groups was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years, respectively.
“It’s important to understand that this is probably a highly selected group of patients and these numbers do no reliably reflect the ratio of patients who will need a redo TAVR,” said Landes in an interview with theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We don’t know how many patients were excluded from redo TAVR because of prohibitive anatomical factors, such as an anticipated high risk for coronary occlusion, or a patient prosthesis mismatch. Also, some of these individuals received their THVs more recently, so if they will suffer THV valve dysfunction, it may not have happened yet,” he added.
In the early redo group, the indication for redo-TAVR was most often combined aortic THV stenosis and regurgitation (83.8%). Pure THV stenosis was seen in only 16.2% of patients.
For those with redo procedures after 1 year, THV stenosis was seen in 51 (37.0%) patients and regurgitation or combined stenosis-regurgitation in 86 (62.3%).
Device success using VARC-2 criteria was achieved in 85.1%, with no difference seen between those presenting within or beyond 1 year. Most failures were attributable to high residual gradients (14.1%) or regurgitation (8.9%).
No significant difference was seen in 30-day (94.6% and 98.5%) and 1-year survival (83.6% and 88.3%) in patients who presented within 1 year or later.
At 30-day and 1-year follow-up, residual gradients were 12.6 ± 7.5 mm Hg and 12.9 ± 9.0 mm Hg, respectively. High residual gradients (320 mm Hg) were seen in about 14% of patients.
Aortic valve areas were 1.63 ± 0.61 cm2 at 30 days and 1.51 ± 0.57 cm2 at 1 year. Regurgitation was mild or less in 91% of patients at both time points.
Periprocedural complication rates were relatively low. There were three strokes (1.4%), one valve malposition (3.3%), two coronary obstructions (0.9%), and 20 new permanent pacemaker implants (9.6%). Importantly, no procedure-related mortality was seen, only one patient converted to open heart surgery, and symptomatic improvements were substantial.
“We are currently working on an analysis that compares TAVI-in-TAVI versus TAVI in surgical valves, and we are happy to see that it appears as if TAVI-in-TAVI outcomes don’t fall short,” said Landes. More analysis is also needed to see if perhaps some THVs work better or worse for redo procedures.
“We also want to understand which of the many combinations of heart valves available are better than others, thinking that supra-annular leaflets inside intra-annular leaflet devices may function differently than vice versa,” said Landes.
Vinod Thourani, MD, chief of cardiovascular surgery at Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, considers these new observational data “reassuring” and “robust,” albeit with some limitations. He was first author on an editorial comment on this paper and spoke to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“This is unadjudicated registry data but you can’t lie about death and I feel good seeing that if you need a second TAVR inside of a TAVR, your mortality risk is pretty good,” said Thourani.
That said, he questions whether these data can really be extrapolated to lower-risk patients. “I think this is an early snapshot and it’s a relatively big sample, but it’s a selected sample and we don’t know how many patients needed redo TAVR and didn’t get it or didn’t want it,” he added.
On the comforting side, there has been ongoing concern that a redo procedure that involves “propping open” a degenerated TAVR prosthesis’s leaflets with a new TAVR valve may occlude the coronary ostium by closing the flow within the open cells.
“Luckily, the investigators show an extremely low risk of coronary obstruction of only 0.9% in an anatomically high-risk patient population,” he said. This incidence, however, may increase as the use of TAVR rises in younger and less risky patients, he added.
Thourani would also like to see a longer follow-up on these patients. Median follow-up post redo TAVR was 15 months in this analysis.
“What I think we need to concentrate on as we do these studies is the life-long management of aortic stenosis wherein we try to minimize the overall number of invasive procedures as much as we can,” said Thourani.
Landes reported no conflict of interest. Thourani reported he is an advisor and/or researcher for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New guidance on management of acute CVD during COVID-19
The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.
Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.
- The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
- Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
- At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.
“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.
In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.
Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously
In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.
After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.
At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.
The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”
For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.
In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.
Intervene with caution
Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.
Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.
“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.
Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.
Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.
In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”
If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.
Establish plans now
“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.
Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”
Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”
One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.
“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.
Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.
- The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
- Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
- At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.
“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.
In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.
Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously
In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.
