User login
Even light physical activity linked to lower dementia risk
Older adults who participate in even light physical activity (LPA) may have a lower risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.
In a retrospective analysis of more than 62,000 individuals aged 65 or older without preexisting dementia, 6% developed dementia.
Compared with inactive individuals, “insufficiently active,” “active,” and “highly active” individuals all had a 10%, 20%, and 28% lower risk for dementia, respectively. And this association was consistent regardless of age, sex, other comorbidities, or after the researchers censored for stroke.
Even the lowest amount of LPA was associated with reduced dementia risk, investigators noted.
“In older adults, an increased physical activity level, including a low amount of LPA, was associated with a reduced risk of dementia,” Minjae Yoon, MD, division of cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues wrote.
“Promotion of LPA might reduce the risk of dementia in older adults,” they added.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Reverse causation?
Physical activity has been shown previously to be associated with reduced dementia risk. Current World Health Organization guidelines recommend that adults with normal cognition should engage in PA to reduce their risk for cognitive decline.
However, some studies have not yielded this result, “suggesting that previous findings showing a lower risk of dementia in physically active people could be attributed to reverse causation,” the investigators noted. Additionally, previous research regarding exercise intensity has been “inconsistent” concerning the role of LPA in reducing dementia risk.
Many older adults with frailty and comorbidity cannot perform intense or even moderate PA, therefore “these adults would have to gain the benefits of physical activity from LPA,” the researchers noted.
To clarify the potential association between PA and new-onset dementia, they focused specifically on the “dose-response association” between PA and dementia – especially LPA.
Between 2009 and 2012, the investigators enrolled 62,286 older individuals (60.4% women; mean age, 73.2 years) with available health checkup data from the National Health Insurance Service–Senior Database of Korea. All had no history of dementia.
Leisure-time PA was assessed with self-report questionnaires that used a 7-day recall method and included three questions regarding usual frequency (in days per week):
- Vigorous PA (VPA) for at least 20 minutes
- Moderate-intensity PA (MPA) for at least 30 minutes
- LPA for at least 30 minutes
VPA was defined as “intense exercise that caused severe shortness of breath, MPA was defined as activity causing mild shortness of breath, and LPA was defined as “walking at a slow or leisurely pace.”
PA-related energy expenditure was also calculated in metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week by “summing the product of frequency, intensity, and duration,” the investigators noted.
Participants were stratified on the basis of their weekly total PA levels into the following groups:
- Inactive (no LPA beyond basic movements)
- Insufficiently active (less than the recommended target range of 1-499 MET-min/wk)
- Active (meeting the recommended target range of 500-999 MET-min/wk)
- Highly active (exceeding the recommended target range of at least 1,000 MET-min/wk)
Of all participants, 35% were categorized as inactive, 25% were insufficiently active, 24.4% were active, and 15.2% were highly active.
Controversy remains
During the total median follow-up of 42 months, 6% of participants had all-cause dementia. After the researchers excluded the first 2 years, incidence of dementia was 21.6 per 1000 person-years during follow-up.
“The cumulative incidence of dementia was associated with a progressively decreasing trend with increasing physical activity” (P = .001 for trend), the investigators reported.
When using a competing-risk multivariable regression model, they found that higher levels of PA were associated with lower risk for dementia, compared with the inactive group.
Similar findings were obtained after censoring for stroke, and were consistent for all follow-up periods. In subgroup analysis, the association between PA level and dementia risk remained consistent, regardless of age, sex, and comorbidities.
Even a low amount of LPA (1-299 MET-min/wk) was linked to reduced risk for dementia versus total sedentary behavior (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).
The investigators noted that some “controversy” remains regarding the possibility of reverse causation and, because their study was observational in nature, “it cannot be used to establish causal relationship.”
Nevertheless, the study had important strengths, including the large number of older adults with available data, the assessment of dose-response association between PA and dementia, and the sensitivity analyses they performed, the researchers added.
Piece of important evidence
Commenting on the findings, Takashi Tarumi, PhD, senior research investigator, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan, said previous studies have suggested “an inverse association between physical activity and dementia risk, such that older adults performing a higher dose of exercise may have a greater benefit for reducing the dementia risk.”
Dr. Tarumi, an associate editor at the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, added the current study “significantly extends our knowledge by showing that dementia risk can also be reduced by light physical activities when they are performed for longer hours.”
This provides “another piece of important evidence” to support clinicians recommending regular physical activity for the prevention of dementia in later life, said Dr. Tarumi, who was not involved with the research.
Also commenting, Martin Underwood, MD, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, England, described the association between reduced physical inactivity and dementia as well established – and noted the current study “appears to confirm earlier observational data showing this relationship.”
The current results have “still not been able to fully exclude the possibility of reverse causation,” said Dr. Underwood, who was also not associated with the study.
However, the finding that more physically active individuals are less likely to develop dementia “only becomes of real interest if we can show that increased physical activity prevents the onset, or slows the progression, of dementia,” he noted.
“To my knowledge this has not yet been established” in randomized clinical trials, Dr. Underwood added.
The study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea; and by a research grant from Yonsei University. One coauthor reported serving as a speaker for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and receiving research funds from Medtronic and Abbott. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Tarumi and Dr. Underwood have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults who participate in even light physical activity (LPA) may have a lower risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.
In a retrospective analysis of more than 62,000 individuals aged 65 or older without preexisting dementia, 6% developed dementia.
Compared with inactive individuals, “insufficiently active,” “active,” and “highly active” individuals all had a 10%, 20%, and 28% lower risk for dementia, respectively. And this association was consistent regardless of age, sex, other comorbidities, or after the researchers censored for stroke.
Even the lowest amount of LPA was associated with reduced dementia risk, investigators noted.
“In older adults, an increased physical activity level, including a low amount of LPA, was associated with a reduced risk of dementia,” Minjae Yoon, MD, division of cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues wrote.
“Promotion of LPA might reduce the risk of dementia in older adults,” they added.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Reverse causation?
Physical activity has been shown previously to be associated with reduced dementia risk. Current World Health Organization guidelines recommend that adults with normal cognition should engage in PA to reduce their risk for cognitive decline.
However, some studies have not yielded this result, “suggesting that previous findings showing a lower risk of dementia in physically active people could be attributed to reverse causation,” the investigators noted. Additionally, previous research regarding exercise intensity has been “inconsistent” concerning the role of LPA in reducing dementia risk.
Many older adults with frailty and comorbidity cannot perform intense or even moderate PA, therefore “these adults would have to gain the benefits of physical activity from LPA,” the researchers noted.
To clarify the potential association between PA and new-onset dementia, they focused specifically on the “dose-response association” between PA and dementia – especially LPA.
Between 2009 and 2012, the investigators enrolled 62,286 older individuals (60.4% women; mean age, 73.2 years) with available health checkup data from the National Health Insurance Service–Senior Database of Korea. All had no history of dementia.
