Steve Stiles

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.

The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.

Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.

The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.

“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.

The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.

Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.

The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.

“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has expanded the indicated age range for evinacumab-dgnb (Evkeeza, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals), which was approved 2 years ago as an adjunct to other lipid-lowering therapies for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) in patients aged 12 and older.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The antibody-based agent’s indication now also covers patients aged 5-11 years with the rare genetic disorder, Regeneron announced. It blocks angiopoietin-like 3 (ANGPTL3), inhibiting lipoprotein lipase and endothelial lipase, thereby cutting LDL-cholesterol levels by mechanisms not directly involving the LDL receptor.

The expanded indication is based on a study that saw a 48% drop in LDL-cholesterol levels over 24 weeks, the primary endpoint, across 20 HoFH patients aged 5-11 years who received evinacumab-dgnb on top of maximally tolerated standard lipid-modifying therapy, the company reports.

Levels of apolipoprotein B, non-HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol also fell significantly in the trial, which was completed in January.

The drug’s efficacy and safety resembled those of a previously reported larger study of patients with HoFH aged 12 years and older (mean age about 40 years) that led to its initial approval.

“The safety and effectiveness of Evkeeza have not been established in patients with other causes of hypercholesterolemia, including those with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia,” the company states. Nor is it known whether the drug affects clinical outcomes.

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

Patients with degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation that calls for surgery may, for the most part, safely choose either a standard procedure requiring a midline sternotomy or one performed through a minithoracotomy, suggests a randomized comparison of the two techniques.

Still, the minimally invasive approach showed some advantages in the study. Patients’ quality of recovery was about the same with both procedures at 12 weeks, but those who had the minimally invasive thoracoscopy-guided surgery had shown greater improvement 6 weeks earlier.

Also in the UK Mini Mitral Trial, hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent the mini-thoracotomy procedure, and that group spent fewer days in the hospital over the following months.

But neither procedure had an edge in terms of postoperative clinical risk in the study. Rates of clinical events, such as death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), were about the same over 1 year.

Patients in this trial had been deemed suitable for either of the two surgeries, which were always performed by surgeons specially chosen by the steering committee for their experience and expertise.

This first randomized head-to-head comparison of the two approaches in such patients should make both patients and clinicians more confident about choosing the minimally invasive surgery for degenerative MV disease, said Enoch Akowuah, MD, Newcastle (England) University, United Kingdom.

Dr. Akowuah presented the UK Mini-Mitral Trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

A “main takeaway” for clinical practice from the trial would be that minithoracotomy MV repair “is as safe and effective as conventional sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation,” said discussant Amy E. Simone, PA-C, following Dr. Akowuah’s presentation.

“I think this study is unique in that its focus is on delivering high-quality, cost-efficient care for mitral regurgitation, but also with an emphasis on patients’ goals and wishes,” said Ms. Simone, who directs the Marcus Heart Valve Center of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.

Cardiac surgeon Thomas MacGillivray, MD, another discussant, agreed that the data presented from at least this study suggest neither the minithoracotomy nor sternotomy approach is better than the other. But he questioned whether that would hold true if applied to broader clinical practice.

Dr. MacGillivray, of MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, observed that only 330 patients were randomly assigned among a total of 1,167 candidates for candidates for MV repair surgery.

Indeed, he noted, more than 200 declined and about 600 were declared ineligible for the study, “even though it had seemed as if all were appropriate for mitral valve repair. That could be viewed as a significant limitation in terms of scalability in the real world.”

Some of those patients weren’t randomly assigned because they ultimately were not considered appropriate for both procedures, and some expressed a preference for one or the other approach, Dr. Akowuah replied. Those were the most common reasons. Many others did not enter the study, he said, because their mitral regurgitation was functional, not degenerative.

The two randomization groups fared similarly for the primary endpoint reflecting recovery from surgery, so the trial was actually “negative,” Dr. Akowuah said in an interview. However, “I see it as very much a win for minithoracotomy. The outstanding questions for clinicians and patients have been about the clinical efficacy and safety of the technique. And we’ve shown in this trial that minithoracotomy is safe and effective.”

If the minithoracotomy procedure is available, he continued, “and it’s just as clinically effective and safe – and we weren’t sure that was the case until we did this trial – and the repair is almost as durable, then why have a sternotomy?”

The researchers assigned 330 patients with degenerative MV disease who were deemed suitable for either type of surgery to undergo the standard operation via sternotomy or the minithoracotomy procedure at 10 centers in the United Kingdom. The steering committee had hand-selected its 28 experienced surgeons, each of whom performed only one of the two surgeries consistently for the trial’s patients.

The technically more demanding minithoracotomy procedure took longer to perform by a mean of 44 minutes,  it prolonged cross-clamp time by 11 minutes, and it required 30 minutes more cardiopulmonary bypass support, Dr. Akowuah reported.

The two patient groups showed no significant differences in the primary endpoint of physical function and ability to return to usual activity levels at 12 weeks, as assessed by scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey and wrist-worn accelerometer monitoring. At 6 weeks, however, the mini-thoracotomy patients had shown a significant early but temporary advantage for those recovery measures.

The minithoracotomy group clearly fared better, however, on some secondary endpoints. For example, their median hospital LOS was 5 days, compared with 6 days for the sternotomy group (P = .003), and 33.1% of the mini-thoracotomy patients were discharged within 4 days of the surgery, compared with only 15.3% of patients who had the standard procedure (P < .001).

The minithoracotomy group also had marginally more days alive out of the hospital at both 30 days (23.6 days vs. 22.4 days in the sternotomy group) and 90 days (82.7 days and 80.5 days, respectively) after the surgery (P = .03 for both differences).

Safety outcomes at 12 weeks were similar, with no significant differences in rate of death, strokes, MI, or renal impairment, or in ICU length of stay or need for more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, Dr. Akowuah reported.

Safety outcomes at 1 year were also similar. Mortality by then was 2.4% for the minithoracotomy patients and 2.5% for the sternotomy group, nor were there significant differences in HHF rates or need for repeat MV surgical repair.

Dr. Akowuah said the patients will be followed for up to 5 years for the primary outcomes, echocardiographic changes, and clinical events.

The minithoracotomy surgery’s longer operative times and specialized equipment make it more a expensive procedure than the standard surgery, he said. “So we need to work out in a cost-effectiveness analysis whether that is offset by the benefits,” such as shorter hospital stays or perhaps fewer transfusions or readmissions.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reported no relevant financial relationships with industry.

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

Patients with degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation that calls for surgery may, for the most part, safely choose either a standard procedure requiring a midline sternotomy or one performed through a minithoracotomy, suggests a randomized comparison of the two techniques.

Still, the minimally invasive approach showed some advantages in the study. Patients’ quality of recovery was about the same with both procedures at 12 weeks, but those who had the minimally invasive thoracoscopy-guided surgery had shown greater improvement 6 weeks earlier.

Also in the UK Mini Mitral Trial, hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent the mini-thoracotomy procedure, and that group spent fewer days in the hospital over the following months.

But neither procedure had an edge in terms of postoperative clinical risk in the study. Rates of clinical events, such as death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), were about the same over 1 year.

Patients in this trial had been deemed suitable for either of the two surgeries, which were always performed by surgeons specially chosen by the steering committee for their experience and expertise.

This first randomized head-to-head comparison of the two approaches in such patients should make both patients and clinicians more confident about choosing the minimally invasive surgery for degenerative MV disease, said Enoch Akowuah, MD, Newcastle (England) University, United Kingdom.

Dr. Akowuah presented the UK Mini-Mitral Trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

A “main takeaway” for clinical practice from the trial would be that minithoracotomy MV repair “is as safe and effective as conventional sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation,” said discussant Amy E. Simone, PA-C, following Dr. Akowuah’s presentation.

“I think this study is unique in that its focus is on delivering high-quality, cost-efficient care for mitral regurgitation, but also with an emphasis on patients’ goals and wishes,” said Ms. Simone, who directs the Marcus Heart Valve Center of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.