After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.
At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.
The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”
For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.
In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.
Intervene with caution
Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.
Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.
“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.
Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.
Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.
In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”
If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.
Establish plans now
“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.
Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”
Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”
One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.
“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.
Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.
- The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
- Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
- At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.
“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.
In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.
Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously
In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.
After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.
At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.
The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”
For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.
In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.
Intervene with caution
Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.
Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.
“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.
Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.
Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.
In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”
If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.
Establish plans now
“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.
Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”
Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”
One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.
“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Most transgender teens not willing to delay hormone therapy to preserve fertility
TORONTO – The majority of transgender youth attending a pediatric gender clinic were not willing to delay starting hormone therapy in order to pursue fertility preservation, according to a survey study presented during a poster session at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Five percent of 66 young people and 33% of 52 parents surveyed during a visit to a hospital-based gender clinic agreed with the statement: “I would choose to delay hormone therapy to undergo fertility preservation (for my child) if asked today.”
Further, 70% of youth agreed that discomfort with a part of the body they don’t identify with was a factor that influenced their decision or thoughts about fertility preservation. Religious, financial, ethical, and demographic factors were not associated with willingness to delay treatment for fertility concerns.
“While hormone therapy has drastically improved the lives of countless transgender and gender nonconforming youth, its impact on fertility can unfairly force individuals to decide at a very early age whether or not they should preserve the ability to be a biological parent one day,” Rebecca Persky, MD, said in a press release. Dr. Persky, a former Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) resident, is now is a pediatric endocrinology fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A slightly greater proportion of youth (20%) and 12% of parents agreed it was important to have biological children or grandchildren. For those youth who did want to preserve the option of having biological children, that desire was associated with perceiving it as important to their parents (odds ratio, 6.07; P less than .05).
“We didn’t ask any questions about adoption of children or grandchildren, so that might have yielded different results if we had,” Dr. Persky acknowledged in an interview.
A lack of information about whether hormone therapy definitely prevents biologic fertility was associated with parents’ willingness to delay treatment for fertility preservation (OR: 24.57, P less than .05), yet 62% of parents said they felt their children were able to “make a meaningful decision about taking steps to preserve fertility at this point in (his/her/their) life.”
“I thought delaying treatment would be one of the biggest barriers, but even when we asked them if they wanted to preserve their fertility while not delaying or changing their hormone therapy, only the minority [33%] said they would be interested in that,” Dr. Persky said in an interview. “It kind of argues that a lot of these kids just don’t want to have biological children.”
She noted, however, that one limitation of the study was that many of the children surveyed already were receiving hormone therapy such that the questions engaged more on a theoretical level than a practical one.
“Not surprisingly, the strongest factor in the parents’ decisions was whether or not it was important to their child to have biological children,” said Dr. Persky.
The researchers surveyed 66 transgender and gender nonconforming youth who presented for care at the Gender and Sexuality Development Clinic at CHOP. After the findings were released, it was noted by several concerned parties on Twitter that because of the location of the study, the sample was a decidedly selected one.
The mean age was 17 years of patients and 63% of the sample were assigned female sex at birth. The mean age in the 52 parents surveyed was 48 years. The survey included 36 items on knowledge of fertility preservation, the desire to have biological children, and other factors that may affect the decision to pursue fertility preservation.
Gender-specific and age-specific analyses have not been completed, but are in the works, said Dr. Persky, who acknowledged that the area requires more qualitative research.
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
TORONTO – The majority of transgender youth attending a pediatric gender clinic were not willing to delay starting hormone therapy in order to pursue fertility preservation, according to a survey study presented during a poster session at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Five percent of 66 young people and 33% of 52 parents surveyed during a visit to a hospital-based gender clinic agreed with the statement: “I would choose to delay hormone therapy to undergo fertility preservation (for my child) if asked today.”
Further, 70% of youth agreed that discomfort with a part of the body they don’t identify with was a factor that influenced their decision or thoughts about fertility preservation. Religious, financial, ethical, and demographic factors were not associated with willingness to delay treatment for fertility concerns.