Leisure-time PA was assessed with self-report questionnaires that used a 7-day recall method and included three questions regarding usual frequency (in days per week):
- Vigorous PA (VPA) for at least 20 minutes
- Moderate-intensity PA (MPA) for at least 30 minutes
- LPA for at least 30 minutes
VPA was defined as “intense exercise that caused severe shortness of breath, MPA was defined as activity causing mild shortness of breath, and LPA was defined as “walking at a slow or leisurely pace.”
PA-related energy expenditure was also calculated in metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week by “summing the product of frequency, intensity, and duration,” the investigators noted.
Participants were stratified on the basis of their weekly total PA levels into the following groups:
- Inactive (no LPA beyond basic movements)
- Insufficiently active (less than the recommended target range of 1-499 MET-min/wk)
- Active (meeting the recommended target range of 500-999 MET-min/wk)
- Highly active (exceeding the recommended target range of at least 1,000 MET-min/wk)
Of all participants, 35% were categorized as inactive, 25% were insufficiently active, 24.4% were active, and 15.2% were highly active.
Controversy remains
During the total median follow-up of 42 months, 6% of participants had all-cause dementia. After the researchers excluded the first 2 years, incidence of dementia was 21.6 per 1000 person-years during follow-up.
“The cumulative incidence of dementia was associated with a progressively decreasing trend with increasing physical activity” (P = .001 for trend), the investigators reported.
When using a competing-risk multivariable regression model, they found that higher levels of PA were associated with lower risk for dementia, compared with the inactive group.
Similar findings were obtained after censoring for stroke, and were consistent for all follow-up periods. In subgroup analysis, the association between PA level and dementia risk remained consistent, regardless of age, sex, and comorbidities.
Even a low amount of LPA (1-299 MET-min/wk) was linked to reduced risk for dementia versus total sedentary behavior (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).
The investigators noted that some “controversy” remains regarding the possibility of reverse causation and, because their study was observational in nature, “it cannot be used to establish causal relationship.”
Nevertheless, the study had important strengths, including the large number of older adults with available data, the assessment of dose-response association between PA and dementia, and the sensitivity analyses they performed, the researchers added.
Piece of important evidence
Commenting on the findings, Takashi Tarumi, PhD, senior research investigator, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan, said previous studies have suggested “an inverse association between physical activity and dementia risk, such that older adults performing a higher dose of exercise may have a greater benefit for reducing the dementia risk.”
Dr. Tarumi, an associate editor at the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, added the current study “significantly extends our knowledge by showing that dementia risk can also be reduced by light physical activities when they are performed for longer hours.”
This provides “another piece of important evidence” to support clinicians recommending regular physical activity for the prevention of dementia in later life, said Dr. Tarumi, who was not involved with the research.
Also commenting, Martin Underwood, MD, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, England, described the association between reduced physical inactivity and dementia as well established – and noted the current study “appears to confirm earlier observational data showing this relationship.”
The current results have “still not been able to fully exclude the possibility of reverse causation,” said Dr. Underwood, who was also not associated with the study.
However, the finding that more physically active individuals are less likely to develop dementia “only becomes of real interest if we can show that increased physical activity prevents the onset, or slows the progression, of dementia,” he noted.
“To my knowledge this has not yet been established” in randomized clinical trials, Dr. Underwood added.
The study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea; and by a research grant from Yonsei University. One coauthor reported serving as a speaker for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and receiving research funds from Medtronic and Abbott. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Tarumi and Dr. Underwood have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults who participate in even light physical activity (LPA) may have a lower risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.
In a retrospective analysis of more than 62,000 individuals aged 65 or older without preexisting dementia, 6% developed dementia.
Compared with inactive individuals, “insufficiently active,” “active,” and “highly active” individuals all had a 10%, 20%, and 28% lower risk for dementia, respectively. And this association was consistent regardless of age, sex, other comorbidities, or after the researchers censored for stroke.
Even the lowest amount of LPA was associated with reduced dementia risk, investigators noted.
“In older adults, an increased physical activity level, including a low amount of LPA, was associated with a reduced risk of dementia,” Minjae Yoon, MD, division of cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues wrote.
“Promotion of LPA might reduce the risk of dementia in older adults,” they added.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Reverse causation?
Physical activity has been shown previously to be associated with reduced dementia risk. Current World Health Organization guidelines recommend that adults with normal cognition should engage in PA to reduce their risk for cognitive decline.
However, some studies have not yielded this result, “suggesting that previous findings showing a lower risk of dementia in physically active people could be attributed to reverse causation,” the investigators noted. Additionally, previous research regarding exercise intensity has been “inconsistent” concerning the role of LPA in reducing dementia risk.
Many older adults with frailty and comorbidity cannot perform intense or even moderate PA, therefore “these adults would have to gain the benefits of physical activity from LPA,” the researchers noted.
To clarify the potential association between PA and new-onset dementia, they focused specifically on the “dose-response association” between PA and dementia – especially LPA.
Between 2009 and 2012, the investigators enrolled 62,286 older individuals (60.4% women; mean age, 73.2 years) with available health checkup data from the National Health Insurance Service–Senior Database of Korea. All had no history of dementia.
Leisure-time PA was assessed with self-report questionnaires that used a 7-day recall method and included three questions regarding usual frequency (in days per week):
- Vigorous PA (VPA) for at least 20 minutes
- Moderate-intensity PA (MPA) for at least 30 minutes
- LPA for at least 30 minutes
VPA was defined as “intense exercise that caused severe shortness of breath, MPA was defined as activity causing mild shortness of breath, and LPA was defined as “walking at a slow or leisurely pace.”
PA-related energy expenditure was also calculated in metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week by “summing the product of frequency, intensity, and duration,” the investigators noted.
Participants were stratified on the basis of their weekly total PA levels into the following groups:
- Inactive (no LPA beyond basic movements)
- Insufficiently active (less than the recommended target range of 1-499 MET-min/wk)
- Active (meeting the recommended target range of 500-999 MET-min/wk)
- Highly active (exceeding the recommended target range of at least 1,000 MET-min/wk)
Of all participants, 35% were categorized as inactive, 25% were insufficiently active, 24.4% were active, and 15.2% were highly active.
Controversy remains
During the total median follow-up of 42 months, 6% of participants had all-cause dementia. After the researchers excluded the first 2 years, incidence of dementia was 21.6 per 1000 person-years during follow-up.
“The cumulative incidence of dementia was associated with a progressively decreasing trend with increasing physical activity” (P = .001 for trend), the investigators reported.
When using a competing-risk multivariable regression model, they found that higher levels of PA were associated with lower risk for dementia, compared with the inactive group.
Similar findings were obtained after censoring for stroke, and were consistent for all follow-up periods. In subgroup analysis, the association between PA level and dementia risk remained consistent, regardless of age, sex, and comorbidities.