Cardiac surgeon Thomas MacGillivray, MD, another discussant, agreed that the data presented from at least this study suggest neither the minithoracotomy nor sternotomy approach is better than the other. But he questioned whether that would hold true if applied to broader clinical practice.

Dr. MacGillivray, of MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, observed that only 330 patients were randomly assigned among a total of 1,167 candidates for candidates for MV repair surgery.

Indeed, he noted, more than 200 declined and about 600 were declared ineligible for the study, “even though it had seemed as if all were appropriate for mitral valve repair. That could be viewed as a significant limitation in terms of scalability in the real world.”

Some of those patients weren’t randomly assigned because they ultimately were not considered appropriate for both procedures, and some expressed a preference for one or the other approach, Dr. Akowuah replied. Those were the most common reasons. Many others did not enter the study, he said, because their mitral regurgitation was functional, not degenerative.

The two randomization groups fared similarly for the primary endpoint reflecting recovery from surgery, so the trial was actually “negative,” Dr. Akowuah said in an interview. However, “I see it as very much a win for minithoracotomy. The outstanding questions for clinicians and patients have been about the clinical efficacy and safety of the technique. And we’ve shown in this trial that minithoracotomy is safe and effective.”

If the minithoracotomy procedure is available, he continued, “and it’s just as clinically effective and safe – and we weren’t sure that was the case until we did this trial – and the repair is almost as durable, then why have a sternotomy?”

The researchers assigned 330 patients with degenerative MV disease who were deemed suitable for either type of surgery to undergo the standard operation via sternotomy or the minithoracotomy procedure at 10 centers in the United Kingdom. The steering committee had hand-selected its 28 experienced surgeons, each of whom performed only one of the two surgeries consistently for the trial’s patients.

The technically more demanding minithoracotomy procedure took longer to perform by a mean of 44 minutes,  it prolonged cross-clamp time by 11 minutes, and it required 30 minutes more cardiopulmonary bypass support, Dr. Akowuah reported.

The two patient groups showed no significant differences in the primary endpoint of physical function and ability to return to usual activity levels at 12 weeks, as assessed by scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey and wrist-worn accelerometer monitoring. At 6 weeks, however, the mini-thoracotomy patients had shown a significant early but temporary advantage for those recovery measures.

The minithoracotomy group clearly fared better, however, on some secondary endpoints. For example, their median hospital LOS was 5 days, compared with 6 days for the sternotomy group (P = .003), and 33.1% of the mini-thoracotomy patients were discharged within 4 days of the surgery, compared with only 15.3% of patients who had the standard procedure (P < .001).

The minithoracotomy group also had marginally more days alive out of the hospital at both 30 days (23.6 days vs. 22.4 days in the sternotomy group) and 90 days (82.7 days and 80.5 days, respectively) after the surgery (P = .03 for both differences).

Safety outcomes at 12 weeks were similar, with no significant differences in rate of death, strokes, MI, or renal impairment, or in ICU length of stay or need for more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, Dr. Akowuah reported.

Safety outcomes at 1 year were also similar. Mortality by then was 2.4% for the minithoracotomy patients and 2.5% for the sternotomy group, nor were there significant differences in HHF rates or need for repeat MV surgical repair.

Dr. Akowuah said the patients will be followed for up to 5 years for the primary outcomes, echocardiographic changes, and clinical events.

The minithoracotomy surgery’s longer operative times and specialized equipment make it more a expensive procedure than the standard surgery, he said. “So we need to work out in a cost-effectiveness analysis whether that is offset by the benefits,” such as shorter hospital stays or perhaps fewer transfusions or readmissions.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reported no relevant financial relationships with industry.

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

Patients with degenerative mitral valve (MV) regurgitation that calls for surgery may, for the most part, safely choose either a standard procedure requiring a midline sternotomy or one performed through a minithoracotomy, suggests a randomized comparison of the two techniques.

Still, the minimally invasive approach showed some advantages in the study. Patients’ quality of recovery was about the same with both procedures at 12 weeks, but those who had the minimally invasive thoracoscopy-guided surgery had shown greater improvement 6 weeks earlier.

Also in the UK Mini Mitral Trial, hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter for patients who underwent the mini-thoracotomy procedure, and that group spent fewer days in the hospital over the following months.

But neither procedure had an edge in terms of postoperative clinical risk in the study. Rates of clinical events, such as death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), were about the same over 1 year.

Patients in this trial had been deemed suitable for either of the two surgeries, which were always performed by surgeons specially chosen by the steering committee for their experience and expertise.

This first randomized head-to-head comparison of the two approaches in such patients should make both patients and clinicians more confident about choosing the minimally invasive surgery for degenerative MV disease, said Enoch Akowuah, MD, Newcastle (England) University, United Kingdom.

Dr. Akowuah presented the UK Mini-Mitral Trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

A “main takeaway” for clinical practice from the trial would be that minithoracotomy MV repair “is as safe and effective as conventional sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation,” said discussant Amy E. Simone, PA-C, following Dr. Akowuah’s presentation.

“I think this study is unique in that its focus is on delivering high-quality, cost-efficient care for mitral regurgitation, but also with an emphasis on patients’ goals and wishes,” said Ms. Simone, who directs the Marcus Heart Valve Center of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta.

Cardiac surgeon Thomas MacGillivray, MD, another discussant, agreed that the data presented from at least this study suggest neither the minithoracotomy nor sternotomy approach is better than the other. But he questioned whether that would hold true if applied to broader clinical practice.

Dr. MacGillivray, of MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, observed that only 330 patients were randomly assigned among a total of 1,167 candidates for candidates for MV repair surgery.

Indeed, he noted, more than 200 declined and about 600 were declared ineligible for the study, “even though it had seemed as if all were appropriate for mitral valve repair. That could be viewed as a significant limitation in terms of scalability in the real world.”

Some of those patients weren’t randomly assigned because they ultimately were not considered appropriate for both procedures, and some expressed a preference for one or the other approach, Dr. Akowuah replied. Those were the most common reasons. Many others did not enter the study, he said, because their mitral regurgitation was functional, not degenerative.

The two randomization groups fared similarly for the primary endpoint reflecting recovery from surgery, so the trial was actually “negative,” Dr. Akowuah said in an interview. However, “I see it as very much a win for minithoracotomy. The outstanding questions for clinicians and patients have been about the clinical efficacy and safety of the technique. And we’ve shown in this trial that minithoracotomy is safe and effective.”

If the minithoracotomy procedure is available, he continued, “and it’s just as clinically effective and safe – and we weren’t sure that was the case until we did this trial – and the repair is almost as durable, then why have a sternotomy?”

The researchers assigned 330 patients with degenerative MV disease who were deemed suitable for either type of surgery to undergo the standard operation via sternotomy or the minithoracotomy procedure at 10 centers in the United Kingdom. The steering committee had hand-selected its 28 experienced surgeons, each of whom performed only one of the two surgeries consistently for the trial’s patients.

The technically more demanding minithoracotomy procedure took longer to perform by a mean of 44 minutes,  it prolonged cross-clamp time by 11 minutes, and it required 30 minutes more cardiopulmonary bypass support, Dr. Akowuah reported.

The two patient groups showed no significant differences in the primary endpoint of physical function and ability to return to usual activity levels at 12 weeks, as assessed by scores on the 36-Item Short Form Survey and wrist-worn accelerometer monitoring. At 6 weeks, however, the mini-thoracotomy patients had shown a significant early but temporary advantage for those recovery measures.

The minithoracotomy group clearly fared better, however, on some secondary endpoints. For example, their median hospital LOS was 5 days, compared with 6 days for the sternotomy group (P = .003), and 33.1% of the mini-thoracotomy patients were discharged within 4 days of the surgery, compared with only 15.3% of patients who had the standard procedure (P < .001).