“While hormone therapy has drastically improved the lives of countless transgender and gender nonconforming youth, its impact on fertility can unfairly force individuals to decide at a very early age whether or not they should preserve the ability to be a biological parent one day,” Rebecca Persky, MD, said in a press release. Dr. Persky, a former Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) resident, is now is a pediatric endocrinology fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A slightly greater proportion of youth (20%) and 12% of parents agreed it was important to have biological children or grandchildren. For those youth who did want to preserve the option of having biological children, that desire was associated with perceiving it as important to their parents (odds ratio, 6.07; P less than .05).
“We didn’t ask any questions about adoption of children or grandchildren, so that might have yielded different results if we had,” Dr. Persky acknowledged in an interview.
A lack of information about whether hormone therapy definitely prevents biologic fertility was associated with parents’ willingness to delay treatment for fertility preservation (OR: 24.57, P less than .05), yet 62% of parents said they felt their children were able to “make a meaningful decision about taking steps to preserve fertility at this point in (his/her/their) life.”
“I thought delaying treatment would be one of the biggest barriers, but even when we asked them if they wanted to preserve their fertility while not delaying or changing their hormone therapy, only the minority [33%] said they would be interested in that,” Dr. Persky said in an interview. “It kind of argues that a lot of these kids just don’t want to have biological children.”
She noted, however, that one limitation of the study was that many of the children surveyed already were receiving hormone therapy such that the questions engaged more on a theoretical level than a practical one.
“Not surprisingly, the strongest factor in the parents’ decisions was whether or not it was important to their child to have biological children,” said Dr. Persky.
The researchers surveyed 66 transgender and gender nonconforming youth who presented for care at the Gender and Sexuality Development Clinic at CHOP. After the findings were released, it was noted by several concerned parties on Twitter that because of the location of the study, the sample was a decidedly selected one.
The mean age was 17 years of patients and 63% of the sample were assigned female sex at birth. The mean age in the 52 parents surveyed was 48 years. The survey included 36 items on knowledge of fertility preservation, the desire to have biological children, and other factors that may affect the decision to pursue fertility preservation.
Gender-specific and age-specific analyses have not been completed, but are in the works, said Dr. Persky, who acknowledged that the area requires more qualitative research.
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
TORONTO – The majority of transgender youth attending a pediatric gender clinic were not willing to delay starting hormone therapy in order to pursue fertility preservation, according to a survey study presented during a poster session at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
Five percent of 66 young people and 33% of 52 parents surveyed during a visit to a hospital-based gender clinic agreed with the statement: “I would choose to delay hormone therapy to undergo fertility preservation (for my child) if asked today.”
Further, 70% of youth agreed that discomfort with a part of the body they don’t identify with was a factor that influenced their decision or thoughts about fertility preservation. Religious, financial, ethical, and demographic factors were not associated with willingness to delay treatment for fertility concerns.
“While hormone therapy has drastically improved the lives of countless transgender and gender nonconforming youth, its impact on fertility can unfairly force individuals to decide at a very early age whether or not they should preserve the ability to be a biological parent one day,” Rebecca Persky, MD, said in a press release. Dr. Persky, a former Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) resident, is now is a pediatric endocrinology fellow at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A slightly greater proportion of youth (20%) and 12% of parents agreed it was important to have biological children or grandchildren. For those youth who did want to preserve the option of having biological children, that desire was associated with perceiving it as important to their parents (odds ratio, 6.07; P less than .05).
“We didn’t ask any questions about adoption of children or grandchildren, so that might have yielded different results if we had,” Dr. Persky acknowledged in an interview.
A lack of information about whether hormone therapy definitely prevents biologic fertility was associated with parents’ willingness to delay treatment for fertility preservation (OR: 24.57, P less than .05), yet 62% of parents said they felt their children were able to “make a meaningful decision about taking steps to preserve fertility at this point in (his/her/their) life.”
“I thought delaying treatment would be one of the biggest barriers, but even when we asked them if they wanted to preserve their fertility while not delaying or changing their hormone therapy, only the minority [33%] said they would be interested in that,” Dr. Persky said in an interview. “It kind of argues that a lot of these kids just don’t want to have biological children.”
She noted, however, that one limitation of the study was that many of the children surveyed already were receiving hormone therapy such that the questions engaged more on a theoretical level than a practical one.
