User login
‘A glimmer of hope’ for stroke/mortality benefit with AFib catheter ablation
SNOWMASS, COLO. – stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.
Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.
However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.
Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.
The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.
The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.
The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.
The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.
“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.
Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”
Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.
Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.
However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.
Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.
The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.
The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.
The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.
The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.
“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.
Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”
Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.
Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.
However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.
Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).
In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.
The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.
The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.
The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.
The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.
“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.
Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”
Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Tools for preventing heart failure
SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.
“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.
Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.
Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).
The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.
Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
Hypertension
Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.
Diabetes
Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.
Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.
“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.
In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).
More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).
“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”
He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.
“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.
Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.
Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).
The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.
Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
Hypertension
Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.
Diabetes
Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.
Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.
“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.
In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).
More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).
“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”
He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.
“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.
Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.
Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).
The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.
Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
Hypertension
Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).
Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.
Diabetes
Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.
Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.
“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.
In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).
More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).
These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).
“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”
He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Myth busting: Sudden cardiac death in athletes
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Myths and misconceptions abound regarding the merits of universal incorporation of the resting 12-lead ECG into preparticipation cardiovascular screening of young athletes, Aaron L. Baggish, MD, declared at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Dr. Baggish, director of the Cardiovascular Performance Program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, set out to pop the balloons of a handful of these widely floating myths. These are commonly held fictions: In an electronic poll at the outset of his talk, only one in five members of his large audience recognized all of the following boldface statements as false.
“Preparticipation cardiovascular screening (PPCVS) has been shown to reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among young competitive athletes.”
FALSE. Not for PPCVS by history and physical examination alone, or with the addition of a screening 12-lead ECG. In Italy, where a cluster of high-profile sudden cardiac deaths led to passage of a 1982 national law mandating 12-lead ECG screening as part of the PPCVS, investigators presented studies purporting to demonstrate a subsequent reduction in the risk of SCD. But those studies were subsequently shown to be fraught with problems. And a high-quality study capable of convincingly demonstrating such a benefit would need to be prohibitively large and expensive. “Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon,” advised Dr. Baggish, who is medical director for the Boston Marathon, as well as team cardiologist for Harvard University Athletics, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, USRowing, and U.S. Soccer.
“Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of sudden death among young competitive athletes.”
FALSE. A study of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) comprehensive database, with 4.2 million athlete-years of follow-up, showed that the most common cause of SCD was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death (SUD), accounting for 25% of cases. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was deemed the cause of 8% of the SCDs (Circulation. 2015 Jul 7;132[1]:10-9).
“The same thing has been shown in studies done in the United Kingdom and in Australia: . Over the next 10 years, I suspect that one of the most important areas that we’ll be looking into will be this SUD area, perhaps using molecular autopsy to make some headway there,” according to the cardiologist.
SCD is rare. In the NCAA study, the incidence was 1 in 53,703 athlete-years. In sobering contrast, accidents, suicide, and homicide accounted for 50% of all deaths in the collegiate athletes.
“When you think about what’s important in terms of educating young people to be safe, the history and physical exam and 12-lead ECG are nowhere near as important as talking with them about minimizing accident risk and staying away from guns,” Dr. Baggish commented.
“Contemporary ECG interpretation criteria designed specifically for use in young athletes have eliminated the problem of false-positive testing.”
FALSE. The story of adding ECG screening to the PPCVS is one of dramatically improved sensitivity over history and physical exam alone, but always at the cost of reduced specificity. In the Harvard Athlete Initiative Study, Dr. Baggish and coworkers reported that adding the 12-lead ECG resulted in a 17% false-positive rate (Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 2;152[5]:269-75). Similar findings were reported in independent studies at two other large universities.
“An ECG false-positive rate of 16%-20%? That’s big trouble. Remember, the conditions we’re looking for are uncommon, with a prevalence of maybe 1 in 500 at most. So if you’re flagging one-fifth or one-sixth of your athletes, the ECG is really not an appropriate tool for screening,” he commented.
Recognition of this limitation has led to development of refined, improved ECG criteria: most notably, the 2012 Seattle criteria, with an associated false-positive rate of 4%-8%, followed by the 2017 International Consensus Criteria (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Feb 28;69[8]:1057-75), with a false-positive rate of 1%-2%. That’s a great improvement. Still, when Dr. Baggish, a marathoner himself, thinks about the roughly 32,000 Boston Marathon runners at the starting line each year, that false-positive rate would translate into 320-640 of those individuals being needlessly subjected to the not-insignificant time and expense of further testing, along with considerable anxiety for the runners and their families, and perhaps even inappropriate disqualification.
“Current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend against the use of the 12-lead ECG during the PPCVS.”
FALSE. Dr. Baggish was a coauthor of the current guidelines, which he described as “an open-door invitation to local decisions, with some important caveats” (Circulation. 2015 Dec 1;132[22]:e267-72).
The guidelines state that the minimum requirement and legal standard for PPCVS of young competitive athletes is a focused history and physical examination, such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 14-point screen, which consists of 10 elements addressing personal and family history and 4 focused on the physical examination, or the American Academy of Pediatrics Preparticipation Physical Evaluation. Further, while mandatory universal inclusion of the 12-lead ECG is not recommended – it’s rated Class III, meaning don’t do it – the guidelines state that screening programs are at liberty to choose the 12-lead ECG as an additional tool, “provided that close physician involvement and sufficient quality control can be achieved. If undertaken, such initiatives should recognize the known and anticipated limitations of the 12-lead ECG as a population screening test, including the expected frequency of false-positive and false-negative test results, as well as the cost required to support these initiatives over time.”
Dr. Baggish considers the ACC/AHA guidelines to be one of the two most important developments in the field of SCD during sports in recent years. The other is the NCAA-sponsored multidisciplinary Interassociation Consensus Statement on Cardiovascular Care of College Student-Athletes, which he also coauthored (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jun 28;67[25]:2981-95).
The report lays out the case for a much broader than traditional view of the PPCVS, with “goals that extend beyond detection of occult high-risk pathology.”
“The NCAA has done something very interesting,” Dr. Baggish explained. “It has said that, if we’re going to be screening, we should be thinking about screening with a much broader rationale. It’s not just about finding the needle-in-a-haystack hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or anomalous coronary arteries, it’s about engaging student-athletes at an early point in their collegiate career and trying to improve their health overall – and not just while they’re in college, but over their lifespan.”
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Myths and misconceptions abound regarding the merits of universal incorporation of the resting 12-lead ECG into preparticipation cardiovascular screening of young athletes, Aaron L. Baggish, MD, declared at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Dr. Baggish, director of the Cardiovascular Performance Program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, set out to pop the balloons of a handful of these widely floating myths. These are commonly held fictions: In an electronic poll at the outset of his talk, only one in five members of his large audience recognized all of the following boldface statements as false.
“Preparticipation cardiovascular screening (PPCVS) has been shown to reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among young competitive athletes.”
FALSE. Not for PPCVS by history and physical examination alone, or with the addition of a screening 12-lead ECG. In Italy, where a cluster of high-profile sudden cardiac deaths led to passage of a 1982 national law mandating 12-lead ECG screening as part of the PPCVS, investigators presented studies purporting to demonstrate a subsequent reduction in the risk of SCD. But those studies were subsequently shown to be fraught with problems. And a high-quality study capable of convincingly demonstrating such a benefit would need to be prohibitively large and expensive. “Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon,” advised Dr. Baggish, who is medical director for the Boston Marathon, as well as team cardiologist for Harvard University Athletics, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, USRowing, and U.S. Soccer.
“Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of sudden death among young competitive athletes.”
FALSE. A study of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) comprehensive database, with 4.2 million athlete-years of follow-up, showed that the most common cause of SCD was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death (SUD), accounting for 25% of cases. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was deemed the cause of 8% of the SCDs (Circulation. 2015 Jul 7;132[1]:10-9).
“The same thing has been shown in studies done in the United Kingdom and in Australia: . Over the next 10 years, I suspect that one of the most important areas that we’ll be looking into will be this SUD area, perhaps using molecular autopsy to make some headway there,” according to the cardiologist.
SCD is rare. In the NCAA study, the incidence was 1 in 53,703 athlete-years. In sobering contrast, accidents, suicide, and homicide accounted for 50% of all deaths in the collegiate athletes.
“When you think about what’s important in terms of educating young people to be safe, the history and physical exam and 12-lead ECG are nowhere near as important as talking with them about minimizing accident risk and staying away from guns,” Dr. Baggish commented.
“Contemporary ECG interpretation criteria designed specifically for use in young athletes have eliminated the problem of false-positive testing.”
FALSE. The story of adding ECG screening to the PPCVS is one of dramatically improved sensitivity over history and physical exam alone, but always at the cost of reduced specificity. In the Harvard Athlete Initiative Study, Dr. Baggish and coworkers reported that adding the 12-lead ECG resulted in a 17% false-positive rate (Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 2;152[5]:269-75). Similar findings were reported in independent studies at two other large universities.
“An ECG false-positive rate of 16%-20%? That’s big trouble. Remember, the conditions we’re looking for are uncommon, with a prevalence of maybe 1 in 500 at most. So if you’re flagging one-fifth or one-sixth of your athletes, the ECG is really not an appropriate tool for screening,” he commented.
Recognition of this limitation has led to development of refined, improved ECG criteria: most notably, the 2012 Seattle criteria, with an associated false-positive rate of 4%-8%, followed by the 2017 International Consensus Criteria (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Feb 28;69[8]:1057-75), with a false-positive rate of 1%-2%. That’s a great improvement. Still, when Dr. Baggish, a marathoner himself, thinks about the roughly 32,000 Boston Marathon runners at the starting line each year, that false-positive rate would translate into 320-640 of those individuals being needlessly subjected to the not-insignificant time and expense of further testing, along with considerable anxiety for the runners and their families, and perhaps even inappropriate disqualification.
“Current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend against the use of the 12-lead ECG during the PPCVS.”
FALSE. Dr. Baggish was a coauthor of the current guidelines, which he described as “an open-door invitation to local decisions, with some important caveats” (Circulation. 2015 Dec 1;132[22]:e267-72).