The minithoracotomy group also had marginally more days alive out of the hospital at both 30 days (23.6 days vs. 22.4 days in the sternotomy group) and 90 days (82.7 days and 80.5 days, respectively) after the surgery (P = .03 for both differences).

Safety outcomes at 12 weeks were similar, with no significant differences in rate of death, strokes, MI, or renal impairment, or in ICU length of stay or need for more than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation, Dr. Akowuah reported.

Safety outcomes at 1 year were also similar. Mortality by then was 2.4% for the minithoracotomy patients and 2.5% for the sternotomy group, nor were there significant differences in HHF rates or need for repeat MV surgical repair.

Dr. Akowuah said the patients will be followed for up to 5 years for the primary outcomes, echocardiographic changes, and clinical events.

The minithoracotomy surgery’s longer operative times and specialized equipment make it more a expensive procedure than the standard surgery, he said. “So we need to work out in a cost-effectiveness analysis whether that is offset by the benefits,” such as shorter hospital stays or perhaps fewer transfusions or readmissions.

The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reported no relevant financial relationships with industry.

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

There is no magical amount of viable ventricular myocardium that makes percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) an effective addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in stable patients with coronary disease and poor ventricular function, suggests an analysis from a major trial.

The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial recently made waves when it showed no clinical advantage from adding PCI to OMT in stable patients with severe ischemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. All the patients had shown viable but dysfunctional myocardium that could potentially be revascularized.

But in a secondary analysis, extent of such hibernating heart muscle was not a good predictor of clinical outcomes, which in the trial meant death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF).

Burden of myocardial scar tissue, however, turned out to be a potent predictor of clinical risk regardless of coronary disease severity or even LV ejection fraction (LVEF).

Because myocardial viability tracks poorly with outcomes in patients like those enrolled in the trial, as the new analysis suggests, conventional viability testing isn’t an effective guide for deciding who among them should get PCI, Divaka Perera, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Perera, of King’s College London and the trial’s principal investigator, presented the REVIVED-BCIS2 secondary results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation..

Viability testing for ischemia, he noted, is often used in practice to aid revascularization decisions. As the extent of myocardial viability can vary, it’s been asked – ever since the trial’s primary publication – whether there could be “a sweet spot or Goldilocks zone of viability that would allow prediction of which patients will do better with PCI compared to medical therapy,” Dr. Perera said. “The trial conclusively shows that is not the case.”

That the extent of hibernating myocardium, which is viable but dysfunctional, didn’t predict clinical outcomes or LV functional recovery “is disruptive of current practice and challenges a view that’s been held for decades.”

The trial’s 700 patients receiving OMT had been randomly assigned to undergo PCI or not, 347 and 353 patients, respectively. About 12% of the total were women.

About 70% of patients underwent baseline and follow-up myocardial viability testing using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging with late gadolinium enhancement for estimation of scar burden; the remainder underwent dobutamine-stress echocardiography. All imaging assessments were conducted at independent core laboratories, Dr. Perera reported.

Extent of myocardial viability was defined three ways: volume of hibernating heart muscle, total volume of viable myocardium, and scar burden – all expressed as a percentage of total LV volume.

Every 10% increment in LV volume found to be hibernating related to a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.04; P = .56) for all-cause mortality or HHF at a median of 3.3 years. The analysis was adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous HHF, chronic renal failure, extent of CAD, type of viability testing, and baseline LVEF.

The adjusted HR for the same percentage increment in total viable myocardium was marginally significantly reduced at 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00; P = .048).

The correlation with scar burden was stronger. The adjusted composite-endpoint HR per 10% increment in scar burden was significantly increased at 1.18 (95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .009).

Extent of myocardial viability by tertiles, regardless of viability definition, did not highlight any group with a reduced risk for death or HHF, or group with better LV functional recovery, from OMT plus PCI, compared with OMT alone.

The findings appear to suggest that scar burden, but not extent of viability as it’s usually measured, may effectively guide PCI decisions in such patients, Dr. Perera said.

“I would say that viability testing as we understand it now, based on the paradigm of hibernating myocardium, is very useful,” he said, “but that is not the only information we can get from a viability test.”

Scar burden can also be determined from the same tests but isn’t typically looked at. “We’re actually collecting this information  but not using it,” Dr. Perera said. “When we do, it is really powerfully predictive” of both clinical outcomes and LV functional recovery. “Yet scar burden is not in any of the guidelines for stratifying risk.”

REVIVED-BCIS2 was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program. Dr. Perera had no disclosures.

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

There is no magical amount of viable ventricular myocardium that makes percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) an effective addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in stable patients with coronary disease and poor ventricular function, suggests an analysis from a major trial.

The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial recently made waves when it showed no clinical advantage from adding PCI to OMT in stable patients with severe ischemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. All the patients had shown viable but dysfunctional myocardium that could potentially be revascularized.

But in a secondary analysis, extent of such hibernating heart muscle was not a good predictor of clinical outcomes, which in the trial meant death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF).

Burden of myocardial scar tissue, however, turned out to be a potent predictor of clinical risk regardless of coronary disease severity or even LV ejection fraction (LVEF).

Because myocardial viability tracks poorly with outcomes in patients like those enrolled in the trial, as the new analysis suggests, conventional viability testing isn’t an effective guide for deciding who among them should get PCI, Divaka Perera, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Perera, of King’s College London and the trial’s principal investigator, presented the REVIVED-BCIS2 secondary results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation..

Viability testing for ischemia, he noted, is often used in practice to aid revascularization decisions. As the extent of myocardial viability can vary, it’s been asked – ever since the trial’s primary publication – whether there could be “a sweet spot or Goldilocks zone of viability that would allow prediction of which patients will do better with PCI compared to medical therapy,” Dr. Perera said. “The trial conclusively shows that is not the case.”

That the extent of hibernating myocardium, which is viable but dysfunctional, didn’t predict clinical outcomes or LV functional recovery “is disruptive of current practice and challenges a view that’s been held for decades.”

The trial’s 700 patients receiving OMT had been randomly assigned to undergo PCI or not, 347 and 353 patients, respectively. About 12% of the total were women.

About 70% of patients underwent baseline and follow-up myocardial viability testing using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging with late gadolinium enhancement for estimation of scar burden; the remainder underwent dobutamine-stress echocardiography. All imaging assessments were conducted at independent core laboratories, Dr. Perera reported.

Extent of myocardial viability was defined three ways: volume of hibernating heart muscle, total volume of viable myocardium, and scar burden – all expressed as a percentage of total LV volume.

Every 10% increment in LV volume found to be hibernating related to a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.04; P = .56) for all-cause mortality or HHF at a median of 3.3 years. The analysis was adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous HHF, chronic renal failure, extent of CAD, type of viability testing, and baseline LVEF.

The adjusted HR for the same percentage increment in total viable myocardium was marginally significantly reduced at 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00; P = .048).

The correlation with scar burden was stronger. The adjusted composite-endpoint HR per 10% increment in scar burden was significantly increased at 1.18 (95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .009).

Extent of myocardial viability by tertiles, regardless of viability definition, did not highlight any group with a reduced risk for death or HHF, or group with better LV functional recovery, from OMT plus PCI, compared with OMT alone.

The findings appear to suggest that scar burden, but not extent of viability as it’s usually measured, may effectively guide PCI decisions in such patients, Dr. Perera said.

“I would say that viability testing as we understand it now, based on the paradigm of hibernating myocardium, is very useful,” he said, “but that is not the only information we can get from a viability test.”

Scar burden can also be determined from the same tests but isn’t typically looked at. “We’re actually collecting this information  but not using it,” Dr. Perera said. “When we do, it is really powerfully predictive” of both clinical outcomes and LV functional recovery. “Yet scar burden is not in any of the guidelines for stratifying risk.”

REVIVED-BCIS2 was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program. Dr. Perera had no disclosures.