Even a low amount of LPA (1-299 MET-min/wk) was linked to reduced risk for dementia versus total sedentary behavior (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).
The investigators noted that some “controversy” remains regarding the possibility of reverse causation and, because their study was observational in nature, “it cannot be used to establish causal relationship.”
Nevertheless, the study had important strengths, including the large number of older adults with available data, the assessment of dose-response association between PA and dementia, and the sensitivity analyses they performed, the researchers added.
Piece of important evidence
Commenting on the findings, Takashi Tarumi, PhD, senior research investigator, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan, said previous studies have suggested “an inverse association between physical activity and dementia risk, such that older adults performing a higher dose of exercise may have a greater benefit for reducing the dementia risk.”
Dr. Tarumi, an associate editor at the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, added the current study “significantly extends our knowledge by showing that dementia risk can also be reduced by light physical activities when they are performed for longer hours.”
This provides “another piece of important evidence” to support clinicians recommending regular physical activity for the prevention of dementia in later life, said Dr. Tarumi, who was not involved with the research.
Also commenting, Martin Underwood, MD, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, England, described the association between reduced physical inactivity and dementia as well established – and noted the current study “appears to confirm earlier observational data showing this relationship.”
The current results have “still not been able to fully exclude the possibility of reverse causation,” said Dr. Underwood, who was also not associated with the study.
However, the finding that more physically active individuals are less likely to develop dementia “only becomes of real interest if we can show that increased physical activity prevents the onset, or slows the progression, of dementia,” he noted.
“To my knowledge this has not yet been established” in randomized clinical trials, Dr. Underwood added.
The study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea; and by a research grant from Yonsei University. One coauthor reported serving as a speaker for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and receiving research funds from Medtronic and Abbott. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Tarumi and Dr. Underwood have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bullying in academic medicine rife, underreported
Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.
Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).
Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).
Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.
“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.
“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.
The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
Personal experience
“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.
Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”
To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.
Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.
Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.
“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
Systemic sexism
Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.
The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).
“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.
“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.
“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.
She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
Multiple deterrents
Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).
Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.
When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.
The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).
Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
Support available
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”
Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.
“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”
She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.
“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.
Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.
Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).
Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).
Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.
“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.
“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.
The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
Personal experience
“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.
Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”
To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.
Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.
Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.
“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
Systemic sexism
Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.
The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).
“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.
“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.
“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.
She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
Multiple deterrents
Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).
Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.
When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.
The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).
Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
Support available
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”
Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.
“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”
She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.
“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.
Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.
Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).
Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).
Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.
“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.
“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.
The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
Personal experience
“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.
Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”
To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.
Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.
Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.
“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
Systemic sexism
Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.
The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).
“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.
“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.
“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.
She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
Multiple deterrents
Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).
Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.
When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.
The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).
Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
Support available
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”
Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.
“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”
She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.
“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.
Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Interim guidance for CPR in patients with COVID-19
The American Heart Association (AHA) and seven other medical societies have issued interim guidance to inform treatment of victims of cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, focusing on reducing provider exposure, and prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation strategies, goals of care, and appropriateness of resuscitation.
“We were very specific in calling this ‘interim guidance’ based on expert opinion because things are evolving so quickly and we are learning more and more every day as more and more patients with COVID-19 are taken care of,” corresponding author Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, vice president, Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science and Innovation, American Heart Association, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We wanted this to be a starting point for providing the clinical guidance that everyone is looking for and, as we collect more data, the guidance will change, as it has for CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and WHO [World Health Organization],” she said.
“The guidance sought to balance the provision of timely, high-quality resuscitation to patients while simultaneously protecting rescuers,” she added.
The guidance was published online April 9 in Circulation. The AHA produced the guidelines in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, with support from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National EMS Physicians.
Respiratory Etiologies
“We think of cardiac arrest in adults, especially as related to cardiac etiologies, but we are now thinking of it in COVID-19 more as hypoxemia or respiratory failure, which can predispose patients to cardiac arrest,” Sasson explained.
Healthcare workers are the “highest-risk profession” for contracting the COVID-19, with resuscitations carrying “added risk” for several reasons, the authors note.
Administering CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures that can cause viral particles to remain suspended in the air and be inhaled by those nearby, with a half-life of approximately 1 hour, they point out.
[embed:render:related:node:220492]
Moreover, resuscitation efforts “require numerous providers to work in close proximity to one another and the patient,” and the high-stress emergent nature of these events may result in lapses in infection-control procedures.
The guidance is designed “to protect not only the patient but also the provider and involves strategies regarding oxygenation and ventilation that differ from what we’ve done in the past since we have a strong feeling that this is a different disease process that may require different approaches than what we’ve dealt with in the past,” Sasson commented.
Reducing Provider Exposure
Providers should don PPE to protect both themselves and their colleagues from unnecessary exposure, the authors advise, noting that recommendations for PPE standards may “vary considerably,” so health or emergency medical services (EMS) standards should be taken into account.
Moreover, it is important to allow only the most essential providers into the room or on the scene. In keeping with reducing the number of rescuers, the authors recommend replacing manual chest compressions with mechanical CPR devices for patients who meet height and weight criteria in settings with “protocols and expertise in place for their use.”
COVID-19 status should be communicated to any new providers prior to their arrival on the scene, the authors stress.
Oxygenation and Ventilation Strategies
“Reducing risk of aerosolization during the process of intubation is key,” Sasson emphasized.
For this reason, a high-efficiency particulate air HEPA filter (if available) should be attached to any manual or mechanical ventilation device, specifically in the path of exhaled gas, before any breaths are administered.
Moreover, it is important to intubate early with a cuffed tube and connect to a mechanical ventilator, if possible. The intubator should be engaged with the “highest chance of first-pass success,” and chest compression should be paused to intubate.
To further increase the chance of a successful first intubation, use of video laryngoscopy (if available) is helpful.
Additional guidance includes:
- Using a bag-mask device (or T-piece in neonates) with a HEPA filter and a tight seal prior to intubation
- Considering passive oxygenation with non-rebreathing face mask as an alternative to bag-mask device for short duration (in adults)
- Considering supraglottic airway if intubation is delayed
- Minimizing closed circuit disconnections.
Resuscitation Considerations
“One big take-home point of the guidance is to consider resuscitation appropriateness, starting with goals of care when the patient comes to us, and continuing or stopping resuscitation when needed, based on the discussion with the family as well as local protocol,” Sasson said.
A variety of factors need to be taken into account, including age, comorbidities, and illness severity to determine the appropriateness of resuscitation, and “the likelihood of success” must be balanced “against the risk to rescuers and patients from whom resources are being diverted,” the authors state.
An Array of Scenarios
“We divided bystander CPR into adults vs pediatrics and into those who are living with a person who is in cardiac arrest – because they have already been exposed [to COVID-19] – vs those who are not living with the patient,” Sasson reported. “We also addressed the role of lay bystanders.”