The guidelines state that the minimum requirement and legal standard for PPCVS of young competitive athletes is a focused history and physical examination, such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 14-point screen, which consists of 10 elements addressing personal and family history and 4 focused on the physical examination, or the American Academy of Pediatrics Preparticipation Physical Evaluation. Further, while mandatory universal inclusion of the 12-lead ECG is not recommended – it’s rated Class III, meaning don’t do it – the guidelines state that screening programs are at liberty to choose the 12-lead ECG as an additional tool, “provided that close physician involvement and sufficient quality control can be achieved. If undertaken, such initiatives should recognize the known and anticipated limitations of the 12-lead ECG as a population screening test, including the expected frequency of false-positive and false-negative test results, as well as the cost required to support these initiatives over time.”
Dr. Baggish considers the ACC/AHA guidelines to be one of the two most important developments in the field of SCD during sports in recent years. The other is the NCAA-sponsored multidisciplinary Interassociation Consensus Statement on Cardiovascular Care of College Student-Athletes, which he also coauthored (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jun 28;67[25]:2981-95).
The report lays out the case for a much broader than traditional view of the PPCVS, with “goals that extend beyond detection of occult high-risk pathology.”
“The NCAA has done something very interesting,” Dr. Baggish explained. “It has said that, if we’re going to be screening, we should be thinking about screening with a much broader rationale. It’s not just about finding the needle-in-a-haystack hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or anomalous coronary arteries, it’s about engaging student-athletes at an early point in their collegiate career and trying to improve their health overall – and not just while they’re in college, but over their lifespan.”
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Myths and misconceptions abound regarding the merits of universal incorporation of the resting 12-lead ECG into preparticipation cardiovascular screening of young athletes, Aaron L. Baggish, MD, declared at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
Dr. Baggish, director of the Cardiovascular Performance Program at Massachusetts General Hospital and a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, set out to pop the balloons of a handful of these widely floating myths. These are commonly held fictions: In an electronic poll at the outset of his talk, only one in five members of his large audience recognized all of the following boldface statements as false.
“Preparticipation cardiovascular screening (PPCVS) has been shown to reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) among young competitive athletes.”
FALSE. Not for PPCVS by history and physical examination alone, or with the addition of a screening 12-lead ECG. In Italy, where a cluster of high-profile sudden cardiac deaths led to passage of a 1982 national law mandating 12-lead ECG screening as part of the PPCVS, investigators presented studies purporting to demonstrate a subsequent reduction in the risk of SCD. But those studies were subsequently shown to be fraught with problems. And a high-quality study capable of convincingly demonstrating such a benefit would need to be prohibitively large and expensive. “Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon,” advised Dr. Baggish, who is medical director for the Boston Marathon, as well as team cardiologist for Harvard University Athletics, the New England Patriots, the Boston Bruins, USRowing, and U.S. Soccer.
“Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of sudden death among young competitive athletes.”
FALSE. A study of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) comprehensive database, with 4.2 million athlete-years of follow-up, showed that the most common cause of SCD was autopsy-negative sudden unexplained death (SUD), accounting for 25% of cases. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was deemed the cause of 8% of the SCDs (Circulation. 2015 Jul 7;132[1]:10-9).
“The same thing has been shown in studies done in the United Kingdom and in Australia: . Over the next 10 years, I suspect that one of the most important areas that we’ll be looking into will be this SUD area, perhaps using molecular autopsy to make some headway there,” according to the cardiologist.
SCD is rare. In the NCAA study, the incidence was 1 in 53,703 athlete-years. In sobering contrast, accidents, suicide, and homicide accounted for 50% of all deaths in the collegiate athletes.
“When you think about what’s important in terms of educating young people to be safe, the history and physical exam and 12-lead ECG are nowhere near as important as talking with them about minimizing accident risk and staying away from guns,” Dr. Baggish commented.
“Contemporary ECG interpretation criteria designed specifically for use in young athletes have eliminated the problem of false-positive testing.”
FALSE. The story of adding ECG screening to the PPCVS is one of dramatically improved sensitivity over history and physical exam alone, but always at the cost of reduced specificity. In the Harvard Athlete Initiative Study, Dr. Baggish and coworkers reported that adding the 12-lead ECG resulted in a 17% false-positive rate (Ann Intern Med. 2010 Mar 2;152[5]:269-75). Similar findings were reported in independent studies at two other large universities.
“An ECG false-positive rate of 16%-20%? That’s big trouble. Remember, the conditions we’re looking for are uncommon, with a prevalence of maybe 1 in 500 at most. So if you’re flagging one-fifth or one-sixth of your athletes, the ECG is really not an appropriate tool for screening,” he commented.
Recognition of this limitation has led to development of refined, improved ECG criteria: most notably, the 2012 Seattle criteria, with an associated false-positive rate of 4%-8%, followed by the 2017 International Consensus Criteria (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Feb 28;69[8]:1057-75), with a false-positive rate of 1%-2%. That’s a great improvement. Still, when Dr. Baggish, a marathoner himself, thinks about the roughly 32,000 Boston Marathon runners at the starting line each year, that false-positive rate would translate into 320-640 of those individuals being needlessly subjected to the not-insignificant time and expense of further testing, along with considerable anxiety for the runners and their families, and perhaps even inappropriate disqualification.
“Current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend against the use of the 12-lead ECG during the PPCVS.”
FALSE. Dr. Baggish was a coauthor of the current guidelines, which he described as “an open-door invitation to local decisions, with some important caveats” (Circulation. 2015 Dec 1;132[22]:e267-72).
The guidelines state that the minimum requirement and legal standard for PPCVS of young competitive athletes is a focused history and physical examination, such as the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 14-point screen, which consists of 10 elements addressing personal and family history and 4 focused on the physical examination, or the American Academy of Pediatrics Preparticipation Physical Evaluation. Further, while mandatory universal inclusion of the 12-lead ECG is not recommended – it’s rated Class III, meaning don’t do it – the guidelines state that screening programs are at liberty to choose the 12-lead ECG as an additional tool, “provided that close physician involvement and sufficient quality control can be achieved. If undertaken, such initiatives should recognize the known and anticipated limitations of the 12-lead ECG as a population screening test, including the expected frequency of false-positive and false-negative test results, as well as the cost required to support these initiatives over time.”
Dr. Baggish considers the ACC/AHA guidelines to be one of the two most important developments in the field of SCD during sports in recent years. The other is the NCAA-sponsored multidisciplinary Interassociation Consensus Statement on Cardiovascular Care of College Student-Athletes, which he also coauthored (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Jun 28;67[25]:2981-95).
The report lays out the case for a much broader than traditional view of the PPCVS, with “goals that extend beyond detection of occult high-risk pathology.”
“The NCAA has done something very interesting,” Dr. Baggish explained. “It has said that, if we’re going to be screening, we should be thinking about screening with a much broader rationale. It’s not just about finding the needle-in-a-haystack hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or anomalous coronary arteries, it’s about engaging student-athletes at an early point in their collegiate career and trying to improve their health overall – and not just while they’re in college, but over their lifespan.”
He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
REPORTING FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Cardiac arrest: Targeted temperature management a game changer
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our practice is that ,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).
“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.
The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).
The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.
The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.
Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
TTM a major breakthrough
Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).
TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.
“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.
TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.
Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.
She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our practice is that ,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).
“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.
The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).
The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.
The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.
Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
TTM a major breakthrough
Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).
TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.
“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.
TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.
Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.
She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Targeted temperature management maintained at 32-36 degrees Celsius is now a strong class I recommendation for all comatose patients who experience return of spontaneous circulation after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, including those with nonshockable rhythms, Erin A. Bohula, MD, PhD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“Our practice is that ,” said Dr. Bohula, a cardiologist and critical care specialist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
The current ACC/AHA guidelines declare: “There are essentially no patients for whom temperature control somewhere in the range between 32 degrees C [89.6 F) and 36 degrees C [96.8 F] is contraindicated.” The writing committee cited “recent clinical trial data enrolling patients with all rhythms, the rarity of adverse effects in trials, the high neurologic morbidity and mortality without any specific interventions, and the preponderance of data suggesting that temperature is an important variable for neurologic recovery” (Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132[18 Suppl 2]:S465-82).
“That’s a pretty strong statement,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The current guidelines, which date back to 2015, give a class I, level of evidence B recommendation for targeted temperature management (TTM) in patients who are comatose with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest involving ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular fibrillation. The bedside definition of comatose is lack of meaningful response to verbal commands to squeeze hands, blink, or move toes.
The current recommendation for TTM in patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm is class I, level of evidence C, meaning it’s based on expert consensus. However, that recommendation is now out of date and due for a level-of-evidence upgrade in light of the recent results of the French HYPERION trial, an open-label randomized trial of 584 patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest with a nonshockable rhythm. Although 90-day mortality was similarly high in the TTM and targeted normothermia groups, the rate of favorable neurologic outcome as assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category scale score of 1 or 2 was 10.2% in the TTM group, significantly better than the 5.7% rate in controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 12;381[24]:2327-37).
The 2010, ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a TTM range of 32-34 degrees C, but on the basis of subsequent persuasive randomized trial data, that range was broadened to 32-36 degrees C in the 2015 guidelines, with a class IB recommendation. Maintenance of TTM for at least 24 hours has a IIa, level of evidence C recommendation in the current guidelines.
The guidelines emphasize that specific features may favor selection of one temperature for TTM over another. For example, patients with seizures or cerebral edema might be better off with TTM at a lower temperature, while a higher temperature may be best for those with bleeding or severe bradycardia. At Brigham and Women’s Hospital, the default temperature is 33 degrees C. However, TTM with a goal of 36 degrees C is seriously considered in patients with recent head trauma, major surgery within the past 2 weeks, refractory hypotension, severe sepsis, pregnancy, or high bleeding risk. Rewarming is done at a rate of 0.25 degrees C per hour, with sedation maintained until the patient has been returned to 98.6 degrees F, according to Dr. Bohula.
Based on several negative studies of TTM using rapid infusion of chilled fluids in the ambulance en route to the hospital, the guidelines rate that practice class IIIA, meaning don’t do it. Avoidance of a systolic blood pressure below 90 mm Hg and a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg gets a class IIb level of evidence C recommendation to lessen the risk of cerebral hypoxia.
TTM a major breakthrough
Prior to the introduction of TTM, comatose patients with ROSC after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest had a dreadful prognosis, with survival rates of 1%-10% in registry studies. In contrast, the survival rate in the landmark TTM clinical trials was 50%-60%. And while that’s a dramatic improvement, ROSC after cardiac arrest remains a high-mortality condition. Dr. Bohula was first author of a report by the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network, composed of 16 tertiary cardiac intensive care units in the United States and Canada. Cardiac arrest was the primary indication for 8.7% of 3,049 consecutive admissions, and its 38% mortality rate was the highest of all cardiac critical care indications (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jul 24;4[9]:928-35).