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

There is no magical amount of viable ventricular myocardium that makes percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) an effective addition to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in stable patients with coronary disease and poor ventricular function, suggests an analysis from a major trial.

The REVIVED-BCIS2 trial recently made waves when it showed no clinical advantage from adding PCI to OMT in stable patients with severe ischemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. All the patients had shown viable but dysfunctional myocardium that could potentially be revascularized.

But in a secondary analysis, extent of such hibernating heart muscle was not a good predictor of clinical outcomes, which in the trial meant death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF).

Burden of myocardial scar tissue, however, turned out to be a potent predictor of clinical risk regardless of coronary disease severity or even LV ejection fraction (LVEF).

Because myocardial viability tracks poorly with outcomes in patients like those enrolled in the trial, as the new analysis suggests, conventional viability testing isn’t an effective guide for deciding who among them should get PCI, Divaka Perera, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Perera, of King’s College London and the trial’s principal investigator, presented the REVIVED-BCIS2 secondary results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation..

Viability testing for ischemia, he noted, is often used in practice to aid revascularization decisions. As the extent of myocardial viability can vary, it’s been asked – ever since the trial’s primary publication – whether there could be “a sweet spot or Goldilocks zone of viability that would allow prediction of which patients will do better with PCI compared to medical therapy,” Dr. Perera said. “The trial conclusively shows that is not the case.”

That the extent of hibernating myocardium, which is viable but dysfunctional, didn’t predict clinical outcomes or LV functional recovery “is disruptive of current practice and challenges a view that’s been held for decades.”

The trial’s 700 patients receiving OMT had been randomly assigned to undergo PCI or not, 347 and 353 patients, respectively. About 12% of the total were women.

About 70% of patients underwent baseline and follow-up myocardial viability testing using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging with late gadolinium enhancement for estimation of scar burden; the remainder underwent dobutamine-stress echocardiography. All imaging assessments were conducted at independent core laboratories, Dr. Perera reported.

Extent of myocardial viability was defined three ways: volume of hibernating heart muscle, total volume of viable myocardium, and scar burden – all expressed as a percentage of total LV volume.

Every 10% increment in LV volume found to be hibernating related to a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.04; P = .56) for all-cause mortality or HHF at a median of 3.3 years. The analysis was adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous HHF, chronic renal failure, extent of CAD, type of viability testing, and baseline LVEF.

The adjusted HR for the same percentage increment in total viable myocardium was marginally significantly reduced at 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-1.00; P = .048).

The correlation with scar burden was stronger. The adjusted composite-endpoint HR per 10% increment in scar burden was significantly increased at 1.18 (95% CI, 1.04-1.33; P = .009).

Extent of myocardial viability by tertiles, regardless of viability definition, did not highlight any group with a reduced risk for death or HHF, or group with better LV functional recovery, from OMT plus PCI, compared with OMT alone.

The findings appear to suggest that scar burden, but not extent of viability as it’s usually measured, may effectively guide PCI decisions in such patients, Dr. Perera said.

“I would say that viability testing as we understand it now, based on the paradigm of hibernating myocardium, is very useful,” he said, “but that is not the only information we can get from a viability test.”

Scar burden can also be determined from the same tests but isn’t typically looked at. “We’re actually collecting this information  but not using it,” Dr. Perera said. “When we do, it is really powerfully predictive” of both clinical outcomes and LV functional recovery. “Yet scar burden is not in any of the guidelines for stratifying risk.”

REVIVED-BCIS2 was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program. Dr. Perera had no disclosures.

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

Bradycardia is a lot more common than generally believed, but is often asymptomatic and not clinically relevant, and may lead to needless pacemaker therapy, suggests a post hoc analysis of a major study.

The arrhythmia’s presence overall in the randomized LOOP trial predicted an excess risk of syncope and death, and it didn’t matter how it was detected. Bradyarrhythmia revealed incidentally at long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring was no more predictive than when it was picked up in a usual-care setting.

Still, people in the trial with implantable loop recorders (ILR) had six times the chance of being diagnosed with bradyarrhythmias than those in the usual-care control group. LOOP entered older persons in the community without known arrhythmias but with risk factors like diabetes or hypertension.

About 80% of such arrhythmias at ILR monitoring were asymptomatic, compared with less than one-fourth in the usual-care group. Yet pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmia was 53% more likely in the ILR group, according to a report published in JAMA Cardiology.

Most participants with asymptomatic bradycardia did not receive treatment for it, yet the study – despite the mostly conservative management – still showed “overtreatment with pacemakers” in the ILR group, observed lead author Søren Zöga Diederichsen, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet.

Bradyarrhythmia overall predicted later syncope and all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) death, but did so regardless of whether the patient was ILR monitored or received a pacemaker, Diederichsen said in an interview.

“We didn’t see any signal, not even a small signal, toward a health benefit from monitoring and detecting bradycardias, or from acting on them conservatively or implanting pacemakers,” he noted.

The study “emphasizes that you should have symptoms” to justify pacemaker therapy for bradyarrhythmias, regardless of how they were detected, Dr. Diederichsen said.

“Clearly ILRs may identify patients with bradyarrhythmias deserving of treatment” when they are associated with symptoms, an accompanying editorial agreed. In the current analysis, however, “a large proportion of bradycardic events were completely asymptomatic.” Yet bradycardia predicted syncope and CV death in both the ILR and usual care groups, it noted.

“This does raise the question as to whether bradyarrhythmia may be a risk marker for underlying nonarrhythmic conditions to which preventive strategies and treatment should be directed,” wrote editorialists Mark H. Schoenfeld, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Kristen K. Patton, MD, University of Washington, Seattle.

“In an aging population with ever-increasing comorbidities, it may become increasingly important to rule out bradycardia as a manifestation of a more sinister underlying disease,” they noted, and to identify “patients who may be particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes of progressive distal conduction disease.”

The previously published LOOP trial, conducted at four sites in Denmark, compared ILR screening for atrial fibrillation to usual care in 6,004 patients at least 70 years or older, most with hypertension. The main results showed little benefit from screening for atrial fibrillation in prevention of incident stroke or systemic embolism over about 5 years.

The current LOOP analysis, post hoc with all the associated limitations, followed incident bradyarrhythmia in the ILR and usual-care groups; any treatment of the arrhythmia was at physician discretion. The total cohort averaged 75 years in age and 47.3% were women.

The rate of incident bradyarrhythmia was 8.1% overall; it was 20.8% for those with ILR monitoring and 3.8% in the usual care group, for a hazard ratio of 6.21 (95% confidence interval, 5.15-7.48, P < .001).

The arrhythmia was asymptomatic in 23.8% of usual-care patients and 79.8% of those with an ILR.

Bradyarrhythmia was significantly more likely among older patients, male patients, and those with a history of syncope, the group reported.

Pacemakers were implanted for bradyarrhythmia in 2.9% of usual-care patients and 4.5% of those with ILR monitoring for an HR of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.14-2.06, P < .001).

Among usual-care patients, bradyarrhythmia (vs no bradyarrhythmia) was associated with 5.2 times the risk for incident syncope (P < .001). That risk for syncope went up 2.6 times (P = .01) in the ILR group.

The corresponding risks for CV death among controls and among ILR patients increased 4.8 times (P < .001) and by 3.1 (P < .001), respectively. The risks for death from any cause tripled (P < .001) and rose 2.5 times (P < .001) among bradycardic controls and ILR patients, respectively.

Bradyarrhythmia was not significantly related to sudden cardiac death in either group, the report noted.

Given the increasing use of heart rhythm monitoring “inside and outside the clinical setting,” it stated, “bradyarrhythmias are likely to be detected more often, sometimes as an incidental finding. Knowledge about the underlying prevalence and prognostic significance could help guide decisions.”

The study “teaches us a little bit” about the true prevalence of bradyarrhythmias in the general population, including asymptomatic cases that appear to be subclinical or “physiological,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview.