For lay rescuers:
- Household members should perform at least hands-only CPR, if willing and able to do so
- Use of a face mark or cloth covering of the mouth and nose of the rescuer and/or patient may reduce the risk of transmission to a nonhousehold member
- In children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and “consider mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,” especially if they are household members.
- If available, an automated external defibrillator should be used to assess and treat victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
The authors offer additional guidance for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), including addressing advanced care directives, closing the door when possible to prevent airborne contamination of adjacent space, and considering leaving the patient on a mechanical ventilator with HEPA filter.
They additionally address the special needs of neonates, recommending the presence of a “skilled attendant prepared to resuscitate, irrespective of COVID-19 status,” and stressing the importance of PPE since the mother may be a “potential source of aerosolization for the neonatal team.” Additional measures include avoidance of routine airway suctioning and the use of endotracheal medications.
Critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19 are more vulnerable to acute decompensation because of the cardiopulmonary physiological changes associated with pregnancy, the authors note. Preparation for a potential perimortem delivery should take place after 4 minutes of resuscitation and be initiated early in the resuscitation algorithm so as to allow specialized obstetrical and neonatal teams with PPE to convene.
“We will be continually updating this guidance and we are encouraging people to ask questions,” Sasson summarized.
She noted that a hospital-based COVID-19 registry is being formed to collect “clinically relevant data” that will inform and update the current guidance.
Sasson reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Heart Association (AHA) and seven other medical societies have issued interim guidance to inform treatment of victims of cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, focusing on reducing provider exposure, and prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation strategies, goals of care, and appropriateness of resuscitation.
“We were very specific in calling this ‘interim guidance’ based on expert opinion because things are evolving so quickly and we are learning more and more every day as more and more patients with COVID-19 are taken care of,” corresponding author Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, vice president, Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science and Innovation, American Heart Association, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We wanted this to be a starting point for providing the clinical guidance that everyone is looking for and, as we collect more data, the guidance will change, as it has for CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and WHO [World Health Organization],” she said.
“The guidance sought to balance the provision of timely, high-quality resuscitation to patients while simultaneously protecting rescuers,” she added.
The guidance was published online April 9 in Circulation. The AHA produced the guidelines in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, with support from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National EMS Physicians.
Respiratory Etiologies
“We think of cardiac arrest in adults, especially as related to cardiac etiologies, but we are now thinking of it in COVID-19 more as hypoxemia or respiratory failure, which can predispose patients to cardiac arrest,” Sasson explained.
Healthcare workers are the “highest-risk profession” for contracting the COVID-19, with resuscitations carrying “added risk” for several reasons, the authors note.
Administering CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures that can cause viral particles to remain suspended in the air and be inhaled by those nearby, with a half-life of approximately 1 hour, they point out.
[embed:render:related:node:220492]
Moreover, resuscitation efforts “require numerous providers to work in close proximity to one another and the patient,” and the high-stress emergent nature of these events may result in lapses in infection-control procedures.
The guidance is designed “to protect not only the patient but also the provider and involves strategies regarding oxygenation and ventilation that differ from what we’ve done in the past since we have a strong feeling that this is a different disease process that may require different approaches than what we’ve dealt with in the past,” Sasson commented.
Reducing Provider Exposure
Providers should don PPE to protect both themselves and their colleagues from unnecessary exposure, the authors advise, noting that recommendations for PPE standards may “vary considerably,” so health or emergency medical services (EMS) standards should be taken into account.
Moreover, it is important to allow only the most essential providers into the room or on the scene. In keeping with reducing the number of rescuers, the authors recommend replacing manual chest compressions with mechanical CPR devices for patients who meet height and weight criteria in settings with “protocols and expertise in place for their use.”
COVID-19 status should be communicated to any new providers prior to their arrival on the scene, the authors stress.
Oxygenation and Ventilation Strategies
“Reducing risk of aerosolization during the process of intubation is key,” Sasson emphasized.
For this reason, a high-efficiency particulate air HEPA filter (if available) should be attached to any manual or mechanical ventilation device, specifically in the path of exhaled gas, before any breaths are administered.
Moreover, it is important to intubate early with a cuffed tube and connect to a mechanical ventilator, if possible. The intubator should be engaged with the “highest chance of first-pass success,” and chest compression should be paused to intubate.
To further increase the chance of a successful first intubation, use of video laryngoscopy (if available) is helpful.
Additional guidance includes:
- Using a bag-mask device (or T-piece in neonates) with a HEPA filter and a tight seal prior to intubation
- Considering passive oxygenation with non-rebreathing face mask as an alternative to bag-mask device for short duration (in adults)
- Considering supraglottic airway if intubation is delayed
- Minimizing closed circuit disconnections.
Resuscitation Considerations
“One big take-home point of the guidance is to consider resuscitation appropriateness, starting with goals of care when the patient comes to us, and continuing or stopping resuscitation when needed, based on the discussion with the family as well as local protocol,” Sasson said.
A variety of factors need to be taken into account, including age, comorbidities, and illness severity to determine the appropriateness of resuscitation, and “the likelihood of success” must be balanced “against the risk to rescuers and patients from whom resources are being diverted,” the authors state.
An Array of Scenarios
“We divided bystander CPR into adults vs pediatrics and into those who are living with a person who is in cardiac arrest – because they have already been exposed [to COVID-19] – vs those who are not living with the patient,” Sasson reported. “We also addressed the role of lay bystanders.”
For lay rescuers:
- Household members should perform at least hands-only CPR, if willing and able to do so
- Use of a face mark or cloth covering of the mouth and nose of the rescuer and/or patient may reduce the risk of transmission to a nonhousehold member
- In children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and “consider mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,” especially if they are household members.
- If available, an automated external defibrillator should be used to assess and treat victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
The authors offer additional guidance for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), including addressing advanced care directives, closing the door when possible to prevent airborne contamination of adjacent space, and considering leaving the patient on a mechanical ventilator with HEPA filter.
They additionally address the special needs of neonates, recommending the presence of a “skilled attendant prepared to resuscitate, irrespective of COVID-19 status,” and stressing the importance of PPE since the mother may be a “potential source of aerosolization for the neonatal team.” Additional measures include avoidance of routine airway suctioning and the use of endotracheal medications.
Critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19 are more vulnerable to acute decompensation because of the cardiopulmonary physiological changes associated with pregnancy, the authors note. Preparation for a potential perimortem delivery should take place after 4 minutes of resuscitation and be initiated early in the resuscitation algorithm so as to allow specialized obstetrical and neonatal teams with PPE to convene.
“We will be continually updating this guidance and we are encouraging people to ask questions,” Sasson summarized.
She noted that a hospital-based COVID-19 registry is being formed to collect “clinically relevant data” that will inform and update the current guidance.