TTM was developed in response to a recognition that two-thirds of deaths in patients who make it to the hospital after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest are neurologic – the result of brain anoxia – rather than being due to the myocardial ischemia that may have initially brought them to medical attention.
“Time is brain cells, the same way we think of time as cardiac muscle,” Dr. Bohula observed.
The main idea behind therapeutic hypothermia is that it lowers the cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen to reduce the consequences of ongoing anoxia. The brain doesn’t require as much perfusion when cooled.
TTM has other beneficial neurologic effects as well: It reduces cerebral blood volume via autoregulation, decreases intracranial pressure, and blunts the inflammatory response involved in the postcardiac arrest syndrome. In addition, TTM has anticonvulsant properties, an important effect because seizures and/or myoclonus occur in up to 15% of adults who achieve ROSC after cardiac arrest – and in even more of those who are comatose after doing so. And seizures increase the brain’s metabolic rate threefold, resulting in more cerebral ischemic injury, she explained.
Seizure activity can be difficult to distinguish from shivering in a patient on TTM. For this reason Dr. Bohula recommends putting patients on continuous EEG monitoring from the time of admission, as is the routine practice at the Brigham.
She reported serving as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Servier, Lexicon, Kowa, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and the National Institutes of Health. In addition, she generates institutional research grants provided by a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
How much exercise is needed for maximum heart benefit?
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Physical activity is potent medicine, and it doesn’t take all that much of it to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit: namely, the equivalent of a brisk hour-long walk 5 days/week or jogging at a 10-minute-per-mile pace for half an hour twice weekly, Robert A. Vogel, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’m not telling you to run marathons. said Dr. Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a longstanding interest in preventive cardiology.
He presented selected highlights from the massive evidence base underlying the recommendations put forth in the current comprehensive U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
One particularly compelling chunk of evidence comes from a Taiwanese government–funded prospective cohort study of more than 416,000 individuals followed for an average of 8 years. A key finding: 15 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity daily was associated with a 14% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality and a 19% reduction in death caused by cardiovascular disease, compared with that of inactive individuals. Moreover, each additional 15 minutes of daily moderate exercise further reduced mortality by 4%. These benefits extended across the full age spectrum of both sexes and applied to patients with cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378[9798]:1244-53).
“That’s a very impressive result for modest physical activity,” the cardiologist commented.
Data on more than 50,000 adult participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study based at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas show that vigorous exercise in the form of running at 6 mph for half an hour twice weekly, or a total of 10 metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-HR) per week, was associated with a roughly 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. Importantly, 20, 40, or 50 MET-HR/week of vigorous exercise conferred no further survival benefit (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 5;64[5]:472-81). The same group showed that the sweet spot for moderate physical activity in terms of reduced cardiovascular mortality was brisk walking for an hour daily 5 days/week, for a total of 20 MET-HR, which was also associated with roughly a 40% risk reduction compared to inactivity. At that point the benefit plateaued, with no further mortality reduction noted with additional MET-HR of moderate exercise.
“For more than that, we have no evidence of additional cardiovascular benefit. It’s not going to get you to the Tokyo Olympics, but that’s what we need to be doing,” Dr. Vogel observed.
In another report from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, investigators found that moderate-level cardiorespiratory fitness as defined by METs was associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death in men and women after adjustment for potential confounders, while high-level cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a closely similar 48% reduction in risk. This applied to individuals who were hypertensive, overweight, and/or had poor health status, as well as to others (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91[7]:849-57).
All activity counts
Exercise physiologists speak of NEPA – nonexercise physical activity – such as taking out the garbage. Swedish investigators followed more than 4,200 individuals for an average of 12.5 years and found that high NEPA activity was independently associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% lower risk of a first cardiovascular disease event, compared with low NEPA. High NEPA in regular exercisers was associated with a lower rate of metabolic syndrome than in low-NEPA regular exercisers (Br J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;48[3]:233-8).
Don’t just sit there – stand!
The current federal physical activity guidelines place a new emphasis on the detrimental effects of sitting. A report on more than 221,000 participants in the Australian 45 and Up Study, with close to 1 million person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between standing time per day and all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, individuals who stood for 2-5 hours per day had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality than did those who stood for less than 2 hours. Standing for 5-8 hours was associated with a 15% relative risk reduction. And standing for more than 8 hours daily was linked to a 24% reduction in risk (Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:187-91).
And it’s not just total daily sitting time that’s a risk factor. Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary time was also associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of nearly 8,000 U.S. adults (Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167[7]:465-75).
“If you can’t walk around, talk to your patients standing up. That activity of getting out of your chair is lifesaving,” the cardiologist advised.
Get strong
Muscle-strengthening activity on at least 2 days/week is recommended in the federal guidelines because it’s independently associated with decreased all-cause mortality, even in individuals getting sufficient aerobic exercise, as shown in a large national study with 15-years’ follow-up (Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:121-127).
“As we get older, we tend to forget about muscle. I work with the National Football League. These folks are pretty strong, but we never see diabetes in these very big players, who are often well over 300 lb. They’ve got a lot of muscle. If you want to prevent diabetes, be strong. It’s a very important factor,” Dr. Vogel said.
For the time constrained
Jogging is more time-efficient than brisk walking as a way to attain the maximum cardiovascular benefit of exercise. And the so-called “Weekend Warrior” study of nearly 64,000 U.K. adults showed that it’s okay to cram the full week’s worth of exercise into one or two sessions and be done with it. Compared with the inactive study participants, the weekend warriors had a 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality, while individuals who split their physical activity up into three or more sessions per week had a nearly identical 41% relative risk reduction (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177[3]:335-42).
Interval training is a standard way for athletes in training to improve their endurance by alternating short, intense exercise with brief recovery periods. It’s also a time saver: In one classic bicycling study, physically active men were randomized to standardized 2-week programs of sprint interval training or high-volume endurance training on the bike. The training time required to pass a rigorous cycling time trial test was 90% lower in the interval training group (J Physiol. 2006 Sep 15;575(Pt 3):901-11).
The same principle is applicable to the nonathlete interested in physical activity for heart health.
“When I run a couple of miles, I walk for 5 minutes, then maybe run for three-quarters of a mile, then walk again, then run. In interval training you get your heart rate up, and you drop it down. It’s a very good form of exercise. As a vascular biologist I know that if you put endothelial cells in a Petri dish and spin them real fast continuously, you will not get as good an improvement in endothelial function as if you spin the dish, stop it, spin it, stop it,” Dr. Vogel said.
High-volume exercise is safe, even with high coronary calcium
A clinically significant coronary artery calcification score of 100 Agatston units or more is no reason not to exercise. A Cooper Clinic report on nearly 22,000 middle-aged men without baseline cardiovascular disease who were followed for a mean of 10.4 years concluded that those in the highest-volume exercise group, many of whom were marathon runners and engaged in the equivalent of running for at least 5-6 hours/week at a pace of 10 minutes per mile, were 11% more likely to have an elevated baseline coronary artery calcification score than those who exercised less. But these highest-volume exercisers with elevated coronary calcium – their mean level was 807 Agatston units – had risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality that weren’t significantly different from those of men with elevated coronary calcium who exercised more moderately (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;4[2]:174-81).
Cardiac rehab
Dr. Vogel had harsh words for his physician colleagues with respect to the widespread underprescribing of cardiac rehabilitation programs.
“You guys are doing a crappy job with exercise in our most vulnerable patients: those who’ve had cardiovascular events,” he charged. “Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation in our guidelines. And yet utilization in the United States is just 10%-20%. No other Class I recommendation is in that ballpark.”
A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials totaling more than 6,000 post-MI patients concluded that those randomized to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation had a 47% reduction in the risk of reinfarction, 36% lower cardiac mortality, and a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (Am Heart J. 2011 Oct;162[4]:571-584.e2).
“The data show that cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as anything else we do in cardiovascular medicine. I understand that patients live far away, they don’t like to exercise – I’ve heard every excuse. But I am charging you with the responsibility of meeting a Class I recommendation that gets patients to live longer,” he declared.
Medicare now covers an enhanced, 72-session program called Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation that teaches comprehensive lifestyle change and provides reasonable reimbursement. “It’s a good thing for our patients,” Dr. Vogel commented.
Yoga
For patients who are reluctant to pound the pavement, yoga may provide an alternative form of physical activity with tangible cardiovascular benefits. Dr. Vogel pointed to the Yoga-CaRe trial presented at the 2018 scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Yoga-CaRe randomized 3,959 post-MI patients at 29 centers in India to a program of 13 supervised in-hospital yoga classes followed by yoga at home, or to a control group with three educational sessions. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events over 42 months of follow-up was cut in half, compared with controls, in the 27% of participants who attended at least 10 of the 13 yoga classes. Their quality of life scores were higher, too.
Dr. Vogel reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center. He is on the speaker’s bureau for Sanofi and Regeneron.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Physical activity is potent medicine, and it doesn’t take all that much of it to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit: namely, the equivalent of a brisk hour-long walk 5 days/week or jogging at a 10-minute-per-mile pace for half an hour twice weekly, Robert A. Vogel, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’m not telling you to run marathons. said Dr. Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a longstanding interest in preventive cardiology.
He presented selected highlights from the massive evidence base underlying the recommendations put forth in the current comprehensive U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
One particularly compelling chunk of evidence comes from a Taiwanese government–funded prospective cohort study of more than 416,000 individuals followed for an average of 8 years. A key finding: 15 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity daily was associated with a 14% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality and a 19% reduction in death caused by cardiovascular disease, compared with that of inactive individuals. Moreover, each additional 15 minutes of daily moderate exercise further reduced mortality by 4%. These benefits extended across the full age spectrum of both sexes and applied to patients with cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378[9798]:1244-53).
“That’s a very impressive result for modest physical activity,” the cardiologist commented.