It also suggests that such bradycardia will be increasingly observed as use of ILR for arrhythmia screening expands in practice, he predicted. It may also be picked up more often by wearables and other rhythm-monitoring technology used by the public.

In the latter case especially, Dr. Diederichsen said, the current analysis could potentially help alleviate any concerns that bradyarrhythmia without symptoms is something that has to be specifically treated.

Dr. Diederichsen disclosed grants from several Danish research institutions, R. og Hustrus Fond, and Medtronic, as well as receiving personal fees from Vital Beats and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Schoenfeld reported ownership of stock from Apple. Dr. Patton reported employment as a medical officer for the Food and Drug Administration and serving as associate editor for JAMA Cardiology.

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

Bradycardia is a lot more common than generally believed, but is often asymptomatic and not clinically relevant, and may lead to needless pacemaker therapy, suggests a post hoc analysis of a major study.

The arrhythmia’s presence overall in the randomized LOOP trial predicted an excess risk of syncope and death, and it didn’t matter how it was detected. Bradyarrhythmia revealed incidentally at long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring was no more predictive than when it was picked up in a usual-care setting.

Still, people in the trial with implantable loop recorders (ILR) had six times the chance of being diagnosed with bradyarrhythmias than those in the usual-care control group. LOOP entered older persons in the community without known arrhythmias but with risk factors like diabetes or hypertension.

About 80% of such arrhythmias at ILR monitoring were asymptomatic, compared with less than one-fourth in the usual-care group. Yet pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmia was 53% more likely in the ILR group, according to a report published in JAMA Cardiology.

Most participants with asymptomatic bradycardia did not receive treatment for it, yet the study – despite the mostly conservative management – still showed “overtreatment with pacemakers” in the ILR group, observed lead author Søren Zöga Diederichsen, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet.

Bradyarrhythmia overall predicted later syncope and all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) death, but did so regardless of whether the patient was ILR monitored or received a pacemaker, Diederichsen said in an interview.

“We didn’t see any signal, not even a small signal, toward a health benefit from monitoring and detecting bradycardias, or from acting on them conservatively or implanting pacemakers,” he noted.

The study “emphasizes that you should have symptoms” to justify pacemaker therapy for bradyarrhythmias, regardless of how they were detected, Dr. Diederichsen said.

“Clearly ILRs may identify patients with bradyarrhythmias deserving of treatment” when they are associated with symptoms, an accompanying editorial agreed. In the current analysis, however, “a large proportion of bradycardic events were completely asymptomatic.” Yet bradycardia predicted syncope and CV death in both the ILR and usual care groups, it noted.

“This does raise the question as to whether bradyarrhythmia may be a risk marker for underlying nonarrhythmic conditions to which preventive strategies and treatment should be directed,” wrote editorialists Mark H. Schoenfeld, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Kristen K. Patton, MD, University of Washington, Seattle.

“In an aging population with ever-increasing comorbidities, it may become increasingly important to rule out bradycardia as a manifestation of a more sinister underlying disease,” they noted, and to identify “patients who may be particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes of progressive distal conduction disease.”

The previously published LOOP trial, conducted at four sites in Denmark, compared ILR screening for atrial fibrillation to usual care in 6,004 patients at least 70 years or older, most with hypertension. The main results showed little benefit from screening for atrial fibrillation in prevention of incident stroke or systemic embolism over about 5 years.

The current LOOP analysis, post hoc with all the associated limitations, followed incident bradyarrhythmia in the ILR and usual-care groups; any treatment of the arrhythmia was at physician discretion. The total cohort averaged 75 years in age and 47.3% were women.

The rate of incident bradyarrhythmia was 8.1% overall; it was 20.8% for those with ILR monitoring and 3.8% in the usual care group, for a hazard ratio of 6.21 (95% confidence interval, 5.15-7.48, P < .001).

The arrhythmia was asymptomatic in 23.8% of usual-care patients and 79.8% of those with an ILR.

Bradyarrhythmia was significantly more likely among older patients, male patients, and those with a history of syncope, the group reported.

Pacemakers were implanted for bradyarrhythmia in 2.9% of usual-care patients and 4.5% of those with ILR monitoring for an HR of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.14-2.06, P < .001).

Among usual-care patients, bradyarrhythmia (vs no bradyarrhythmia) was associated with 5.2 times the risk for incident syncope (P < .001). That risk for syncope went up 2.6 times (P = .01) in the ILR group.

The corresponding risks for CV death among controls and among ILR patients increased 4.8 times (P < .001) and by 3.1 (P < .001), respectively. The risks for death from any cause tripled (P < .001) and rose 2.5 times (P < .001) among bradycardic controls and ILR patients, respectively.

Bradyarrhythmia was not significantly related to sudden cardiac death in either group, the report noted.

Given the increasing use of heart rhythm monitoring “inside and outside the clinical setting,” it stated, “bradyarrhythmias are likely to be detected more often, sometimes as an incidental finding. Knowledge about the underlying prevalence and prognostic significance could help guide decisions.”

The study “teaches us a little bit” about the true prevalence of bradyarrhythmias in the general population, including asymptomatic cases that appear to be subclinical or “physiological,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview.

It also suggests that such bradycardia will be increasingly observed as use of ILR for arrhythmia screening expands in practice, he predicted. It may also be picked up more often by wearables and other rhythm-monitoring technology used by the public.

In the latter case especially, Dr. Diederichsen said, the current analysis could potentially help alleviate any concerns that bradyarrhythmia without symptoms is something that has to be specifically treated.

Dr. Diederichsen disclosed grants from several Danish research institutions, R. og Hustrus Fond, and Medtronic, as well as receiving personal fees from Vital Beats and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Schoenfeld reported ownership of stock from Apple. Dr. Patton reported employment as a medical officer for the Food and Drug Administration and serving as associate editor for JAMA Cardiology.

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

Bradycardia is a lot more common than generally believed, but is often asymptomatic and not clinically relevant, and may lead to needless pacemaker therapy, suggests a post hoc analysis of a major study.

The arrhythmia’s presence overall in the randomized LOOP trial predicted an excess risk of syncope and death, and it didn’t matter how it was detected. Bradyarrhythmia revealed incidentally at long-term cardiac rhythm monitoring was no more predictive than when it was picked up in a usual-care setting.

Still, people in the trial with implantable loop recorders (ILR) had six times the chance of being diagnosed with bradyarrhythmias than those in the usual-care control group. LOOP entered older persons in the community without known arrhythmias but with risk factors like diabetes or hypertension.

About 80% of such arrhythmias at ILR monitoring were asymptomatic, compared with less than one-fourth in the usual-care group. Yet pacemaker implantation for bradyarrhythmia was 53% more likely in the ILR group, according to a report published in JAMA Cardiology.

Most participants with asymptomatic bradycardia did not receive treatment for it, yet the study – despite the mostly conservative management – still showed “overtreatment with pacemakers” in the ILR group, observed lead author Søren Zöga Diederichsen, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet.

Bradyarrhythmia overall predicted later syncope and all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) death, but did so regardless of whether the patient was ILR monitored or received a pacemaker, Diederichsen said in an interview.

“We didn’t see any signal, not even a small signal, toward a health benefit from monitoring and detecting bradycardias, or from acting on them conservatively or implanting pacemakers,” he noted.

The study “emphasizes that you should have symptoms” to justify pacemaker therapy for bradyarrhythmias, regardless of how they were detected, Dr. Diederichsen said.

“Clearly ILRs may identify patients with bradyarrhythmias deserving of treatment” when they are associated with symptoms, an accompanying editorial agreed. In the current analysis, however, “a large proportion of bradycardic events were completely asymptomatic.” Yet bradycardia predicted syncope and CV death in both the ILR and usual care groups, it noted.

“This does raise the question as to whether bradyarrhythmia may be a risk marker for underlying nonarrhythmic conditions to which preventive strategies and treatment should be directed,” wrote editorialists Mark H. Schoenfeld, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and Kristen K. Patton, MD, University of Washington, Seattle.