“Not surprisingly, the strongest factor in the parents’ decisions was whether or not it was important to their child to have biological children,” said Dr. Persky.
The researchers surveyed 66 transgender and gender nonconforming youth who presented for care at the Gender and Sexuality Development Clinic at CHOP. After the findings were released, it was noted by several concerned parties on Twitter that because of the location of the study, the sample was a decidedly selected one.
The mean age was 17 years of patients and 63% of the sample were assigned female sex at birth. The mean age in the 52 parents surveyed was 48 years. The survey included 36 items on knowledge of fertility preservation, the desire to have biological children, and other factors that may affect the decision to pursue fertility preservation.
Gender-specific and age-specific analyses have not been completed, but are in the works, said Dr. Persky, who acknowledged that the area requires more qualitative research.
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
REPORTING FROM PAS 18
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Five percent of youth and 33% of parents were willing to delay hormone therapy to undergo fertility preservation.
Study details: Survey study of 66 young people attending a pediatric gender and sexuality clinic and 52 parents of those individuals.
Disclosures: The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
More testing of febrile infants at teaching vs. community hospitals, but similar outcomes
TORONTO – according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
“The community hospitals are doing less procedures on the infants, but with basically the exact same outcomes,” said Beth C. Natt, MD, MPH, director of pediatric hospital medicine at Bridgeport (Conn.) Hospital.
Babies who presented to university-affiliated hospitals were more likely to be hospitalized (70% vs. 67%; P = .001) than were those at community hospitals, but had a similar likelihood of being diagnosed with bacteremia, meningitis, or urinary tract infection. The rates of missed bacterial infection were 0.8% for teaching hospitals and 1% for community hospitals (P = .346).
“There is some thought that in community settings, because we’re not completing the workup in the standard, protocolized way seen at teaching hospitals, we might be doing wrong by the children, but these data show we’re actually doing just fine,” Dr. Natt said in an interview.
She and her colleagues reviewed 9,884 febrile infant evaluations occurring at 132 hospitals participating in the Reducing Excessive Variation in the Infant Sepsis Evaluation (REVISE) quality improvement project. Two-thirds of the infants (n = 6,479) were evaluated across 78 university-affiliated hospitals and 3,405 (or 34%) were seen at 54 community hospitals. Hospital status was self-reported.
The teaching hospitals more often had at least one pediatric emergency medicine provider, compared with community hospitals (90% vs. 57%; P = .001) and were more likely to see babies between 7 and 30 days old (90% vs. 57%; P = .001). They also were more likely to obtain urine cultures (92% vs. 88%; P = 0.001), blood cultures (84% vs. 80%; P = .001), and cerebral spinal fluid cultures (62% vs. 57%; P = .001).
On the other hand, community hospitals were significantly more likely to see children presenting with respiratory symptoms (39% vs. 36% for teaching hospitals; P = .014), and were more likely to order chest x-rays on febrile infants (32% vs. 24% for university-affiliated hospitals; P = .001).
“As a community hospitalist, the results weren’t that surprising to me,” said Dr. Natt. “If anything was surprising it was how often we were doing chest x-rays, but I think that had to do with the fact that we had more children with respiratory symptoms coming to community hospitals.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for fever were written last in 1993, when I was in high school, so they are very due to be revised,” said Dr. Natt. “I suspect the new guidelines will have us doing fewer spinal taps in children and more watchful waiting.”
TORONTO – according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
“The community hospitals are doing less procedures on the infants, but with basically the exact same outcomes,” said Beth C. Natt, MD, MPH, director of pediatric hospital medicine at Bridgeport (Conn.) Hospital.
Babies who presented to university-affiliated hospitals were more likely to be hospitalized (70% vs. 67%; P = .001) than were those at community hospitals, but had a similar likelihood of being diagnosed with bacteremia, meningitis, or urinary tract infection. The rates of missed bacterial infection were 0.8% for teaching hospitals and 1% for community hospitals (P = .346).
“There is some thought that in community settings, because we’re not completing the workup in the standard, protocolized way seen at teaching hospitals, we might be doing wrong by the children, but these data show we’re actually doing just fine,” Dr. Natt said in an interview.