Data on more than 50,000 adult participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study based at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas show that vigorous exercise in the form of running at 6 mph for half an hour twice weekly, or a total of 10 metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-HR) per week, was associated with a roughly 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. Importantly, 20, 40, or 50 MET-HR/week of vigorous exercise conferred no further survival benefit (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 5;64[5]:472-81). The same group showed that the sweet spot for moderate physical activity in terms of reduced cardiovascular mortality was brisk walking for an hour daily 5 days/week, for a total of 20 MET-HR, which was also associated with roughly a 40% risk reduction compared to inactivity. At that point the benefit plateaued, with no further mortality reduction noted with additional MET-HR of moderate exercise.
“For more than that, we have no evidence of additional cardiovascular benefit. It’s not going to get you to the Tokyo Olympics, but that’s what we need to be doing,” Dr. Vogel observed.
In another report from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, investigators found that moderate-level cardiorespiratory fitness as defined by METs was associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death in men and women after adjustment for potential confounders, while high-level cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a closely similar 48% reduction in risk. This applied to individuals who were hypertensive, overweight, and/or had poor health status, as well as to others (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91[7]:849-57).
All activity counts
Exercise physiologists speak of NEPA – nonexercise physical activity – such as taking out the garbage. Swedish investigators followed more than 4,200 individuals for an average of 12.5 years and found that high NEPA activity was independently associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% lower risk of a first cardiovascular disease event, compared with low NEPA. High NEPA in regular exercisers was associated with a lower rate of metabolic syndrome than in low-NEPA regular exercisers (Br J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;48[3]:233-8).
Don’t just sit there – stand!
The current federal physical activity guidelines place a new emphasis on the detrimental effects of sitting. A report on more than 221,000 participants in the Australian 45 and Up Study, with close to 1 million person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between standing time per day and all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, individuals who stood for 2-5 hours per day had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality than did those who stood for less than 2 hours. Standing for 5-8 hours was associated with a 15% relative risk reduction. And standing for more than 8 hours daily was linked to a 24% reduction in risk (Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:187-91).
And it’s not just total daily sitting time that’s a risk factor. Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary time was also associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of nearly 8,000 U.S. adults (Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167[7]:465-75).
“If you can’t walk around, talk to your patients standing up. That activity of getting out of your chair is lifesaving,” the cardiologist advised.
Get strong
Muscle-strengthening activity on at least 2 days/week is recommended in the federal guidelines because it’s independently associated with decreased all-cause mortality, even in individuals getting sufficient aerobic exercise, as shown in a large national study with 15-years’ follow-up (Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:121-127).
“As we get older, we tend to forget about muscle. I work with the National Football League. These folks are pretty strong, but we never see diabetes in these very big players, who are often well over 300 lb. They’ve got a lot of muscle. If you want to prevent diabetes, be strong. It’s a very important factor,” Dr. Vogel said.
For the time constrained
Jogging is more time-efficient than brisk walking as a way to attain the maximum cardiovascular benefit of exercise. And the so-called “Weekend Warrior” study of nearly 64,000 U.K. adults showed that it’s okay to cram the full week’s worth of exercise into one or two sessions and be done with it. Compared with the inactive study participants, the weekend warriors had a 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality, while individuals who split their physical activity up into three or more sessions per week had a nearly identical 41% relative risk reduction (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177[3]:335-42).
Interval training is a standard way for athletes in training to improve their endurance by alternating short, intense exercise with brief recovery periods. It’s also a time saver: In one classic bicycling study, physically active men were randomized to standardized 2-week programs of sprint interval training or high-volume endurance training on the bike. The training time required to pass a rigorous cycling time trial test was 90% lower in the interval training group (J Physiol. 2006 Sep 15;575(Pt 3):901-11).
The same principle is applicable to the nonathlete interested in physical activity for heart health.
“When I run a couple of miles, I walk for 5 minutes, then maybe run for three-quarters of a mile, then walk again, then run. In interval training you get your heart rate up, and you drop it down. It’s a very good form of exercise. As a vascular biologist I know that if you put endothelial cells in a Petri dish and spin them real fast continuously, you will not get as good an improvement in endothelial function as if you spin the dish, stop it, spin it, stop it,” Dr. Vogel said.
High-volume exercise is safe, even with high coronary calcium
A clinically significant coronary artery calcification score of 100 Agatston units or more is no reason not to exercise. A Cooper Clinic report on nearly 22,000 middle-aged men without baseline cardiovascular disease who were followed for a mean of 10.4 years concluded that those in the highest-volume exercise group, many of whom were marathon runners and engaged in the equivalent of running for at least 5-6 hours/week at a pace of 10 minutes per mile, were 11% more likely to have an elevated baseline coronary artery calcification score than those who exercised less. But these highest-volume exercisers with elevated coronary calcium – their mean level was 807 Agatston units – had risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality that weren’t significantly different from those of men with elevated coronary calcium who exercised more moderately (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;4[2]:174-81).
Cardiac rehab
Dr. Vogel had harsh words for his physician colleagues with respect to the widespread underprescribing of cardiac rehabilitation programs.
“You guys are doing a crappy job with exercise in our most vulnerable patients: those who’ve had cardiovascular events,” he charged. “Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation in our guidelines. And yet utilization in the United States is just 10%-20%. No other Class I recommendation is in that ballpark.”
A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials totaling more than 6,000 post-MI patients concluded that those randomized to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation had a 47% reduction in the risk of reinfarction, 36% lower cardiac mortality, and a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (Am Heart J. 2011 Oct;162[4]:571-584.e2).
“The data show that cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as anything else we do in cardiovascular medicine. I understand that patients live far away, they don’t like to exercise – I’ve heard every excuse. But I am charging you with the responsibility of meeting a Class I recommendation that gets patients to live longer,” he declared.
Medicare now covers an enhanced, 72-session program called Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation that teaches comprehensive lifestyle change and provides reasonable reimbursement. “It’s a good thing for our patients,” Dr. Vogel commented.
Yoga
For patients who are reluctant to pound the pavement, yoga may provide an alternative form of physical activity with tangible cardiovascular benefits. Dr. Vogel pointed to the Yoga-CaRe trial presented at the 2018 scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Yoga-CaRe randomized 3,959 post-MI patients at 29 centers in India to a program of 13 supervised in-hospital yoga classes followed by yoga at home, or to a control group with three educational sessions. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events over 42 months of follow-up was cut in half, compared with controls, in the 27% of participants who attended at least 10 of the 13 yoga classes. Their quality of life scores were higher, too.
Dr. Vogel reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center. He is on the speaker’s bureau for Sanofi and Regeneron.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – Physical activity is potent medicine, and it doesn’t take all that much of it to derive the maximum cardiovascular benefit: namely, the equivalent of a brisk hour-long walk 5 days/week or jogging at a 10-minute-per-mile pace for half an hour twice weekly, Robert A. Vogel, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“I’m not telling you to run marathons. said Dr. Vogel, a cardiologist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, with a longstanding interest in preventive cardiology.
He presented selected highlights from the massive evidence base underlying the recommendations put forth in the current comprehensive U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
One particularly compelling chunk of evidence comes from a Taiwanese government–funded prospective cohort study of more than 416,000 individuals followed for an average of 8 years. A key finding: 15 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity daily was associated with a 14% reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality and a 19% reduction in death caused by cardiovascular disease, compared with that of inactive individuals. Moreover, each additional 15 minutes of daily moderate exercise further reduced mortality by 4%. These benefits extended across the full age spectrum of both sexes and applied to patients with cardiovascular disease (Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378[9798]:1244-53).
“That’s a very impressive result for modest physical activity,” the cardiologist commented.
Data on more than 50,000 adult participants in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study based at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas show that vigorous exercise in the form of running at 6 mph for half an hour twice weekly, or a total of 10 metabolic equivalent of task hours (MET-HR) per week, was associated with a roughly 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality. Importantly, 20, 40, or 50 MET-HR/week of vigorous exercise conferred no further survival benefit (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 5;64[5]:472-81). The same group showed that the sweet spot for moderate physical activity in terms of reduced cardiovascular mortality was brisk walking for an hour daily 5 days/week, for a total of 20 MET-HR, which was also associated with roughly a 40% risk reduction compared to inactivity. At that point the benefit plateaued, with no further mortality reduction noted with additional MET-HR of moderate exercise.
“For more than that, we have no evidence of additional cardiovascular benefit. It’s not going to get you to the Tokyo Olympics, but that’s what we need to be doing,” Dr. Vogel observed.
In another report from the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study, investigators found that moderate-level cardiorespiratory fitness as defined by METs was associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of sudden cardiac death in men and women after adjustment for potential confounders, while high-level cardiorespiratory fitness was associated with a closely similar 48% reduction in risk. This applied to individuals who were hypertensive, overweight, and/or had poor health status, as well as to others (Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91[7]:849-57).
All activity counts
Exercise physiologists speak of NEPA – nonexercise physical activity – such as taking out the garbage. Swedish investigators followed more than 4,200 individuals for an average of 12.5 years and found that high NEPA activity was independently associated with a 30% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 27% lower risk of a first cardiovascular disease event, compared with low NEPA. High NEPA in regular exercisers was associated with a lower rate of metabolic syndrome than in low-NEPA regular exercisers (Br J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;48[3]:233-8).
Don’t just sit there – stand!
The current federal physical activity guidelines place a new emphasis on the detrimental effects of sitting. A report on more than 221,000 participants in the Australian 45 and Up Study, with close to 1 million person-years of follow-up, demonstrated a linear inverse relationship between standing time per day and all-cause mortality. In a multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders, individuals who stood for 2-5 hours per day had a 10% lower risk of all-cause mortality than did those who stood for less than 2 hours. Standing for 5-8 hours was associated with a 15% relative risk reduction. And standing for more than 8 hours daily was linked to a 24% reduction in risk (Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:187-91).
And it’s not just total daily sitting time that’s a risk factor. Prolonged, uninterrupted sedentary time was also associated with a dose-dependent increase in all-cause mortality in a prospective cohort study of nearly 8,000 U.S. adults (Ann Intern Med. 2017 Oct 3;167[7]:465-75).
“If you can’t walk around, talk to your patients standing up. That activity of getting out of your chair is lifesaving,” the cardiologist advised.
Get strong
Muscle-strengthening activity on at least 2 days/week is recommended in the federal guidelines because it’s independently associated with decreased all-cause mortality, even in individuals getting sufficient aerobic exercise, as shown in a large national study with 15-years’ follow-up (Prev Med. 2016 Jun;87:121-127).