“In an aging population with ever-increasing comorbidities, it may become increasingly important to rule out bradycardia as a manifestation of a more sinister underlying disease,” they noted, and to identify “patients who may be particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes of progressive distal conduction disease.”

The previously published LOOP trial, conducted at four sites in Denmark, compared ILR screening for atrial fibrillation to usual care in 6,004 patients at least 70 years or older, most with hypertension. The main results showed little benefit from screening for atrial fibrillation in prevention of incident stroke or systemic embolism over about 5 years.

The current LOOP analysis, post hoc with all the associated limitations, followed incident bradyarrhythmia in the ILR and usual-care groups; any treatment of the arrhythmia was at physician discretion. The total cohort averaged 75 years in age and 47.3% were women.

The rate of incident bradyarrhythmia was 8.1% overall; it was 20.8% for those with ILR monitoring and 3.8% in the usual care group, for a hazard ratio of 6.21 (95% confidence interval, 5.15-7.48, P < .001).

The arrhythmia was asymptomatic in 23.8% of usual-care patients and 79.8% of those with an ILR.

Bradyarrhythmia was significantly more likely among older patients, male patients, and those with a history of syncope, the group reported.

Pacemakers were implanted for bradyarrhythmia in 2.9% of usual-care patients and 4.5% of those with ILR monitoring for an HR of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.14-2.06, P < .001).

Among usual-care patients, bradyarrhythmia (vs no bradyarrhythmia) was associated with 5.2 times the risk for incident syncope (P < .001). That risk for syncope went up 2.6 times (P = .01) in the ILR group.

The corresponding risks for CV death among controls and among ILR patients increased 4.8 times (P < .001) and by 3.1 (P < .001), respectively. The risks for death from any cause tripled (P < .001) and rose 2.5 times (P < .001) among bradycardic controls and ILR patients, respectively.

Bradyarrhythmia was not significantly related to sudden cardiac death in either group, the report noted.

Given the increasing use of heart rhythm monitoring “inside and outside the clinical setting,” it stated, “bradyarrhythmias are likely to be detected more often, sometimes as an incidental finding. Knowledge about the underlying prevalence and prognostic significance could help guide decisions.”

The study “teaches us a little bit” about the true prevalence of bradyarrhythmias in the general population, including asymptomatic cases that appear to be subclinical or “physiological,” Dr. Diederichsen said in an interview.

It also suggests that such bradycardia will be increasingly observed as use of ILR for arrhythmia screening expands in practice, he predicted. It may also be picked up more often by wearables and other rhythm-monitoring technology used by the public.

In the latter case especially, Dr. Diederichsen said, the current analysis could potentially help alleviate any concerns that bradyarrhythmia without symptoms is something that has to be specifically treated.

Dr. Diederichsen disclosed grants from several Danish research institutions, R. og Hustrus Fond, and Medtronic, as well as receiving personal fees from Vital Beats and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Schoenfeld reported ownership of stock from Apple. Dr. Patton reported employment as a medical officer for the Food and Drug Administration and serving as associate editor for JAMA Cardiology.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

A jump in natriuretic peptide levels over several years in middle-aged adults points to worsened long-term risks for incident heart failure (HF) and death. But their predicted long-term survival improves if serial testing shows a drop in those levels, suggests a new analysis based on a well-known longitudinal study cohort.

The findings support the risk-stratification potential of serial natriuretic peptide testing, which may improve on individual assays for predicting future HF. Such serial assays might also be useful for guiding therapy aimed at preventing, for example, progression to clinical HF, researchers speculate on the basis of the current study,

The analysis of almost 1,000 members of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Community) cohort had been free of clinical HF at the first of two NT-proBNP assays, which were performed 6 years apart. Their 20-year clinical risk was linked to the trajectory of NT-proBNP levels across the two earlier assays.

For example, adjusted risk of incident HF more than doubled for participants with NT-proBNP levels exceeding 125 pg/mL on both assays, compared with levels that stayed under the cut point at both assays. Their mortality risk climbed by about two-thirds.

Risk for incident HF and of death climbed 86% and 32%, respectively, if NT-proBNP levels rose over the 6 years from less than to greater than 125 pg/mL. But long-term survival improved if serial assays showed a drop from the higher to the lower level.

Rising NT-proBNP levels over several years probably reflect ongoing exposure to risk factors such as hypertension or diabetes. Conversely, decreasing NT-proBNP levels likely reflect some success at keeping such risk factors under control, propose the authors of the analysis published in JAMA Cardiology. The study was led by Xiaoming Jia, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The findings raise the possibility that reducing NT-proBNP levels through risk-factor modification, tracked by serial assays, may potentially improve long-term risk for death or incident HF.

Such therapy, guided by natriuretic peptides, might prove especially useful in asymptomatic adults with modifiable HF risk factors but without known NT-proBNP elevation or cardiac structural changes, so-called stage A HF, senior author Vijay Nambi, MD, PhD, also of Baylor, observed for this news organization.

The best populations for serial NT-proBNP assays to guide therapy, Dr. Nambi said, should become clear “as more data emerges.” But the threshold for ordering such tests would probably be lower for people in stage A whose rising NT-proBNP levels later reclassify them as stage B, also called pre-HF.

In such cases, he speculated, intensified therapy of HF risk factors such as uncontrolled hypertension or diabetes – prompted by greater NT-proBNP levels at serial testing – might possibly avert progression to clinical HF.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These investigators have nicely demonstrated that one measurement of the biomarker may not be sufficient, that maybe it undercaptures the true burden of people who eventually will develop heart failure,” Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

The study raises the possibility “that the serial natriuretic peptide strategy may be more efficient and more comprehensive in identifying those who will eventually progress,” said Dr. Vaduganathan, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not associated with the ARIC analysis.

An open question, he added, is whether the predicted risk is modifiable. “If you are able to provide the biomarker information to treating clinicians, can they do something to attenuate the risk?”

The outlook is hopeful, given contemporary therapies “that can slow and even prevent heart failure in at-risk populations,” Dr. Vaduganathan said. For example, “The selective allocation of SGLT2 inhibitors to those with elevated natriuretic peptide levels, perhaps as captured in serial measurements, would be of great interest.”

The analysis included 9,776 adults (56.5% women, 21.3% Black) without HF who underwent NT-proBNP testing at the second and – about 6 years later – the fourth scheduled clinical visits in the ARIC study, which had enrolled persons aged 45-64 from four diverse communities from across the United States.

Adjusted hazard ratios for incident HF according to NT-proBNP changes from the first to second assays relative to 125 pg/mL were as follows:

• 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.60-2.16) when levels rose to higher than the cut point.
• 2.40 (95% CI, 2.00-2.88) when both levels exceeded the cut point.

The corresponding adjusted HRs for death from any cause were as follows:

• 1.32 (95%CI, 1.19-1.47) when levels rose to higher than 125 mg/mL.
• 1.68 (95% CI, 1.47-1.91) when both levels were above the cut point.

The risks for incident HF and for death rose significantly by 6% and 5%, respectively, per standard deviation NT-proBNP increase from the first to second assay.

Risks for HF and mortality for participants whose NT-proBNP levels declined from greater than to less than 125 pg/mL were similar to those whose levels remained low at both assays.

Cost-effectiveness would be another issue when implementing a strategy that calls for multiple biomarker assays, Dr. Vaduganathan observed.

“Surely, we would want to demonstrate that the laboratory measurement costs are offset by downstream prevention of heart failure events that could be averted by use of effective medical therapy, such SGLT2 inhibitors.”

ARIC has been funded by the National Institutes of Health and Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Nambi discloses receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study; support from Amgen; and stocks from Abbott Laboratories. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Vaduganathan has disclosed receiving grants or serving on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; speaking for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and serving on trial committees for studies sponsored by Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics.

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

The overall case volume for surgical mitral valve (MV) repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) hasn’t changed much nearly a decade into the age of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER). But, over the same period, there’s been a shift in the surgical–MV repair case mix at centers that have offered both the surgical option and TEER, a new study suggests.