Sasson reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Heart Association (AHA) and seven other medical societies have issued interim guidance to inform treatment of victims of cardiac arrest with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, focusing on reducing provider exposure, and prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation strategies, goals of care, and appropriateness of resuscitation.
“We were very specific in calling this ‘interim guidance’ based on expert opinion because things are evolving so quickly and we are learning more and more every day as more and more patients with COVID-19 are taken care of,” corresponding author Comilla Sasson, MD, PhD, vice president, Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science and Innovation, American Heart Association, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.
“We wanted this to be a starting point for providing the clinical guidance that everyone is looking for and, as we collect more data, the guidance will change, as it has for CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and WHO [World Health Organization],” she said.
“The guidance sought to balance the provision of timely, high-quality resuscitation to patients while simultaneously protecting rescuers,” she added.
The guidance was published online April 9 in Circulation. The AHA produced the guidelines in collaboration with the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for Respiratory Care, American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists, with support from the American Association of Critical Care Nurses and National EMS Physicians.
Respiratory Etiologies
“We think of cardiac arrest in adults, especially as related to cardiac etiologies, but we are now thinking of it in COVID-19 more as hypoxemia or respiratory failure, which can predispose patients to cardiac arrest,” Sasson explained.
Healthcare workers are the “highest-risk profession” for contracting the COVID-19, with resuscitations carrying “added risk” for several reasons, the authors note.
Administering CPR involves performing numerous aerosol-generating procedures that can cause viral particles to remain suspended in the air and be inhaled by those nearby, with a half-life of approximately 1 hour, they point out.
[embed:render:related:node:220492]
Moreover, resuscitation efforts “require numerous providers to work in close proximity to one another and the patient,” and the high-stress emergent nature of these events may result in lapses in infection-control procedures.
The guidance is designed “to protect not only the patient but also the provider and involves strategies regarding oxygenation and ventilation that differ from what we’ve done in the past since we have a strong feeling that this is a different disease process that may require different approaches than what we’ve dealt with in the past,” Sasson commented.
Reducing Provider Exposure
Providers should don PPE to protect both themselves and their colleagues from unnecessary exposure, the authors advise, noting that recommendations for PPE standards may “vary considerably,” so health or emergency medical services (EMS) standards should be taken into account.
Moreover, it is important to allow only the most essential providers into the room or on the scene. In keeping with reducing the number of rescuers, the authors recommend replacing manual chest compressions with mechanical CPR devices for patients who meet height and weight criteria in settings with “protocols and expertise in place for their use.”
COVID-19 status should be communicated to any new providers prior to their arrival on the scene, the authors stress.
Oxygenation and Ventilation Strategies
“Reducing risk of aerosolization during the process of intubation is key,” Sasson emphasized.
For this reason, a high-efficiency particulate air HEPA filter (if available) should be attached to any manual or mechanical ventilation device, specifically in the path of exhaled gas, before any breaths are administered.
Moreover, it is important to intubate early with a cuffed tube and connect to a mechanical ventilator, if possible. The intubator should be engaged with the “highest chance of first-pass success,” and chest compression should be paused to intubate.
To further increase the chance of a successful first intubation, use of video laryngoscopy (if available) is helpful.
Additional guidance includes:
- Using a bag-mask device (or T-piece in neonates) with a HEPA filter and a tight seal prior to intubation
- Considering passive oxygenation with non-rebreathing face mask as an alternative to bag-mask device for short duration (in adults)
- Considering supraglottic airway if intubation is delayed
- Minimizing closed circuit disconnections.
Resuscitation Considerations
“One big take-home point of the guidance is to consider resuscitation appropriateness, starting with goals of care when the patient comes to us, and continuing or stopping resuscitation when needed, based on the discussion with the family as well as local protocol,” Sasson said.
A variety of factors need to be taken into account, including age, comorbidities, and illness severity to determine the appropriateness of resuscitation, and “the likelihood of success” must be balanced “against the risk to rescuers and patients from whom resources are being diverted,” the authors state.
An Array of Scenarios
“We divided bystander CPR into adults vs pediatrics and into those who are living with a person who is in cardiac arrest – because they have already been exposed [to COVID-19] – vs those who are not living with the patient,” Sasson reported. “We also addressed the role of lay bystanders.”
For lay rescuers:
- Household members should perform at least hands-only CPR, if willing and able to do so
- Use of a face mark or cloth covering of the mouth and nose of the rescuer and/or patient may reduce the risk of transmission to a nonhousehold member
- In children, lay rescuers should perform chest compressions and “consider mouth-to-mouth resuscitation,” especially if they are household members.
- If available, an automated external defibrillator should be used to assess and treat victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
The authors offer additional guidance for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), including addressing advanced care directives, closing the door when possible to prevent airborne contamination of adjacent space, and considering leaving the patient on a mechanical ventilator with HEPA filter.
They additionally address the special needs of neonates, recommending the presence of a “skilled attendant prepared to resuscitate, irrespective of COVID-19 status,” and stressing the importance of PPE since the mother may be a “potential source of aerosolization for the neonatal team.” Additional measures include avoidance of routine airway suctioning and the use of endotracheal medications.
Critically ill pregnant women with COVID-19 are more vulnerable to acute decompensation because of the cardiopulmonary physiological changes associated with pregnancy, the authors note. Preparation for a potential perimortem delivery should take place after 4 minutes of resuscitation and be initiated early in the resuscitation algorithm so as to allow specialized obstetrical and neonatal teams with PPE to convene.
“We will be continually updating this guidance and we are encouraging people to ask questions,” Sasson summarized.
She noted that a hospital-based COVID-19 registry is being formed to collect “clinically relevant data” that will inform and update the current guidance.
Sasson reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More conflicting evidence on paclitaxel devices in PAD
The controversy regarding the safety of treating peripheral artery disease (PAD) with paclitaxel-coated devices has only deepened in the new year, with two recent studies suggesting opposite safety findings.
The debate began with a 2018 meta-analysis showing a late mortality signal associated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) that sent reverberations through the interventional cardiology community (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 18;7[24]:e011245).
Now, in a new meta-analysis involving eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and more than 1,400 patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the same researchers found significantly more early amputations and deaths in those treated with DCB below the knee, compared with conventional balloon angioplasty.
“The findings of our latest report add to previous evidence underpinning major safety concerns around use of paclitaxel in lower limb angioplasties – increased long-term patient mortality in cases of intermittent claudication,” lead author Konstantinos Katsanos MD, MSc, PhD, Patras University Hospital, Greece, said in an interview.
By contrast, a retrospective study of insurance claims in Germany showed no heightened mortality with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents, compared with uncoated devices, in close to 38,000 patients with PAD.
On the contrary, use of paclitaxel-coated devices was associated with higher long-term survival, better amputation-free survival (AFS), and lower rates of major cardiovascular events in the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).
These findings “emphasize the difference between population-based evidence and randomized trials,” lead author Christian-Alexander Behrendt, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, said in an interview.