“As we get older, we tend to forget about muscle. I work with the National Football League. These folks are pretty strong, but we never see diabetes in these very big players, who are often well over 300 lb. They’ve got a lot of muscle. If you want to prevent diabetes, be strong. It’s a very important factor,” Dr. Vogel said.
For the time constrained
Jogging is more time-efficient than brisk walking as a way to attain the maximum cardiovascular benefit of exercise. And the so-called “Weekend Warrior” study of nearly 64,000 U.K. adults showed that it’s okay to cram the full week’s worth of exercise into one or two sessions and be done with it. Compared with the inactive study participants, the weekend warriors had a 40% reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality, while individuals who split their physical activity up into three or more sessions per week had a nearly identical 41% relative risk reduction (JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177[3]:335-42).
Interval training is a standard way for athletes in training to improve their endurance by alternating short, intense exercise with brief recovery periods. It’s also a time saver: In one classic bicycling study, physically active men were randomized to standardized 2-week programs of sprint interval training or high-volume endurance training on the bike. The training time required to pass a rigorous cycling time trial test was 90% lower in the interval training group (J Physiol. 2006 Sep 15;575(Pt 3):901-11).
The same principle is applicable to the nonathlete interested in physical activity for heart health.
“When I run a couple of miles, I walk for 5 minutes, then maybe run for three-quarters of a mile, then walk again, then run. In interval training you get your heart rate up, and you drop it down. It’s a very good form of exercise. As a vascular biologist I know that if you put endothelial cells in a Petri dish and spin them real fast continuously, you will not get as good an improvement in endothelial function as if you spin the dish, stop it, spin it, stop it,” Dr. Vogel said.
High-volume exercise is safe, even with high coronary calcium
A clinically significant coronary artery calcification score of 100 Agatston units or more is no reason not to exercise. A Cooper Clinic report on nearly 22,000 middle-aged men without baseline cardiovascular disease who were followed for a mean of 10.4 years concluded that those in the highest-volume exercise group, many of whom were marathon runners and engaged in the equivalent of running for at least 5-6 hours/week at a pace of 10 minutes per mile, were 11% more likely to have an elevated baseline coronary artery calcification score than those who exercised less. But these highest-volume exercisers with elevated coronary calcium – their mean level was 807 Agatston units – had risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality that weren’t significantly different from those of men with elevated coronary calcium who exercised more moderately (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Feb 1;4[2]:174-81).
Cardiac rehab
Dr. Vogel had harsh words for his physician colleagues with respect to the widespread underprescribing of cardiac rehabilitation programs.
“You guys are doing a crappy job with exercise in our most vulnerable patients: those who’ve had cardiovascular events,” he charged. “Cardiac rehabilitation is a Class I recommendation in our guidelines. And yet utilization in the United States is just 10%-20%. No other Class I recommendation is in that ballpark.”
A meta-analysis of 34 randomized trials totaling more than 6,000 post-MI patients concluded that those randomized to exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation had a 47% reduction in the risk of reinfarction, 36% lower cardiac mortality, and a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality (Am Heart J. 2011 Oct;162[4]:571-584.e2).
“The data show that cardiac rehabilitation is as effective as anything else we do in cardiovascular medicine. I understand that patients live far away, they don’t like to exercise – I’ve heard every excuse. But I am charging you with the responsibility of meeting a Class I recommendation that gets patients to live longer,” he declared.
Medicare now covers an enhanced, 72-session program called Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation that teaches comprehensive lifestyle change and provides reasonable reimbursement. “It’s a good thing for our patients,” Dr. Vogel commented.
Yoga
For patients who are reluctant to pound the pavement, yoga may provide an alternative form of physical activity with tangible cardiovascular benefits. Dr. Vogel pointed to the Yoga-CaRe trial presented at the 2018 scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Yoga-CaRe randomized 3,959 post-MI patients at 29 centers in India to a program of 13 supervised in-hospital yoga classes followed by yoga at home, or to a control group with three educational sessions. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events over 42 months of follow-up was cut in half, compared with controls, in the 27% of participants who attended at least 10 of the 13 yoga classes. Their quality of life scores were higher, too.
Dr. Vogel reported serving as a paid consultant to the National Football League and the Pritikin Longevity Center. He is on the speaker’s bureau for Sanofi and Regeneron.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Home BP now a class Ia recommendation, with good reason
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The redefinition of hypertension as 130/80 mm Hg or higher introduced in the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension management guidelines has generated considerable controversy. Often overlooked, however, has been another major innovation included in the 2017 guidelines: the rise in the status of out-of-office 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and home blood pressure self-measurement to a class I, level of evidence A recommendation, Andrew M. Kates, MD, observed at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
It’s a guideline he strongly endorses.
“We do a lot of this. It can be a challenge to get 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring covered by payers, so said Dr. Kates, professor of medicine and director of the cardiology fellowship program at Washington University, St. Louis.
He explained that one of the four key questions the guideline committee was tasked with answering at the outset of deliberations was this: What’s the evidence base for self-directed out-of-office blood pressure monitoring? Based on the panel’s systematic review of the literature, this practice wound up receiving the strongest possible class Ia recommendation, specifically for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension and for titration of antihypertensive medications. Moreover, the guidelines also endorsed home blood pressure monitoring for the detection of white-coat hypertension, this time as a Class IIa recommendation, as well as for identification of patients with masked hypertension, with class IIb status (Circulation. 2018 Oct 23;138[17]:e484-594).
The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines include a detailed checklist for obtaining accurate measurements of office blood pressure. The suggestions include having the patient sit relaxed in a chair with both feet on the floor for at least 5 minutes before taking the measurement, no coffee or exercise for 30 minutes beforehand, empty the bladder, no talking, no clothing over the arm, and other recommendations. Many busy clinicians roll their eyes at the impracticality of doing all this on a routine basis.
“I don’t want to take an audience survey, but I’ll say that even in our office we are not successful in doing this. Patients run up the stairs to the office after dealing with traffic and the parking garage, they’re late for their appointment, in winter they’re wearing a sweater and don’t want to take it off. These are things we don’t do well, and they’re low-hanging fruit where we could do better,” Dr. Kates commented.
The challenges inherent in performing by-the-book office blood pressure measurement reinforce the importance of home self-monitoring of blood pressure in what is hopefully a more stress-free environment.
“We can give patients specific guidance about checking their blood pressure an hour after taking their medications, sitting for 5 minutes, and checking the pressures on a bare arm and not with the sleeve rolled up,” he noted.
The guidelines recommend using home blood pressure monitoring or ambulatory monitoring to detect white-coat hypertension in patients with an office blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or more, but less than 160/100 mm Hg, after a 3-month trial of lifestyle modification. If the home blood pressure is less than 130/80 mm Hg, that’s evidence of white-coat hypertension, for which the recommended treatment consists of continued lifestyle modification plus periodic monitoring of out-of-office blood pressures in order to promptly detect progression to hypertension. If, however, the out-of-office blood pressure is not less than 130/80 mm Hg, that’s hypertension, and the guidelines recommend starting dual-agent antihypertensive drug therapy while continuing lifestyle modification.
A confusing array of definitions of hypertension are now in use by various medical societies. While the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines define hypertension as office blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or more, the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines use a threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Joint American Academy of Family Physicians/American College of Physicians guidelines recommend a treatment target of less than 150 mm Hg in hypertensive patients aged 60 years or older. And at the other end of the spectrum, the SPRINT trial showed a significant cardiovascular benefit for intensive treatment of hypertension to a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg, rather than less than 140 mm Hg (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16).
Dr. Kates believes the debate over the “right” treatment target misses the central point, which is that hypertension is staggeringly undertreated. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates only one in four adults with hypertension have their disease under control. That’s a disconcerting statistic given that hypertension accounts for more cardiovascular deaths than any other modifiable cardiovascular risk factor.
“There’s been some concern raised that maybe too much weight has been put on the SPRINT trial in making the ACC/AHA recommendations, but I think it’s helpful to understand that we vastly undertreat patients with hypertension. So I think that, rather than being so concerned that we’re going to be treating people to too low a target or we’re being overly aggressive, it should give us some pause to think about the fact that we’re ordinarily not being aggressive enough with many of our patients as it is,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Kates reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The redefinition of hypertension as 130/80 mm Hg or higher introduced in the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension management guidelines has generated considerable controversy. Often overlooked, however, has been another major innovation included in the 2017 guidelines: the rise in the status of out-of-office 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and home blood pressure self-measurement to a class I, level of evidence A recommendation, Andrew M. Kates, MD, observed at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
It’s a guideline he strongly endorses.
“We do a lot of this. It can be a challenge to get 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring covered by payers, so said Dr. Kates, professor of medicine and director of the cardiology fellowship program at Washington University, St. Louis.
He explained that one of the four key questions the guideline committee was tasked with answering at the outset of deliberations was this: What’s the evidence base for self-directed out-of-office blood pressure monitoring? Based on the panel’s systematic review of the literature, this practice wound up receiving the strongest possible class Ia recommendation, specifically for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension and for titration of antihypertensive medications. Moreover, the guidelines also endorsed home blood pressure monitoring for the detection of white-coat hypertension, this time as a Class IIa recommendation, as well as for identification of patients with masked hypertension, with class IIb status (Circulation. 2018 Oct 23;138[17]:e484-594).
The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines include a detailed checklist for obtaining accurate measurements of office blood pressure. The suggestions include having the patient sit relaxed in a chair with both feet on the floor for at least 5 minutes before taking the measurement, no coffee or exercise for 30 minutes beforehand, empty the bladder, no talking, no clothing over the arm, and other recommendations. Many busy clinicians roll their eyes at the impracticality of doing all this on a routine basis.
“I don’t want to take an audience survey, but I’ll say that even in our office we are not successful in doing this. Patients run up the stairs to the office after dealing with traffic and the parking garage, they’re late for their appointment, in winter they’re wearing a sweater and don’t want to take it off. These are things we don’t do well, and they’re low-hanging fruit where we could do better,” Dr. Kates commented.
The challenges inherent in performing by-the-book office blood pressure measurement reinforce the importance of home self-monitoring of blood pressure in what is hopefully a more stress-free environment.
“We can give patients specific guidance about checking their blood pressure an hour after taking their medications, sitting for 5 minutes, and checking the pressures on a bare arm and not with the sleeve rolled up,” he noted.