She and her colleagues reviewed 9,884 febrile infant evaluations occurring at 132 hospitals participating in the Reducing Excessive Variation in the Infant Sepsis Evaluation (REVISE) quality improvement project. Two-thirds of the infants (n = 6,479) were evaluated across 78 university-affiliated hospitals and 3,405 (or 34%) were seen at 54 community hospitals. Hospital status was self-reported.
The teaching hospitals more often had at least one pediatric emergency medicine provider, compared with community hospitals (90% vs. 57%; P = .001) and were more likely to see babies between 7 and 30 days old (90% vs. 57%; P = .001). They also were more likely to obtain urine cultures (92% vs. 88%; P = 0.001), blood cultures (84% vs. 80%; P = .001), and cerebral spinal fluid cultures (62% vs. 57%; P = .001).
On the other hand, community hospitals were significantly more likely to see children presenting with respiratory symptoms (39% vs. 36% for teaching hospitals; P = .014), and were more likely to order chest x-rays on febrile infants (32% vs. 24% for university-affiliated hospitals; P = .001).
“As a community hospitalist, the results weren’t that surprising to me,” said Dr. Natt. “If anything was surprising it was how often we were doing chest x-rays, but I think that had to do with the fact that we had more children with respiratory symptoms coming to community hospitals.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for fever were written last in 1993, when I was in high school, so they are very due to be revised,” said Dr. Natt. “I suspect the new guidelines will have us doing fewer spinal taps in children and more watchful waiting.”
TORONTO – according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
“The community hospitals are doing less procedures on the infants, but with basically the exact same outcomes,” said Beth C. Natt, MD, MPH, director of pediatric hospital medicine at Bridgeport (Conn.) Hospital.
Babies who presented to university-affiliated hospitals were more likely to be hospitalized (70% vs. 67%; P = .001) than were those at community hospitals, but had a similar likelihood of being diagnosed with bacteremia, meningitis, or urinary tract infection. The rates of missed bacterial infection were 0.8% for teaching hospitals and 1% for community hospitals (P = .346).
“There is some thought that in community settings, because we’re not completing the workup in the standard, protocolized way seen at teaching hospitals, we might be doing wrong by the children, but these data show we’re actually doing just fine,” Dr. Natt said in an interview.
She and her colleagues reviewed 9,884 febrile infant evaluations occurring at 132 hospitals participating in the Reducing Excessive Variation in the Infant Sepsis Evaluation (REVISE) quality improvement project. Two-thirds of the infants (n = 6,479) were evaluated across 78 university-affiliated hospitals and 3,405 (or 34%) were seen at 54 community hospitals. Hospital status was self-reported.
The teaching hospitals more often had at least one pediatric emergency medicine provider, compared with community hospitals (90% vs. 57%; P = .001) and were more likely to see babies between 7 and 30 days old (90% vs. 57%; P = .001). They also were more likely to obtain urine cultures (92% vs. 88%; P = 0.001), blood cultures (84% vs. 80%; P = .001), and cerebral spinal fluid cultures (62% vs. 57%; P = .001).
On the other hand, community hospitals were significantly more likely to see children presenting with respiratory symptoms (39% vs. 36% for teaching hospitals; P = .014), and were more likely to order chest x-rays on febrile infants (32% vs. 24% for university-affiliated hospitals; P = .001).
“As a community hospitalist, the results weren’t that surprising to me,” said Dr. Natt. “If anything was surprising it was how often we were doing chest x-rays, but I think that had to do with the fact that we had more children with respiratory symptoms coming to community hospitals.
“The American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines for fever were written last in 1993, when I was in high school, so they are very due to be revised,” said Dr. Natt. “I suspect the new guidelines will have us doing fewer spinal taps in children and more watchful waiting.”
AT PAS 18
Key clinical point: University-affiliated hospitals do more invasive testing in febrile infants, but have outcomes similar to those of community hospitals.
Major finding: The rate of missed bacterial infection did not differ between hospital types: 0.8% for teaching hospitals and 1% for community hospitals (P = .346).
Study details: Review of 9,884 febrile infant evaluations occurring at 132 hospitals, 66% of which were university-affiliated hospitals and 34% of which were community hospitals.