Downstream “showers”
In the new meta-analysis led by Dr. Katsanos, published online Jan. 15, the 1,420 patients were treated with five different DCBs and 97% had CLI (J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2020 Feb;31[2]:202-12).
In up to 1-year follow-up, the paclitaxel DCB group had fewer target lesion revascularizations (TLR) than those of the uncoated device group (11.8% vs. 25.6%; risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.81) but worse AFS (13.7% vs. 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07).
The latter finding was driven by nonsignificant increased risks for all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.07) and major amputations (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.90).
In dose-subgroup analyses, AFS was significantly worse in cases with high-dose (3.0-3.5 mcg/mm2) devices, but not in the single trial with a low-dose DCB (2.0 mcg/mm2).
“Considering the well-described downstream ‘showers’ of paclitaxel particles with current drug-coated balloons, we hypothesize that nontarget paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism for distal foot and systemic toxicity,” Dr. Katsanos said.
Short time frame
Eric Secemsky, MD, of Harvard Medical School, and director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested in an interview that this theorized mechanism of harm in below-the-knee procedures could potentially shed light on a similar mechanism at play in above-the-knee procedures.
[embed:render:related:node:203352]
“We didn’t understand why people could potentially be dying in above-the-knee [procedures], and the suggestion here is that these devices might perhaps be causing particular embolization or maybe delayed wound healing,” Dr. Secemsky speculated.
However, “I don’t know that this is true, so I am cautious to say this is true,” he emphasized.
Dr. Secemsky said a strength of the Katsanos analysis is that the RCTs included more than 1,000 patients, but noted that it is hard to vet the quality and rigor of the data, as some of the studies have not yet been published. He also noted that paclitaxel-coated devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for below-the-knee procedures.
Moreover, he continued, “two studies were driving the signal of harm: the IN.PACT DEEP, which included an iteration of their DCB that is no longer being tested; and the unpublished SINGA-PACLI trial. Those studies contributed most of the adverse events seen in this meta-analysis.”
In addition, the trials had different lengths of follow-up (6-12 months), he said. “Thus, the five trials with data available to 12 months are driving the 1-year findings, whereas three RCTs, including the primary RCT showing safety [Lutonix-BTK trial], only contribute data to 6 months.”
For this reason, “we are not too excited about this meta-analysis as of now, [because] all it tells us is that we need more data to support the safety of drug-coated devices in this population,” Dr. Secemsky said.
Dr. Katsanos explained that, “to address the differences in follow-up period and number of cases lost to follow-up, the primary endpoint was calculated on the log-hazard scale and expressed as a hazard ratio, as recommended for time-to-event outcomes.”
He highlighted that a short-term time frame of 6 months to 1 year was chosen “because it is clinically relevant to limb-threatening CLI.”
Sensitivity tests also “showed consistent direction and magnitude of the summary treatment effects in case of both AFS and freedom from TLR,” Dr. Katsanos emphasized.
Lower mortality, fewer amputations
The second study, published online Jan. 8, drew on health insurance claims in the German BARMER database to analyze 37,914 patients (mean age, 73.3 years, 49% female) and 21,546 propensity-score-matched patients with symptomatic CLTI or intermittent claudication (IC) with an index revascularization during 2010-2018 (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034).
Patients were first stratified by CLTI or IC, and then by balloon vs. stent use. Paclitaxel-coated devices were then compared with uncoated devices within each stratum. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up.
From 2010 to 2018, the annual use of paclitaxel-coated devices increased dramatically from 3% to 39% in the CLTI group and from 4% to 48% in the IC group (P less than .001 for both).
A total of 2,454 deaths occurred within 5 years of follow-up (median, 2.7 years; longest, 8 years).
A Cox proportional hazards model (based on propensity-score-matched cohorts at 5 years) showed that, compared with uncoated devices, use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the CLTI group was associated with several improvements:
- Overall survival: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90.
- Amputation-free survival: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91.
- Major cardiovascular events: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88.
In the IC group, mortality was significantly better with DCB (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) or a combination of DCB and drug-eluting stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) than with uncoated devices, but similar for DES alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08).
No benefit was found for paclitaxel-coated devices in the IC group for AFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00) or major cardiovascular events (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00).
The authors acknowledge that “unmeasured confounding” may partly explain the results. It may be that patients revascularized with DCB or DES “are more likely to be treated in highly specialized trial centers with clear follow-up protocol.”
Moreover, these patients may have received “the best treatment,” including statin therapy, added Dr. Behrendt.
More evidence needed
Dr. Secemsky, who was not involved with either study, said the German investigators “did a wonderful job with this analysis in a large population of several thousand patients, showing nicely that after accounting for differences in comorbidities, the patients had no evidence of harm with [paclitaxel-coated] devices through 5 years.”
However, he cautioned, median follow-up time was just over 2 years. “Although the investigators had data all the way out to 5 years, over time, the number of patients contributing data became smaller, which results in more uncertainty with these longer-term findings,” he said. “As such, we still need to look at additional long-term data in this patient population to confirm the safety of these devices.”
At present, the “major consideration we want to address is whether it’s safe to use these devices, and we’re undertaking these analyses to examine safety, not to see if they improve mortality,” although the present study “has a suggestion of mortality benefit,” Dr. Secemsky said.
Dr. Katsanos added that paclitaxel-coated balloons “remain under investigation for below-knee arteries and critical limb ischemia,” with “a few randomized controlled trials on the way.”
“We need definitive evidence from high-quality multicenter controlled trials that these devices may improve wound healing and limb salvage without any systemic mortality risk,” he said.
Dr. Katsanos receives personal fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Healthcare. The study by Dr. Behrendt was part of the IDOMENEO project funded by the German Joint Federal Committee. Dr. Behrendt reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Secemsky reports institutional grants from Cook Medical, BD Bard, Medtronic, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Boston Scientific, and reports consultancy for Cook Medical, BD Bard, and Medtronic.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The controversy regarding the safety of treating peripheral artery disease (PAD) with paclitaxel-coated devices has only deepened in the new year, with two recent studies suggesting opposite safety findings.
The debate began with a 2018 meta-analysis showing a late mortality signal associated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) that sent reverberations through the interventional cardiology community (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 18;7[24]:e011245).
Now, in a new meta-analysis involving eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and more than 1,400 patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the same researchers found significantly more early amputations and deaths in those treated with DCB below the knee, compared with conventional balloon angioplasty.
“The findings of our latest report add to previous evidence underpinning major safety concerns around use of paclitaxel in lower limb angioplasties – increased long-term patient mortality in cases of intermittent claudication,” lead author Konstantinos Katsanos MD, MSc, PhD, Patras University Hospital, Greece, said in an interview.
By contrast, a retrospective study of insurance claims in Germany showed no heightened mortality with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents, compared with uncoated devices, in close to 38,000 patients with PAD.