Once TEER was introduced, those centers over time used the operative approach less in higher– and intermediate–surgical risk patients and more often in those deemed low risk for surgery. And that trend – at centers offering both approaches – paralleled improved risk-adjusted surgical repair short-term complications and 30-day and 5-year mortality.

The findings come from an analysis based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Medicare claims data collected from 2011 through 2018 at surgical–MV repair centers that also offered TEER for DMR after its 2013 approval. The transcatheter procedure, until only recently the exclusive domain of Abbott’s MitraClip in various incarnations, is officially indicated for patients judged too high risk for surgical MV repair.

A shift in surgical MV repair to predominantly lower-risk patients would be expected to improve outcomes. But the improvements seen in the current study seem to have a more complex explanation, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, MD, told this news organization.

The data seem to show TEER indication creep from higher-risk cases, for which there is clinical trial support, to intermediate-risk patients, that lack such evidence in favor of TEER. That seemed to push surgical repair toward even lower-risk cases. “I think that’s exactly right,” said Dr. Vemulapalli, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Still, he observed, the analysis was adjusted for surgical risk, and “Even after that adjustment, it looked like surgical outcomes were getting better after the availability of transcatheter mitral repair techniques.”

That observation may be explained by an increasingly sharp, “more careful” process for selecting patients for surgical repair vs. TEER, said Dr. Vemulapalli, who is senior author of the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Angela M. Lowenstern, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, and Andrew M. Vekstein, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, were the lead authors.

Indeed, the report states, the analysis supports the view that “a systematic evaluation by a heart team able to direct patients towards either surgical or transcatheter approaches enhances both short-term and long-term surgical outcomes.”

“In a world where both surgical and transcatheter techniques are going to be available,” Dr. Vemulapalli said, “patient selection becomes very, very important.”

An accompanying editorial acknowledges the heart-team approach’s potential for improving the selection of patients for surgery and perhaps therefore outcomes. But it also cites issues with that interpretation of the data.

For example, the heart-team approach is not used in consistent ways across the United States. And “although the heart team is recommended in multiple guidelines for valvular heart therapies, there is little evidence for its efficacy, specifically regarding improving clinical outcomes,” write Matthew W. Sherwood, MD, MHS, and Wayne B. Batchelor, MD, MHS, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

The editorialists highlight the study’s “significant downtrend in both high-risk and intermediate-risk surgical cases, with a concomitant increase in low-risk cases,” after introduction of TEER. That shift in case mix, they write, “would seem to be a more likely explanation for the modest improvement in outcomes for surgical MV repair.”

Also, importantly, the analysis didn’t include data on TEER procedures, only indirect evidence for TEER’s effect on surgical MV repair, the editorialists observe, and study authors acknowledge.

Still, the analysis looked at nearly 14,000 patients at 278 U.S. sites with surgical MV repair that launched TEER programs during the study period. They accounted for 6,806 surgical cases before and 7,153 surgical cases after the advent of TEER.

Their median annualized institutional surgical MV repair volume was 32 before and 29 after TEER availability (P = .06).

The risk-adjusted odds ratio for 30-day mortality after vs. before TEER became an option was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.99). The corresponding hazard ratio for mortality at 5 years was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86).

Other risk-adjusted surgical outcomes improved once TEER became available, including MV adverse outcomes (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001), operative mortality (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .041), and major morbidity (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .026)

Despite the data’s suggestion of TEER indication creep from solely high–surgical risk patients to those at intermediate risk, Dr. Vemulapalli said, “I don’t think that people should be doing transcatheter mitral repair in intermediate- or low-risk patients as a general rule.” Although, he added, “there will always be certain exceptions, depending on the patient’s specific situation.”

Dr. Vemulapalli pointed to several ongoing trials comparing TEER vs. surgical MR repair in patients with DMR at intermediate surgical risk, including REPAIR MR and PRIMARY.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott. Dr. Vemulapalli discloses receiving grants or contracts from the American College of Cardiology, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Cytokinetics, Abbott Vascular, the National Institutes of Health, and Boston Scientific; and consulting or serving on an advisory board for Janssen, the American College of Physicians, HeartFlow, and Edwards LifeSciences. Dr. Sherwood discloses receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Batchelor discloses receiving consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott.

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

The overall case volume for surgical mitral valve (MV) repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) hasn’t changed much nearly a decade into the age of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER). But, over the same period, there’s been a shift in the surgical–MV repair case mix at centers that have offered both the surgical option and TEER, a new study suggests.

Once TEER was introduced, those centers over time used the operative approach less in higher– and intermediate–surgical risk patients and more often in those deemed low risk for surgery. And that trend – at centers offering both approaches – paralleled improved risk-adjusted surgical repair short-term complications and 30-day and 5-year mortality.

The findings come from an analysis based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Medicare claims data collected from 2011 through 2018 at surgical–MV repair centers that also offered TEER for DMR after its 2013 approval. The transcatheter procedure, until only recently the exclusive domain of Abbott’s MitraClip in various incarnations, is officially indicated for patients judged too high risk for surgical MV repair.

A shift in surgical MV repair to predominantly lower-risk patients would be expected to improve outcomes. But the improvements seen in the current study seem to have a more complex explanation, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, MD, told this news organization.

The data seem to show TEER indication creep from higher-risk cases, for which there is clinical trial support, to intermediate-risk patients, that lack such evidence in favor of TEER. That seemed to push surgical repair toward even lower-risk cases. “I think that’s exactly right,” said Dr. Vemulapalli, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Still, he observed, the analysis was adjusted for surgical risk, and “Even after that adjustment, it looked like surgical outcomes were getting better after the availability of transcatheter mitral repair techniques.”

That observation may be explained by an increasingly sharp, “more careful” process for selecting patients for surgical repair vs. TEER, said Dr. Vemulapalli, who is senior author of the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Angela M. Lowenstern, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, and Andrew M. Vekstein, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, were the lead authors.

Indeed, the report states, the analysis supports the view that “a systematic evaluation by a heart team able to direct patients towards either surgical or transcatheter approaches enhances both short-term and long-term surgical outcomes.”

“In a world where both surgical and transcatheter techniques are going to be available,” Dr. Vemulapalli said, “patient selection becomes very, very important.”

An accompanying editorial acknowledges the heart-team approach’s potential for improving the selection of patients for surgery and perhaps therefore outcomes. But it also cites issues with that interpretation of the data.

For example, the heart-team approach is not used in consistent ways across the United States. And “although the heart team is recommended in multiple guidelines for valvular heart therapies, there is little evidence for its efficacy, specifically regarding improving clinical outcomes,” write Matthew W. Sherwood, MD, MHS, and Wayne B. Batchelor, MD, MHS, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

The editorialists highlight the study’s “significant downtrend in both high-risk and intermediate-risk surgical cases, with a concomitant increase in low-risk cases,” after introduction of TEER. That shift in case mix, they write, “would seem to be a more likely explanation for the modest improvement in outcomes for surgical MV repair.”

Also, importantly, the analysis didn’t include data on TEER procedures, only indirect evidence for TEER’s effect on surgical MV repair, the editorialists observe, and study authors acknowledge.

Still, the analysis looked at nearly 14,000 patients at 278 U.S. sites with surgical MV repair that launched TEER programs during the study period. They accounted for 6,806 surgical cases before and 7,153 surgical cases after the advent of TEER.

Their median annualized institutional surgical MV repair volume was 32 before and 29 after TEER availability (P = .06).

The risk-adjusted odds ratio for 30-day mortality after vs. before TEER became an option was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.99). The corresponding hazard ratio for mortality at 5 years was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86).