Disclosures: The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Pediatric inpatient seizures treated quickly with new intervention
TORONTO – Researchers at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco implemented a novel intervention that leveraged existing in-room technology to expedite antiepileptic drug administration to inpatients having a seizure.
With the quality initiative, they were able to decrease median time from seizure onset to benzodiazepine (BZD) administration from 7 minutes (preintervention) to 2 minutes (post intervention) and reduce the median time from order to administration of second-phase non-BZDs from 28 minutes to 11 minutes.
“Leveraging existing patient room technology to mobilize pharmacy to the bedside expedited non-BZD administration by 60%,” reported principal investigator Arpi Bekmezian, MD, a pediatric hospitalist and medical director of quality and safety at Benioff Children’s Hospital. She presented the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
“Furthermore, the rapid-response seizure rescue process may have created an increased sense of urgency helping to expedite initial BZD administration by 70%. ... This may have prevented the need for second-phase therapy and progression to status epilepticus, potentially minimizing the risk of neuronal injury, and all without the additional resources of a Code team.”
Early and rapid escalation of treatment is critical to prevent neuronal injury in patients with status epilepticus. Guidelines recommend initial antiepileptic therapy at 5 minutes, with rapid escalation to second-phase therapy if the seizure persists.
Preintervention baseline data from UCSF Benioff Children’s indicated a 7-minute lag time from seizure onset to BZD therapy and a 28-minute lag from order to administration of non-BZDs (phenobarbital, phenytoin, levetiracetam, valproic acid). Other studies have shown significantly greater delays to antiepileptic treatment.
“That was just too long, and it matched our clinical experience of being at the bedside of a seizing patient and wondering why the medication was taking so long to arrive from the pharmacy.”
The researchers set out to reduce time to BZD administration from 7 minutes to 5 minutes or less and to reduce time to second-phase non-BZD administration to less than 10 minutes. To accomplish this, a multidisciplinary team that included leadership from physicians, pharmacy, and nursing defined primary and secondary drivers of efficiency, with interventions targeting both team communication and medication delivery.
The intervention period lasted 16 months, during which time there were 61 seizure events requiring urgent antiepileptic treatment. Complete data were available for 57 seizures.
Among the interventions they implemented was to stock all medication-dispensing stations with intranasal/buccal BZD available on “nursing override” for easy access and administration.
Because non-BZDs require pharmacy compounding, and the main pharmacy receives many STAT orders with competing priorities, they developed a hospitalwide “seizure rescue” (SR) process by using patient-room staff terminals to activate a dedicated individual from the pharmacy, who would then report to the bedside with a backpack stocked with non-BZDs ready to compound. Nurses were trained to press the SR button for any seizure that may require urgent therapy.
“We didn’t want nurses to waste time on the phone [calling pharmacy], and we considered calling a Code, but we couldn’t really justify the resource utilization as most of these patients didn’t have respiratory compromise, and they didn’t need the whole Code team,” said Dr. Bekmezian. She noted that her hospital strongly discourages bedside compounding by nursing staff.
Instead, they realized they could easily reprogram the patient-room electronic staff terminals to have a dedicated SR button that would directly alert a dedicated pharmacist carrying the SR phone. The pharmacist could then swipe and confirm that they received the alert and let the nurse know they were on the way, “and this would free up the nurse to go ahead and obtain the benzodiazepines and administer them as pharmacy made their way to the room.”
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to report expediting antiepileptic drug delivery to patients in the hospital,” said Dr. Bekmezian. She noted that less than 50% of cases actually required pharmacist response, “but the pharmacy staff chose to be activated earlier in the management algorithm to avoid delays in treatment.”
UCSF Children’s Hospital San Francisco campus is a 183-bed, tertiary care, teaching children’s hospital that has pediatric, neonatal, and cardiac intensive care units and set-down units. They provide liver, bone marrow, kidney, and cardiac transplantation and have more than 10,000 annual admissions.
The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bekmezian A et al. PAS 2018. Abstract 3545.3.
TORONTO – Researchers at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco implemented a novel intervention that leveraged existing in-room technology to expedite antiepileptic drug administration to inpatients having a seizure.