On the contrary, use of paclitaxel-coated devices was associated with higher long-term survival, better amputation-free survival (AFS), and lower rates of major cardiovascular events in the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).
These findings “emphasize the difference between population-based evidence and randomized trials,” lead author Christian-Alexander Behrendt, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, said in an interview.
Downstream “showers”
In the new meta-analysis led by Dr. Katsanos, published online Jan. 15, the 1,420 patients were treated with five different DCBs and 97% had CLI (J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2020 Feb;31[2]:202-12).
In up to 1-year follow-up, the paclitaxel DCB group had fewer target lesion revascularizations (TLR) than those of the uncoated device group (11.8% vs. 25.6%; risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.81) but worse AFS (13.7% vs. 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07).
The latter finding was driven by nonsignificant increased risks for all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.07) and major amputations (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.90).
In dose-subgroup analyses, AFS was significantly worse in cases with high-dose (3.0-3.5 mcg/mm2) devices, but not in the single trial with a low-dose DCB (2.0 mcg/mm2).
“Considering the well-described downstream ‘showers’ of paclitaxel particles with current drug-coated balloons, we hypothesize that nontarget paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism for distal foot and systemic toxicity,” Dr. Katsanos said.
Short time frame
Eric Secemsky, MD, of Harvard Medical School, and director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested in an interview that this theorized mechanism of harm in below-the-knee procedures could potentially shed light on a similar mechanism at play in above-the-knee procedures.
[embed:render:related:node:203352]
“We didn’t understand why people could potentially be dying in above-the-knee [procedures], and the suggestion here is that these devices might perhaps be causing particular embolization or maybe delayed wound healing,” Dr. Secemsky speculated.
However, “I don’t know that this is true, so I am cautious to say this is true,” he emphasized.
Dr. Secemsky said a strength of the Katsanos analysis is that the RCTs included more than 1,000 patients, but noted that it is hard to vet the quality and rigor of the data, as some of the studies have not yet been published. He also noted that paclitaxel-coated devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for below-the-knee procedures.
Moreover, he continued, “two studies were driving the signal of harm: the IN.PACT DEEP, which included an iteration of their DCB that is no longer being tested; and the unpublished SINGA-PACLI trial. Those studies contributed most of the adverse events seen in this meta-analysis.”
In addition, the trials had different lengths of follow-up (6-12 months), he said. “Thus, the five trials with data available to 12 months are driving the 1-year findings, whereas three RCTs, including the primary RCT showing safety [Lutonix-BTK trial], only contribute data to 6 months.”
For this reason, “we are not too excited about this meta-analysis as of now, [because] all it tells us is that we need more data to support the safety of drug-coated devices in this population,” Dr. Secemsky said.
Dr. Katsanos explained that, “to address the differences in follow-up period and number of cases lost to follow-up, the primary endpoint was calculated on the log-hazard scale and expressed as a hazard ratio, as recommended for time-to-event outcomes.”
He highlighted that a short-term time frame of 6 months to 1 year was chosen “because it is clinically relevant to limb-threatening CLI.”
Sensitivity tests also “showed consistent direction and magnitude of the summary treatment effects in case of both AFS and freedom from TLR,” Dr. Katsanos emphasized.
Lower mortality, fewer amputations
The second study, published online Jan. 8, drew on health insurance claims in the German BARMER database to analyze 37,914 patients (mean age, 73.3 years, 49% female) and 21,546 propensity-score-matched patients with symptomatic CLTI or intermittent claudication (IC) with an index revascularization during 2010-2018 (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034).
Patients were first stratified by CLTI or IC, and then by balloon vs. stent use. Paclitaxel-coated devices were then compared with uncoated devices within each stratum. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up.
From 2010 to 2018, the annual use of paclitaxel-coated devices increased dramatically from 3% to 39% in the CLTI group and from 4% to 48% in the IC group (P less than .001 for both).
A total of 2,454 deaths occurred within 5 years of follow-up (median, 2.7 years; longest, 8 years).
A Cox proportional hazards model (based on propensity-score-matched cohorts at 5 years) showed that, compared with uncoated devices, use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the CLTI group was associated with several improvements:
- Overall survival: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90.
- Amputation-free survival: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91.
- Major cardiovascular events: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88.
In the IC group, mortality was significantly better with DCB (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) or a combination of DCB and drug-eluting stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) than with uncoated devices, but similar for DES alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08).
No benefit was found for paclitaxel-coated devices in the IC group for AFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00) or major cardiovascular events (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00).
The authors acknowledge that “unmeasured confounding” may partly explain the results. It may be that patients revascularized with DCB or DES “are more likely to be treated in highly specialized trial centers with clear follow-up protocol.”
Moreover, these patients may have received “the best treatment,” including statin therapy, added Dr. Behrendt.
More evidence needed
Dr. Secemsky, who was not involved with either study, said the German investigators “did a wonderful job with this analysis in a large population of several thousand patients, showing nicely that after accounting for differences in comorbidities, the patients had no evidence of harm with [paclitaxel-coated] devices through 5 years.”
However, he cautioned, median follow-up time was just over 2 years. “Although the investigators had data all the way out to 5 years, over time, the number of patients contributing data became smaller, which results in more uncertainty with these longer-term findings,” he said. “As such, we still need to look at additional long-term data in this patient population to confirm the safety of these devices.”
At present, the “major consideration we want to address is whether it’s safe to use these devices, and we’re undertaking these analyses to examine safety, not to see if they improve mortality,” although the present study “has a suggestion of mortality benefit,” Dr. Secemsky said.
Dr. Katsanos added that paclitaxel-coated balloons “remain under investigation for below-knee arteries and critical limb ischemia,” with “a few randomized controlled trials on the way.”
“We need definitive evidence from high-quality multicenter controlled trials that these devices may improve wound healing and limb salvage without any systemic mortality risk,” he said.
Dr. Katsanos receives personal fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Healthcare. The study by Dr. Behrendt was part of the IDOMENEO project funded by the German Joint Federal Committee. Dr. Behrendt reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Secemsky reports institutional grants from Cook Medical, BD Bard, Medtronic, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Boston Scientific, and reports consultancy for Cook Medical, BD Bard, and Medtronic.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The controversy regarding the safety of treating peripheral artery disease (PAD) with paclitaxel-coated devices has only deepened in the new year, with two recent studies suggesting opposite safety findings.
The debate began with a 2018 meta-analysis showing a late mortality signal associated with paclitaxel drug-coated balloons (DCBs) that sent reverberations through the interventional cardiology community (J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 18;7[24]:e011245).
Now, in a new meta-analysis involving eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and more than 1,400 patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the same researchers found significantly more early amputations and deaths in those treated with DCB below the knee, compared with conventional balloon angioplasty.