Other risk-adjusted surgical outcomes improved once TEER became available, including MV adverse outcomes (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001), operative mortality (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .041), and major morbidity (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .026)

Despite the data’s suggestion of TEER indication creep from solely high–surgical risk patients to those at intermediate risk, Dr. Vemulapalli said, “I don’t think that people should be doing transcatheter mitral repair in intermediate- or low-risk patients as a general rule.” Although, he added, “there will always be certain exceptions, depending on the patient’s specific situation.”

Dr. Vemulapalli pointed to several ongoing trials comparing TEER vs. surgical MR repair in patients with DMR at intermediate surgical risk, including REPAIR MR and PRIMARY.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott. Dr. Vemulapalli discloses receiving grants or contracts from the American College of Cardiology, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Cytokinetics, Abbott Vascular, the National Institutes of Health, and Boston Scientific; and consulting or serving on an advisory board for Janssen, the American College of Physicians, HeartFlow, and Edwards LifeSciences. Dr. Sherwood discloses receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Batchelor discloses receiving consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott.

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

The overall case volume for surgical mitral valve (MV) repair of degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) hasn’t changed much nearly a decade into the age of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER). But, over the same period, there’s been a shift in the surgical–MV repair case mix at centers that have offered both the surgical option and TEER, a new study suggests.

Once TEER was introduced, those centers over time used the operative approach less in higher– and intermediate–surgical risk patients and more often in those deemed low risk for surgery. And that trend – at centers offering both approaches – paralleled improved risk-adjusted surgical repair short-term complications and 30-day and 5-year mortality.

The findings come from an analysis based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Medicare claims data collected from 2011 through 2018 at surgical–MV repair centers that also offered TEER for DMR after its 2013 approval. The transcatheter procedure, until only recently the exclusive domain of Abbott’s MitraClip in various incarnations, is officially indicated for patients judged too high risk for surgical MV repair.

A shift in surgical MV repair to predominantly lower-risk patients would be expected to improve outcomes. But the improvements seen in the current study seem to have a more complex explanation, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, MD, told this news organization.

The data seem to show TEER indication creep from higher-risk cases, for which there is clinical trial support, to intermediate-risk patients, that lack such evidence in favor of TEER. That seemed to push surgical repair toward even lower-risk cases. “I think that’s exactly right,” said Dr. Vemulapalli, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C.

Still, he observed, the analysis was adjusted for surgical risk, and “Even after that adjustment, it looked like surgical outcomes were getting better after the availability of transcatheter mitral repair techniques.”

That observation may be explained by an increasingly sharp, “more careful” process for selecting patients for surgical repair vs. TEER, said Dr. Vemulapalli, who is senior author of the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Angela M. Lowenstern, MD, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, and Andrew M. Vekstein, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, were the lead authors.

Indeed, the report states, the analysis supports the view that “a systematic evaluation by a heart team able to direct patients towards either surgical or transcatheter approaches enhances both short-term and long-term surgical outcomes.”

“In a world where both surgical and transcatheter techniques are going to be available,” Dr. Vemulapalli said, “patient selection becomes very, very important.”

An accompanying editorial acknowledges the heart-team approach’s potential for improving the selection of patients for surgery and perhaps therefore outcomes. But it also cites issues with that interpretation of the data.

For example, the heart-team approach is not used in consistent ways across the United States. And “although the heart team is recommended in multiple guidelines for valvular heart therapies, there is little evidence for its efficacy, specifically regarding improving clinical outcomes,” write Matthew W. Sherwood, MD, MHS, and Wayne B. Batchelor, MD, MHS, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

The editorialists highlight the study’s “significant downtrend in both high-risk and intermediate-risk surgical cases, with a concomitant increase in low-risk cases,” after introduction of TEER. That shift in case mix, they write, “would seem to be a more likely explanation for the modest improvement in outcomes for surgical MV repair.”

Also, importantly, the analysis didn’t include data on TEER procedures, only indirect evidence for TEER’s effect on surgical MV repair, the editorialists observe, and study authors acknowledge.

Still, the analysis looked at nearly 14,000 patients at 278 U.S. sites with surgical MV repair that launched TEER programs during the study period. They accounted for 6,806 surgical cases before and 7,153 surgical cases after the advent of TEER.

Their median annualized institutional surgical MV repair volume was 32 before and 29 after TEER availability (P = .06).

The risk-adjusted odds ratio for 30-day mortality after vs. before TEER became an option was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.99). The corresponding hazard ratio for mortality at 5 years was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86).

Other risk-adjusted surgical outcomes improved once TEER became available, including MV adverse outcomes (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.86; P < .001), operative mortality (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99; P = .041), and major morbidity (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .026)

Despite the data’s suggestion of TEER indication creep from solely high–surgical risk patients to those at intermediate risk, Dr. Vemulapalli said, “I don’t think that people should be doing transcatheter mitral repair in intermediate- or low-risk patients as a general rule.” Although, he added, “there will always be certain exceptions, depending on the patient’s specific situation.”

Dr. Vemulapalli pointed to several ongoing trials comparing TEER vs. surgical MR repair in patients with DMR at intermediate surgical risk, including REPAIR MR and PRIMARY.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and Abbott. Dr. Vemulapalli discloses receiving grants or contracts from the American College of Cardiology, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Cytokinetics, Abbott Vascular, the National Institutes of Health, and Boston Scientific; and consulting or serving on an advisory board for Janssen, the American College of Physicians, HeartFlow, and Edwards LifeSciences. Dr. Sherwood discloses receiving honoraria or consulting fees from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Batchelor discloses receiving consulting fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Abbott.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.

Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.  

The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.

A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.

The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A rare complication, but ...

Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.

But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.

The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”

Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.

But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”

Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.

American Heart Association

Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
 

New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’

Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.

But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).

Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).

Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).

But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).

The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.

For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”

Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.

Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.  

The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.

A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.

The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A rare complication, but ...

Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.

But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.

The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”

Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.

But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”

Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.

American Heart Association

Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
 

New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’

Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.

But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).

Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).

Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).

But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).

The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.

For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”

Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.

Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.  

The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.

A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.

The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

A rare complication, but ...

Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.

But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.

The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”

Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.

But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”

Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.

American Heart Association

Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
 

New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’

Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.

But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).

Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).

Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).

But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).

The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.

For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”

Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and its newly installed president have posted an apology for a speech delivered by its outgoing president that appeared, in part, to disparage affirmative action as a means to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field.

The speech, entitled “Three Score & More,” presented Jan. 22 at the STS 58th annual meeting in San Diego by John H. Calhoon, MD, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, unleashed a cascade of tweets, some circumspect but many expressing outrage and dismay.

Many of the tweets were from individuals who acknowledged not hearing the speech but who had seen at least one accompanying slide which, by then, had been widely circulated on the platform. It contained phrases such as “Affirmative Action is not equal opportunity” and “Defining people by color, gender, religion only tends to ingrain bias and discrimination,” all under the heading of “Virtuous Ideals.”

Reactions on Twitter included comments such as “This is bad beyond description” and a description of the slide’s content as “the blueprint & thought process for those actively maintaining Whiteness & the Patriarchy in medicine.”

Following an early onslaught of such tweets, the STS and new president Thomas E. MacGillivray, MD, MedStar Health, Washington, issued a statement disowning at least the controversial parts of Dr. Calhoon’s presentation, stating they were “inconsistent with STS’s core values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The post continues, “The STS apologizes for these remarks. We know these comments were hurtful and we regret the pain they have caused to so many valued colleagues.” It then states, “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are central principles of our Society, and what we strive for in our profession and our practice. STS is committed to learning from this experience and taking action to reinforce our commitment to these values.”

“I believe that either the slide and/or my remarks were misinterpreted by some. I don’t want to hurt anybody. I’m profoundly sorry and apologize,” Dr. Calhoon said in an interview.

“I’m proud of my own group’s record on diversity and using equity and inclusion to get there,” he said. “We’re committed to it. We’ve had a wonderfully diverse group. I tried to highlight that in my remarks.”

About the Twitter response to the slide in question, Dr. Calhoon said, “I have no idea how they were thinking.” He added, “I can only comment that I’m really proud of our record and, for that matter, the STS’s record on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

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