With the quality initiative, they were able to decrease median time from seizure onset to benzodiazepine (BZD) administration from 7 minutes (preintervention) to 2 minutes (post intervention) and reduce the median time from order to administration of second-phase non-BZDs from 28 minutes to 11 minutes.
“Leveraging existing patient room technology to mobilize pharmacy to the bedside expedited non-BZD administration by 60%,” reported principal investigator Arpi Bekmezian, MD, a pediatric hospitalist and medical director of quality and safety at Benioff Children’s Hospital. She presented the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
“Furthermore, the rapid-response seizure rescue process may have created an increased sense of urgency helping to expedite initial BZD administration by 70%. ... This may have prevented the need for second-phase therapy and progression to status epilepticus, potentially minimizing the risk of neuronal injury, and all without the additional resources of a Code team.”
Early and rapid escalation of treatment is critical to prevent neuronal injury in patients with status epilepticus. Guidelines recommend initial antiepileptic therapy at 5 minutes, with rapid escalation to second-phase therapy if the seizure persists.
Preintervention baseline data from UCSF Benioff Children’s indicated a 7-minute lag time from seizure onset to BZD therapy and a 28-minute lag from order to administration of non-BZDs (phenobarbital, phenytoin, levetiracetam, valproic acid). Other studies have shown significantly greater delays to antiepileptic treatment.
“That was just too long, and it matched our clinical experience of being at the bedside of a seizing patient and wondering why the medication was taking so long to arrive from the pharmacy.”
The researchers set out to reduce time to BZD administration from 7 minutes to 5 minutes or less and to reduce time to second-phase non-BZD administration to less than 10 minutes. To accomplish this, a multidisciplinary team that included leadership from physicians, pharmacy, and nursing defined primary and secondary drivers of efficiency, with interventions targeting both team communication and medication delivery.
The intervention period lasted 16 months, during which time there were 61 seizure events requiring urgent antiepileptic treatment. Complete data were available for 57 seizures.
Among the interventions they implemented was to stock all medication-dispensing stations with intranasal/buccal BZD available on “nursing override” for easy access and administration.
Because non-BZDs require pharmacy compounding, and the main pharmacy receives many STAT orders with competing priorities, they developed a hospitalwide “seizure rescue” (SR) process by using patient-room staff terminals to activate a dedicated individual from the pharmacy, who would then report to the bedside with a backpack stocked with non-BZDs ready to compound. Nurses were trained to press the SR button for any seizure that may require urgent therapy.
“We didn’t want nurses to waste time on the phone [calling pharmacy], and we considered calling a Code, but we couldn’t really justify the resource utilization as most of these patients didn’t have respiratory compromise, and they didn’t need the whole Code team,” said Dr. Bekmezian. She noted that her hospital strongly discourages bedside compounding by nursing staff.
Instead, they realized they could easily reprogram the patient-room electronic staff terminals to have a dedicated SR button that would directly alert a dedicated pharmacist carrying the SR phone. The pharmacist could then swipe and confirm that they received the alert and let the nurse know they were on the way, “and this would free up the nurse to go ahead and obtain the benzodiazepines and administer them as pharmacy made their way to the room.”
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to report expediting antiepileptic drug delivery to patients in the hospital,” said Dr. Bekmezian. She noted that less than 50% of cases actually required pharmacist response, “but the pharmacy staff chose to be activated earlier in the management algorithm to avoid delays in treatment.”
UCSF Children’s Hospital San Francisco campus is a 183-bed, tertiary care, teaching children’s hospital that has pediatric, neonatal, and cardiac intensive care units and set-down units. They provide liver, bone marrow, kidney, and cardiac transplantation and have more than 10,000 annual admissions.
The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bekmezian A et al. PAS 2018. Abstract 3545.3.
TORONTO – Researchers at UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco implemented a novel intervention that leveraged existing in-room technology to expedite antiepileptic drug administration to inpatients having a seizure.
With the quality initiative, they were able to decrease median time from seizure onset to benzodiazepine (BZD) administration from 7 minutes (preintervention) to 2 minutes (post intervention) and reduce the median time from order to administration of second-phase non-BZDs from 28 minutes to 11 minutes.