“The findings of our latest report add to previous evidence underpinning major safety concerns around use of paclitaxel in lower limb angioplasties – increased long-term patient mortality in cases of intermittent claudication,” lead author Konstantinos Katsanos MD, MSc, PhD, Patras University Hospital, Greece, said in an interview.
By contrast, a retrospective study of insurance claims in Germany showed no heightened mortality with paclitaxel-coated balloons and stents, compared with uncoated devices, in close to 38,000 patients with PAD.
On the contrary, use of paclitaxel-coated devices was associated with higher long-term survival, better amputation-free survival (AFS), and lower rates of major cardiovascular events in the treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI).
These findings “emphasize the difference between population-based evidence and randomized trials,” lead author Christian-Alexander Behrendt, MD, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, said in an interview.
Downstream “showers”
In the new meta-analysis led by Dr. Katsanos, published online Jan. 15, the 1,420 patients were treated with five different DCBs and 97% had CLI (J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2020 Feb;31[2]:202-12).
In up to 1-year follow-up, the paclitaxel DCB group had fewer target lesion revascularizations (TLR) than those of the uncoated device group (11.8% vs. 25.6%; risk ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.81) but worse AFS (13.7% vs. 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.52; 95% CI, 1.12-2.07).
The latter finding was driven by nonsignificant increased risks for all-cause death (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.94-2.07) and major amputations (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.90).
In dose-subgroup analyses, AFS was significantly worse in cases with high-dose (3.0-3.5 mcg/mm2) devices, but not in the single trial with a low-dose DCB (2.0 mcg/mm2).
“Considering the well-described downstream ‘showers’ of paclitaxel particles with current drug-coated balloons, we hypothesize that nontarget paclitaxel embolization is a plausible mechanism for distal foot and systemic toxicity,” Dr. Katsanos said.
Short time frame
Eric Secemsky, MD, of Harvard Medical School, and director of vascular intervention at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, suggested in an interview that this theorized mechanism of harm in below-the-knee procedures could potentially shed light on a similar mechanism at play in above-the-knee procedures.
[embed:render:related:node:203352]
“We didn’t understand why people could potentially be dying in above-the-knee [procedures], and the suggestion here is that these devices might perhaps be causing particular embolization or maybe delayed wound healing,” Dr. Secemsky speculated.
However, “I don’t know that this is true, so I am cautious to say this is true,” he emphasized.
Dr. Secemsky said a strength of the Katsanos analysis is that the RCTs included more than 1,000 patients, but noted that it is hard to vet the quality and rigor of the data, as some of the studies have not yet been published. He also noted that paclitaxel-coated devices are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States for below-the-knee procedures.
Moreover, he continued, “two studies were driving the signal of harm: the IN.PACT DEEP, which included an iteration of their DCB that is no longer being tested; and the unpublished SINGA-PACLI trial. Those studies contributed most of the adverse events seen in this meta-analysis.”
In addition, the trials had different lengths of follow-up (6-12 months), he said. “Thus, the five trials with data available to 12 months are driving the 1-year findings, whereas three RCTs, including the primary RCT showing safety [Lutonix-BTK trial], only contribute data to 6 months.”
For this reason, “we are not too excited about this meta-analysis as of now, [because] all it tells us is that we need more data to support the safety of drug-coated devices in this population,” Dr. Secemsky said.
Dr. Katsanos explained that, “to address the differences in follow-up period and number of cases lost to follow-up, the primary endpoint was calculated on the log-hazard scale and expressed as a hazard ratio, as recommended for time-to-event outcomes.”
He highlighted that a short-term time frame of 6 months to 1 year was chosen “because it is clinically relevant to limb-threatening CLI.”
Sensitivity tests also “showed consistent direction and magnitude of the summary treatment effects in case of both AFS and freedom from TLR,” Dr. Katsanos emphasized.
Lower mortality, fewer amputations
The second study, published online Jan. 8, drew on health insurance claims in the German BARMER database to analyze 37,914 patients (mean age, 73.3 years, 49% female) and 21,546 propensity-score-matched patients with symptomatic CLTI or intermittent claudication (IC) with an index revascularization during 2010-2018 (Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.12.034).
Patients were first stratified by CLTI or IC, and then by balloon vs. stent use. Paclitaxel-coated devices were then compared with uncoated devices within each stratum. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the end of follow-up.
From 2010 to 2018, the annual use of paclitaxel-coated devices increased dramatically from 3% to 39% in the CLTI group and from 4% to 48% in the IC group (P less than .001 for both).
A total of 2,454 deaths occurred within 5 years of follow-up (median, 2.7 years; longest, 8 years).
A Cox proportional hazards model (based on propensity-score-matched cohorts at 5 years) showed that, compared with uncoated devices, use of paclitaxel-coated devices in the CLTI group was associated with several improvements:
- Overall survival: HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90.
- Amputation-free survival: HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91.
- Major cardiovascular events: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88.
In the IC group, mortality was significantly better with DCB (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99) or a combination of DCB and drug-eluting stents (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98) than with uncoated devices, but similar for DES alone (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08).
No benefit was found for paclitaxel-coated devices in the IC group for AFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00) or major cardiovascular events (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.00).
The authors acknowledge that “unmeasured confounding” may partly explain the results. It may be that patients revascularized with DCB or DES “are more likely to be treated in highly specialized trial centers with clear follow-up protocol.”
Moreover, these patients may have received “the best treatment,” including statin therapy, added Dr. Behrendt.
More evidence needed
Dr. Secemsky, who was not involved with either study, said the German investigators “did a wonderful job with this analysis in a large population of several thousand patients, showing nicely that after accounting for differences in comorbidities, the patients had no evidence of harm with [paclitaxel-coated] devices through 5 years.”
However, he cautioned, median follow-up time was just over 2 years. “Although the investigators had data all the way out to 5 years, over time, the number of patients contributing data became smaller, which results in more uncertainty with these longer-term findings,” he said. “As such, we still need to look at additional long-term data in this patient population to confirm the safety of these devices.”
At present, the “major consideration we want to address is whether it’s safe to use these devices, and we’re undertaking these analyses to examine safety, not to see if they improve mortality,” although the present study “has a suggestion of mortality benefit,” Dr. Secemsky said.
Dr. Katsanos added that paclitaxel-coated balloons “remain under investigation for below-knee arteries and critical limb ischemia,” with “a few randomized controlled trials on the way.”
“We need definitive evidence from high-quality multicenter controlled trials that these devices may improve wound healing and limb salvage without any systemic mortality risk,” he said.
Dr. Katsanos receives personal fees from Boston Scientific and Philips Healthcare. The study by Dr. Behrendt was part of the IDOMENEO project funded by the German Joint Federal Committee. Dr. Behrendt reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Secemsky reports institutional grants from Cook Medical, BD Bard, Medtronic, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Boston Scientific, and reports consultancy for Cook Medical, BD Bard, and Medtronic.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.