The guidelines recommend using home blood pressure monitoring or ambulatory monitoring to detect white-coat hypertension in patients with an office blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or more, but less than 160/100 mm Hg, after a 3-month trial of lifestyle modification. If the home blood pressure is less than 130/80 mm Hg, that’s evidence of white-coat hypertension, for which the recommended treatment consists of continued lifestyle modification plus periodic monitoring of out-of-office blood pressures in order to promptly detect progression to hypertension. If, however, the out-of-office blood pressure is not less than 130/80 mm Hg, that’s hypertension, and the guidelines recommend starting dual-agent antihypertensive drug therapy while continuing lifestyle modification.
A confusing array of definitions of hypertension are now in use by various medical societies. While the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines define hypertension as office blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or more, the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines use a threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Joint American Academy of Family Physicians/American College of Physicians guidelines recommend a treatment target of less than 150 mm Hg in hypertensive patients aged 60 years or older. And at the other end of the spectrum, the SPRINT trial showed a significant cardiovascular benefit for intensive treatment of hypertension to a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg, rather than less than 140 mm Hg (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16).
Dr. Kates believes the debate over the “right” treatment target misses the central point, which is that hypertension is staggeringly undertreated. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates only one in four adults with hypertension have their disease under control. That’s a disconcerting statistic given that hypertension accounts for more cardiovascular deaths than any other modifiable cardiovascular risk factor.
“There’s been some concern raised that maybe too much weight has been put on the SPRINT trial in making the ACC/AHA recommendations, but I think it’s helpful to understand that we vastly undertreat patients with hypertension. So I think that, rather than being so concerned that we’re going to be treating people to too low a target or we’re being overly aggressive, it should give us some pause to think about the fact that we’re ordinarily not being aggressive enough with many of our patients as it is,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Kates reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The redefinition of hypertension as 130/80 mm Hg or higher introduced in the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension management guidelines has generated considerable controversy. Often overlooked, however, has been another major innovation included in the 2017 guidelines: the rise in the status of out-of-office 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and home blood pressure self-measurement to a class I, level of evidence A recommendation, Andrew M. Kates, MD, observed at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
It’s a guideline he strongly endorses.
“We do a lot of this. It can be a challenge to get 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring covered by payers, so said Dr. Kates, professor of medicine and director of the cardiology fellowship program at Washington University, St. Louis.
He explained that one of the four key questions the guideline committee was tasked with answering at the outset of deliberations was this: What’s the evidence base for self-directed out-of-office blood pressure monitoring? Based on the panel’s systematic review of the literature, this practice wound up receiving the strongest possible class Ia recommendation, specifically for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension and for titration of antihypertensive medications. Moreover, the guidelines also endorsed home blood pressure monitoring for the detection of white-coat hypertension, this time as a Class IIa recommendation, as well as for identification of patients with masked hypertension, with class IIb status (Circulation. 2018 Oct 23;138[17]:e484-594).
The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines include a detailed checklist for obtaining accurate measurements of office blood pressure. The suggestions include having the patient sit relaxed in a chair with both feet on the floor for at least 5 minutes before taking the measurement, no coffee or exercise for 30 minutes beforehand, empty the bladder, no talking, no clothing over the arm, and other recommendations. Many busy clinicians roll their eyes at the impracticality of doing all this on a routine basis.
“I don’t want to take an audience survey, but I’ll say that even in our office we are not successful in doing this. Patients run up the stairs to the office after dealing with traffic and the parking garage, they’re late for their appointment, in winter they’re wearing a sweater and don’t want to take it off. These are things we don’t do well, and they’re low-hanging fruit where we could do better,” Dr. Kates commented.
The challenges inherent in performing by-the-book office blood pressure measurement reinforce the importance of home self-monitoring of blood pressure in what is hopefully a more stress-free environment.
“We can give patients specific guidance about checking their blood pressure an hour after taking their medications, sitting for 5 minutes, and checking the pressures on a bare arm and not with the sleeve rolled up,” he noted.
The guidelines recommend using home blood pressure monitoring or ambulatory monitoring to detect white-coat hypertension in patients with an office blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or more, but less than 160/100 mm Hg, after a 3-month trial of lifestyle modification. If the home blood pressure is less than 130/80 mm Hg, that’s evidence of white-coat hypertension, for which the recommended treatment consists of continued lifestyle modification plus periodic monitoring of out-of-office blood pressures in order to promptly detect progression to hypertension. If, however, the out-of-office blood pressure is not less than 130/80 mm Hg, that’s hypertension, and the guidelines recommend starting dual-agent antihypertensive drug therapy while continuing lifestyle modification.
A confusing array of definitions of hypertension are now in use by various medical societies. While the 2017 ACC/AHA hypertension guidelines define hypertension as office blood pressure of 130/80 mm Hg or more, the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines use a threshold of 140/90 mm Hg or more. Joint American Academy of Family Physicians/American College of Physicians guidelines recommend a treatment target of less than 150 mm Hg in hypertensive patients aged 60 years or older. And at the other end of the spectrum, the SPRINT trial showed a significant cardiovascular benefit for intensive treatment of hypertension to a target systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg, rather than less than 140 mm Hg (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16).
Dr. Kates believes the debate over the “right” treatment target misses the central point, which is that hypertension is staggeringly undertreated. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates only one in four adults with hypertension have their disease under control. That’s a disconcerting statistic given that hypertension accounts for more cardiovascular deaths than any other modifiable cardiovascular risk factor.
“There’s been some concern raised that maybe too much weight has been put on the SPRINT trial in making the ACC/AHA recommendations, but I think it’s helpful to understand that we vastly undertreat patients with hypertension. So I think that, rather than being so concerned that we’re going to be treating people to too low a target or we’re being overly aggressive, it should give us some pause to think about the fact that we’re ordinarily not being aggressive enough with many of our patients as it is,” the cardiologist said.
Dr. Kates reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Who’ll get SAVR in 2020?
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.
He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).
But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.
Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.
Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.
Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.
“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.
In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.
In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).
“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.
Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.
For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.
Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.
He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).
But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.
Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.
Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.
Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.
“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.
In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.
In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).
“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.
Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.
For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.
Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.
He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”
The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).
But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.
Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.
Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.
Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.
“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.
In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.
In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).
“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.
Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.
For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.
Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Silent ischemia isn’t what it used to be
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The concept that silent myocardial ischemia is clinically detrimental has fallen by the wayside, and routine screening for this phenomenon can no longer be recommended, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
What a difference a decade or 2 can make.
“Think about where we were 25 years ago, when we worried about people who had transient ST-segment depression without angina on Holter monitoring. We would wig out, chase them down the street, try to tackle them and load them up with medications and think about balloon [percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty]. And now we’re at the point where it doesn’t seem to help with respect to quality of life, let alone death or myocardial infarction,” observed Dr. O’Gara, director of clinical cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The end of the line for the now-discredited notion that silent ischemia carries clinical significance approaching that of ischemia plus angina pectoris was the landmark ISCHEMIA trial, reported in November 2019 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. This randomized trial asked the question: Is there any high-risk subgroup of patients with stable ischemic heart disease not involving the left main coronary artery for whom a strategy of routine revascularization improves hard outcomes in the current era of highly effective, guideline-directed medical therapy?
The answer turned out to be no. At 5 years of follow-up of 5,179 randomized patients with baseline stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and rigorously determined baseline moderate or severe ischemia affecting more than 10% of the myocardium, there was no difference between patients randomized to routine revascularization plus optimal medical therapy versus those on optimal medical therapy alone in the primary combined outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, heart failure, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina.
Of note, 35% of participants in the ISCHEMIA trial had moderate or severe silent ischemia. Like those who had angina, they achieved no additional benefit from a strategy of routine revascularization in terms of the primary outcome. ISCHEMIA participants with angina did show significant and durable improvements in quality of life and angina control with routine revascularization; however, those with silent ischemia showed little or no such improvement with an invasive strategy.
That being said, Dr. O’Gara added that he supports the ISCHEMIA investigators’ efforts to obtain funding from the National Institutes of Health for another 5 years or so of follow-up in order to determine whether revascularization actually does lead to improvement in the hard outcomes.
“Remember, in the STICH trial it took 10 years to show superiority of CABG [coronary artery bypass surgery] versus medical therapy to treat ischemic cardiomyopathy [N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1511-20]. My own view is that it’s too premature to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think shared decision making is still very important, and I think, for many of our patients, relief of angina and improved quality of life are legitimate reasons in a low-risk situation with a good interventionalist to proceed,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara traced the history of medical thinking about silent ischemia. The notion that silent ischemia carried a clinical significance comparable with ischemia with angina gained wide credence more than 30 years ago, when investigators from the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Coronary Artery Surgery Study registry reported: “Patients with either silent or symptomatic ischemia during exercise testing have a similar risk of developing an acute myocardial infarction or sudden death – except in the three-vessel CAD subgroup, where the risk is greater in silent ischemia” (Am J Cardiol. 1988 Dec 1;62[17]:1155-8).
“This was a very important observation and led to many, many recommendations about screening and making sure that you took the expression of ST-segment depression on exercise treadmill testing pretty seriously, even if your patient did not have angina,” Dr. O’Gara recalled.
The prevailing wisdom that silent ischemia was detrimental took a hit in the Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAC) trial. DIAC was conducted at a time when it had become clear that type 2 diabetes was a condition associated with increased cardiovascular risk, and that various methods of imaging were more accurate than treadmill exercise testing for the detection of underlying CAD. But when 1,123 DIAC participants with type 2 diabetes were randomized to screening with adenosine-stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging or not and prospectively followed for roughly 5 years, it turned out there was no between-group difference in cardiac death or MI (JAMA. 2009 Apr 15;301[15]:1547-55).
“This pretty much put the lid on going out of one’s way to do routine screening of this nature in persons with diabetes who were considered to be at higher than average risk for the development of coronary disease,” the cardiologist commented.
Another fissure in the idea that silent ischemia was worth searching for and treating came from CLARIFY, an observational international registry of more than 20,000 individuals with stable CAD, roughly 12% of whom had silent ischemia, a figure in line with the prevalence reported in other studies. The 2-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI in the group with silent ischemia didn’t differ from the rate in patients with neither angina nor provocable ischemia. In contrast, rates of cardiovascular death or MI were significantly higher in the groups with angina but no ischemia or angina with ischemia (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174[10]:1651-9).