“Leveraging existing patient room technology to mobilize pharmacy to the bedside expedited non-BZD administration by 60%,” reported principal investigator Arpi Bekmezian, MD, a pediatric hospitalist and medical director of quality and safety at Benioff Children’s Hospital. She presented the findings at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
“Furthermore, the rapid-response seizure rescue process may have created an increased sense of urgency helping to expedite initial BZD administration by 70%. ... This may have prevented the need for second-phase therapy and progression to status epilepticus, potentially minimizing the risk of neuronal injury, and all without the additional resources of a Code team.”
Early and rapid escalation of treatment is critical to prevent neuronal injury in patients with status epilepticus. Guidelines recommend initial antiepileptic therapy at 5 minutes, with rapid escalation to second-phase therapy if the seizure persists.
Preintervention baseline data from UCSF Benioff Children’s indicated a 7-minute lag time from seizure onset to BZD therapy and a 28-minute lag from order to administration of non-BZDs (phenobarbital, phenytoin, levetiracetam, valproic acid). Other studies have shown significantly greater delays to antiepileptic treatment.
“That was just too long, and it matched our clinical experience of being at the bedside of a seizing patient and wondering why the medication was taking so long to arrive from the pharmacy.”
The researchers set out to reduce time to BZD administration from 7 minutes to 5 minutes or less and to reduce time to second-phase non-BZD administration to less than 10 minutes. To accomplish this, a multidisciplinary team that included leadership from physicians, pharmacy, and nursing defined primary and secondary drivers of efficiency, with interventions targeting both team communication and medication delivery.
The intervention period lasted 16 months, during which time there were 61 seizure events requiring urgent antiepileptic treatment. Complete data were available for 57 seizures.
Among the interventions they implemented was to stock all medication-dispensing stations with intranasal/buccal BZD available on “nursing override” for easy access and administration.
Because non-BZDs require pharmacy compounding, and the main pharmacy receives many STAT orders with competing priorities, they developed a hospitalwide “seizure rescue” (SR) process by using patient-room staff terminals to activate a dedicated individual from the pharmacy, who would then report to the bedside with a backpack stocked with non-BZDs ready to compound. Nurses were trained to press the SR button for any seizure that may require urgent therapy.
“We didn’t want nurses to waste time on the phone [calling pharmacy], and we considered calling a Code, but we couldn’t really justify the resource utilization as most of these patients didn’t have respiratory compromise, and they didn’t need the whole Code team,” said Dr. Bekmezian. She noted that her hospital strongly discourages bedside compounding by nursing staff.
Instead, they realized they could easily reprogram the patient-room electronic staff terminals to have a dedicated SR button that would directly alert a dedicated pharmacist carrying the SR phone. The pharmacist could then swipe and confirm that they received the alert and let the nurse know they were on the way, “and this would free up the nurse to go ahead and obtain the benzodiazepines and administer them as pharmacy made their way to the room.”
“To our knowledge, this is the first study to report expediting antiepileptic drug delivery to patients in the hospital,” said Dr. Bekmezian. She noted that less than 50% of cases actually required pharmacist response, “but the pharmacy staff chose to be activated earlier in the management algorithm to avoid delays in treatment.”
UCSF Children’s Hospital San Francisco campus is a 183-bed, tertiary care, teaching children’s hospital that has pediatric, neonatal, and cardiac intensive care units and set-down units. They provide liver, bone marrow, kidney, and cardiac transplantation and have more than 10,000 annual admissions.
The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Bekmezian A et al. PAS 2018. Abstract 3545.3.
AT PAS 2018
Key clinical point: An intervention to speed delivery of antiepileptic drugs significantly reduced time to treatment.
Major finding: Median time from seizure onset to benzodiazepine (BZD) administration fell from 7 minutes preintervention to 2 minutes post intervention, and median time from order to administration of non-BZDs dropped from 28 minutes to 11 minutes.
Study details: A prospective, multicenter study of 57 seizure events during a 16-month period.
Disclosures: The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Source: Bekmezian A et al. PAS 2018. Abstract 3545.3.