“There’s something about the expression of angina that’s a very key clinical marker,” Dr. O’Gara observed.
He noted that just a few months before the ISCHEMIA trial results were released, a report from the far-smaller, randomized second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study “threw cold water” on the notion that stress-induced ischemia in patients with multivessel CAD is a bad thing. Over 10 years of follow-up, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events or deterioration in left ventricular function was identical in patients with or without baseline ischemia on stress testing performed after percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG surgery, or initiation of medical therapy (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2227).
What the guidelines say
The 6-year-old U.S. guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease are clearly out of date on the topic of silent ischemia (Circulation. 2014 Nov 4;130[19]:1749-67). The recommendations are based on expert opinion formed prior to the massive amount of new evidence that has since become available. For example, the current guidelines state as a class IIa, level of evidence C recommendation that exercise or pharmacologic stress can be useful for follow-up assessment at 2-year or greater intervals in patients with stable ischemic heart disease with prior evidence of silent ischemia.
“This is a very weak recommendation. The class of recommendation says it would be reasonable, but in the absence of an evidence base and in light of newer information, I’m not sure that it approaches even a class IIa level of recommendation,” according to Dr. O’Gara.
The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on chronic coronary syndromes are similarly weak on silent ischemia. The European guidelines state that patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease may have a higher burden of silent ischemia, might be at higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, and that periodic ECGs and functional testing every 3-5 years might be considered.
“Obviously there’s a lot of leeway there in how you wish to interpret that,” Dr. O’Gara said. “And this did not rise to the level where they’d put it in the table of recommendations, but it’s simply included as part of the explanatory text.”
What’s coming next in stable ischemic heart disease
“Nowadays all the rage has to do with coronary microvascular dysfunction,” according to Dr. O’Gara. “I think all of the research interest currently is focused on the coronary microcirculation as perhaps the next frontier in our understanding of why it is that ischemia can occur in the absence of epicardial coronary disease.”
He highly recommended a review article entitled: “Reappraisal of Ischemic Heart Disease,” in which an international trio of prominent cardiologists asserted that coronary microvascular dysfunction not only plays a pivotal pathogenic role in angina pectoris, but also in a phenomenon known as microvascular angina – that is, angina in the absence of obstructive CAD. Microvascular angina may explain the roughly one-third of patients who experience acute coronary syndrome without epicardial coronary artery stenosis or thrombosis. The authors delved into the structural and functional mechanisms underlying coronary microvascular dysfunction, while noting that effective treatment of this common phenomenon remains a major unmet need (Circulation. 2018 Oct 2;138[14]:1463-80).
Dr. O’Gara reported receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; from Medtronic in conjunction with the ongoing pivotal APOLLO transcatheter mitral valve replacement trial; from Edwards Lifesciences for the ongoing EARLY TAVR trial; and from Medtrace Pharma, a Danish company developing an innovative form of PET diagnostic imaging.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The concept that silent myocardial ischemia is clinically detrimental has fallen by the wayside, and routine screening for this phenomenon can no longer be recommended, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
What a difference a decade or 2 can make.
“Think about where we were 25 years ago, when we worried about people who had transient ST-segment depression without angina on Holter monitoring. We would wig out, chase them down the street, try to tackle them and load them up with medications and think about balloon [percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty]. And now we’re at the point where it doesn’t seem to help with respect to quality of life, let alone death or myocardial infarction,” observed Dr. O’Gara, director of clinical cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The end of the line for the now-discredited notion that silent ischemia carries clinical significance approaching that of ischemia plus angina pectoris was the landmark ISCHEMIA trial, reported in November 2019 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. This randomized trial asked the question: Is there any high-risk subgroup of patients with stable ischemic heart disease not involving the left main coronary artery for whom a strategy of routine revascularization improves hard outcomes in the current era of highly effective, guideline-directed medical therapy?
The answer turned out to be no. At 5 years of follow-up of 5,179 randomized patients with baseline stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and rigorously determined baseline moderate or severe ischemia affecting more than 10% of the myocardium, there was no difference between patients randomized to routine revascularization plus optimal medical therapy versus those on optimal medical therapy alone in the primary combined outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, heart failure, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina.
Of note, 35% of participants in the ISCHEMIA trial had moderate or severe silent ischemia. Like those who had angina, they achieved no additional benefit from a strategy of routine revascularization in terms of the primary outcome. ISCHEMIA participants with angina did show significant and durable improvements in quality of life and angina control with routine revascularization; however, those with silent ischemia showed little or no such improvement with an invasive strategy.
That being said, Dr. O’Gara added that he supports the ISCHEMIA investigators’ efforts to obtain funding from the National Institutes of Health for another 5 years or so of follow-up in order to determine whether revascularization actually does lead to improvement in the hard outcomes.
“Remember, in the STICH trial it took 10 years to show superiority of CABG [coronary artery bypass surgery] versus medical therapy to treat ischemic cardiomyopathy [N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1511-20]. My own view is that it’s too premature to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think shared decision making is still very important, and I think, for many of our patients, relief of angina and improved quality of life are legitimate reasons in a low-risk situation with a good interventionalist to proceed,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara traced the history of medical thinking about silent ischemia. The notion that silent ischemia carried a clinical significance comparable with ischemia with angina gained wide credence more than 30 years ago, when investigators from the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Coronary Artery Surgery Study registry reported: “Patients with either silent or symptomatic ischemia during exercise testing have a similar risk of developing an acute myocardial infarction or sudden death – except in the three-vessel CAD subgroup, where the risk is greater in silent ischemia” (Am J Cardiol. 1988 Dec 1;62[17]:1155-8).
“This was a very important observation and led to many, many recommendations about screening and making sure that you took the expression of ST-segment depression on exercise treadmill testing pretty seriously, even if your patient did not have angina,” Dr. O’Gara recalled.
The prevailing wisdom that silent ischemia was detrimental took a hit in the Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAC) trial. DIAC was conducted at a time when it had become clear that type 2 diabetes was a condition associated with increased cardiovascular risk, and that various methods of imaging were more accurate than treadmill exercise testing for the detection of underlying CAD. But when 1,123 DIAC participants with type 2 diabetes were randomized to screening with adenosine-stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging or not and prospectively followed for roughly 5 years, it turned out there was no between-group difference in cardiac death or MI (JAMA. 2009 Apr 15;301[15]:1547-55).
“This pretty much put the lid on going out of one’s way to do routine screening of this nature in persons with diabetes who were considered to be at higher than average risk for the development of coronary disease,” the cardiologist commented.
Another fissure in the idea that silent ischemia was worth searching for and treating came from CLARIFY, an observational international registry of more than 20,000 individuals with stable CAD, roughly 12% of whom had silent ischemia, a figure in line with the prevalence reported in other studies. The 2-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI in the group with silent ischemia didn’t differ from the rate in patients with neither angina nor provocable ischemia. In contrast, rates of cardiovascular death or MI were significantly higher in the groups with angina but no ischemia or angina with ischemia (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174[10]:1651-9).
“There’s something about the expression of angina that’s a very key clinical marker,” Dr. O’Gara observed.
He noted that just a few months before the ISCHEMIA trial results were released, a report from the far-smaller, randomized second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study “threw cold water” on the notion that stress-induced ischemia in patients with multivessel CAD is a bad thing. Over 10 years of follow-up, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events or deterioration in left ventricular function was identical in patients with or without baseline ischemia on stress testing performed after percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG surgery, or initiation of medical therapy (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2227).
What the guidelines say
The 6-year-old U.S. guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease are clearly out of date on the topic of silent ischemia (Circulation. 2014 Nov 4;130[19]:1749-67). The recommendations are based on expert opinion formed prior to the massive amount of new evidence that has since become available. For example, the current guidelines state as a class IIa, level of evidence C recommendation that exercise or pharmacologic stress can be useful for follow-up assessment at 2-year or greater intervals in patients with stable ischemic heart disease with prior evidence of silent ischemia.
“This is a very weak recommendation. The class of recommendation says it would be reasonable, but in the absence of an evidence base and in light of newer information, I’m not sure that it approaches even a class IIa level of recommendation,” according to Dr. O’Gara.
The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on chronic coronary syndromes are similarly weak on silent ischemia. The European guidelines state that patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease may have a higher burden of silent ischemia, might be at higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, and that periodic ECGs and functional testing every 3-5 years might be considered.
“Obviously there’s a lot of leeway there in how you wish to interpret that,” Dr. O’Gara said. “And this did not rise to the level where they’d put it in the table of recommendations, but it’s simply included as part of the explanatory text.”
What’s coming next in stable ischemic heart disease
“Nowadays all the rage has to do with coronary microvascular dysfunction,” according to Dr. O’Gara. “I think all of the research interest currently is focused on the coronary microcirculation as perhaps the next frontier in our understanding of why it is that ischemia can occur in the absence of epicardial coronary disease.”
He highly recommended a review article entitled: “Reappraisal of Ischemic Heart Disease,” in which an international trio of prominent cardiologists asserted that coronary microvascular dysfunction not only plays a pivotal pathogenic role in angina pectoris, but also in a phenomenon known as microvascular angina – that is, angina in the absence of obstructive CAD. Microvascular angina may explain the roughly one-third of patients who experience acute coronary syndrome without epicardial coronary artery stenosis or thrombosis. The authors delved into the structural and functional mechanisms underlying coronary microvascular dysfunction, while noting that effective treatment of this common phenomenon remains a major unmet need (Circulation. 2018 Oct 2;138[14]:1463-80).
Dr. O’Gara reported receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; from Medtronic in conjunction with the ongoing pivotal APOLLO transcatheter mitral valve replacement trial; from Edwards Lifesciences for the ongoing EARLY TAVR trial; and from Medtrace Pharma, a Danish company developing an innovative form of PET diagnostic imaging.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The concept that silent myocardial ischemia is clinically detrimental has fallen by the wayside, and routine screening for this phenomenon can no longer be recommended, Patrick T. O’Gara, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
What a difference a decade or 2 can make.
“Think about where we were 25 years ago, when we worried about people who had transient ST-segment depression without angina on Holter monitoring. We would wig out, chase them down the street, try to tackle them and load them up with medications and think about balloon [percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty]. And now we’re at the point where it doesn’t seem to help with respect to quality of life, let alone death or myocardial infarction,” observed Dr. O’Gara, director of clinical cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.
The end of the line for the now-discredited notion that silent ischemia carries clinical significance approaching that of ischemia plus angina pectoris was the landmark ISCHEMIA trial, reported in November 2019 at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. This randomized trial asked the question: Is there any high-risk subgroup of patients with stable ischemic heart disease not involving the left main coronary artery for whom a strategy of routine revascularization improves hard outcomes in the current era of highly effective, guideline-directed medical therapy?
The answer turned out to be no. At 5 years of follow-up of 5,179 randomized patients with baseline stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and rigorously determined baseline moderate or severe ischemia affecting more than 10% of the myocardium, there was no difference between patients randomized to routine revascularization plus optimal medical therapy versus those on optimal medical therapy alone in the primary combined outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, heart failure, cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for unstable angina.
Of note, 35% of participants in the ISCHEMIA trial had moderate or severe silent ischemia. Like those who had angina, they achieved no additional benefit from a strategy of routine revascularization in terms of the primary outcome. ISCHEMIA participants with angina did show significant and durable improvements in quality of life and angina control with routine revascularization; however, those with silent ischemia showed little or no such improvement with an invasive strategy.
That being said, Dr. O’Gara added that he supports the ISCHEMIA investigators’ efforts to obtain funding from the National Institutes of Health for another 5 years or so of follow-up in order to determine whether revascularization actually does lead to improvement in the hard outcomes.
“Remember, in the STICH trial it took 10 years to show superiority of CABG [coronary artery bypass surgery] versus medical therapy to treat ischemic cardiomyopathy [N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1511-20]. My own view is that it’s too premature to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think shared decision making is still very important, and I think, for many of our patients, relief of angina and improved quality of life are legitimate reasons in a low-risk situation with a good interventionalist to proceed,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara traced the history of medical thinking about silent ischemia. The notion that silent ischemia carried a clinical significance comparable with ischemia with angina gained wide credence more than 30 years ago, when investigators from the National Institutes of Health–sponsored Coronary Artery Surgery Study registry reported: “Patients with either silent or symptomatic ischemia during exercise testing have a similar risk of developing an acute myocardial infarction or sudden death – except in the three-vessel CAD subgroup, where the risk is greater in silent ischemia” (Am J Cardiol. 1988 Dec 1;62[17]:1155-8).
“This was a very important observation and led to many, many recommendations about screening and making sure that you took the expression of ST-segment depression on exercise treadmill testing pretty seriously, even if your patient did not have angina,” Dr. O’Gara recalled.
The prevailing wisdom that silent ischemia was detrimental took a hit in the Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAC) trial. DIAC was conducted at a time when it had become clear that type 2 diabetes was a condition associated with increased cardiovascular risk, and that various methods of imaging were more accurate than treadmill exercise testing for the detection of underlying CAD. But when 1,123 DIAC participants with type 2 diabetes were randomized to screening with adenosine-stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging or not and prospectively followed for roughly 5 years, it turned out there was no between-group difference in cardiac death or MI (JAMA. 2009 Apr 15;301[15]:1547-55).
“This pretty much put the lid on going out of one’s way to do routine screening of this nature in persons with diabetes who were considered to be at higher than average risk for the development of coronary disease,” the cardiologist commented.
Another fissure in the idea that silent ischemia was worth searching for and treating came from CLARIFY, an observational international registry of more than 20,000 individuals with stable CAD, roughly 12% of whom had silent ischemia, a figure in line with the prevalence reported in other studies. The 2-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI in the group with silent ischemia didn’t differ from the rate in patients with neither angina nor provocable ischemia. In contrast, rates of cardiovascular death or MI were significantly higher in the groups with angina but no ischemia or angina with ischemia (JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Oct;174[10]:1651-9).
“There’s something about the expression of angina that’s a very key clinical marker,” Dr. O’Gara observed.
He noted that just a few months before the ISCHEMIA trial results were released, a report from the far-smaller, randomized second Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study “threw cold water” on the notion that stress-induced ischemia in patients with multivessel CAD is a bad thing. Over 10 years of follow-up, the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events or deterioration in left ventricular function was identical in patients with or without baseline ischemia on stress testing performed after percutaneous coronary intervention, CABG surgery, or initiation of medical therapy (JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2227).
What the guidelines say
The 6-year-old U.S. guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease are clearly out of date on the topic of silent ischemia (Circulation. 2014 Nov 4;130[19]:1749-67). The recommendations are based on expert opinion formed prior to the massive amount of new evidence that has since become available. For example, the current guidelines state as a class IIa, level of evidence C recommendation that exercise or pharmacologic stress can be useful for follow-up assessment at 2-year or greater intervals in patients with stable ischemic heart disease with prior evidence of silent ischemia.
“This is a very weak recommendation. The class of recommendation says it would be reasonable, but in the absence of an evidence base and in light of newer information, I’m not sure that it approaches even a class IIa level of recommendation,” according to Dr. O’Gara.
The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on chronic coronary syndromes are similarly weak on silent ischemia. The European guidelines state that patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease may have a higher burden of silent ischemia, might be at higher risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events, and that periodic ECGs and functional testing every 3-5 years might be considered.
“Obviously there’s a lot of leeway there in how you wish to interpret that,” Dr. O’Gara said. “And this did not rise to the level where they’d put it in the table of recommendations, but it’s simply included as part of the explanatory text.”
What’s coming next in stable ischemic heart disease
“Nowadays all the rage has to do with coronary microvascular dysfunction,” according to Dr. O’Gara. “I think all of the research interest currently is focused on the coronary microcirculation as perhaps the next frontier in our understanding of why it is that ischemia can occur in the absence of epicardial coronary disease.”
He highly recommended a review article entitled: “Reappraisal of Ischemic Heart Disease,” in which an international trio of prominent cardiologists asserted that coronary microvascular dysfunction not only plays a pivotal pathogenic role in angina pectoris, but also in a phenomenon known as microvascular angina – that is, angina in the absence of obstructive CAD. Microvascular angina may explain the roughly one-third of patients who experience acute coronary syndrome without epicardial coronary artery stenosis or thrombosis. The authors delved into the structural and functional mechanisms underlying coronary microvascular dysfunction, while noting that effective treatment of this common phenomenon remains a major unmet need (Circulation. 2018 Oct 2;138[14]:1463-80).
Dr. O’Gara reported receiving funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; from Medtronic in conjunction with the ongoing pivotal APOLLO transcatheter mitral valve replacement trial; from Edwards Lifesciences for the ongoing EARLY TAVR trial; and from Medtrace Pharma, a Danish company developing an innovative form of PET diagnostic imaging.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020
Opioid deaths boost donor heart supply
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The tragic opioid epidemic has “one small bright spot”: an expanding pool of eligible donor hearts for transplantation, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
For decades, the annual volume of heart transplantations performed in the U.S. was static because of the huge mismatch between donor organ supply and demand. But heart transplant volume has increased steadily in the last few years – a result of the opioid epidemic.
Data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network show that the proportion of donor hearts obtained from individuals who died from drug intoxication climbed from a mere 1.5% in 1999 to 17.6% in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. Meanwhile, the size of the heart transplant waiting list, which rose year after year in 2009-2015, has since declined (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380[6]:597-9).
“What’s amazing is that, even though these patients might have historically been considered high risk in general, the organs recovered from these patients – and particularly the hearts – don’t seem to be any worse in terms of allograft survival than the organs recovered from patients who died from other causes, which are the traditional sources, like blunt head trauma, gunshot wounds, or stroke, that lead to brain death. In general, these organs are useful and do quite well,” according to Dr. Desai, medical director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
He highlighted several other recent developments in the field of cardiac transplantation that promise to further expand the donor heart pool, including acceptance of hepatitis C–infected donors and organ donation after circulatory rather than brain death. Dr. Desai also drew attention to the unintended perverse consequences of a recent redesign of the U.S. donor heart allocation system and discussed the impressive improvement in clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. He noted that, while relatively few cardiologists practice in the highly specialized centers where heart transplants take place, virtually all cardiologists are affected by advances in heart transplantation since hundreds of thousands of the estimated 7 million Americans with heart failure have advanced disease.
Heart transplantation, he emphasized, is becoming increasingly complex. Recipients are on average older, sicker, and have more comorbidities than in times past. As a result, there is greater need for dual organ transplants: heart/lung, heart/liver, or heart/kidney. Plus, more patients come to transplantation after prior cardiac surgery for implantation of a ventricular assist device, so sensitization to blood products is a growing issue. And, of course, the pool of transplant candidates has expanded.
“We’re now forced to take patients previously considered to have contraindications to transplant; for example, diabetes was a contraindication to transplant in the early years, but now it’s the rule in 35%-40% of our patients who present with advanced heart failure,” the cardiologist noted.
Transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients
Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia were traditionally deemed unsuitable for transplant. That’s all changed in the current era of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection.
In the DONATE HCV trial, Dr. Desai’s colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital showed that giving HCV-uninfected recipients of hearts or lungs from HCV-viremic donors a shortened 4-week course of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) beginning within a few hours after transplantation uniformly blocked viral replication. Six months after transplantation, none of the study participants had a detectable HCV viral load, and all had excellent graft function (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 25;380[17]:1606-17).
“This is effective prevention of HCV infection by aggressive upfront therapy,” Dr. Desai explained. “We can now take organs from HCV-viremic patients and use them in solid organ transplantation. This has led to a skyrocketing increase in donors with HCV infection, and those donations have helped us clear the waiting list.”
Donation after circulatory death
Australian transplant physicians have pioneered the use of donor hearts obtained after circulatory death in individuals with devastating neurologic injury who didn’t quite meet the criteria for brain death, which is the traditional prerequisite. In the new scenario, withdrawal of life-supporting therapy is followed by circulatory death, then the donor heart is procured and preserved via extracorporeal perfusion until transplantation.
The Australians report excellent outcomes, with rates of overall survival and rejection episodes similar to outcomes from brain-dead donors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73[12]:1447-59). The first U.S. heart transplant involving donation after circulatory death took place at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. A multicenter U.S. clinical trial of this practice is underway.
If the results are positive and the practice of donation after circulatory death becomes widely implemented, the U.S. heart donor pool could increase by 30%.
Recent overhaul of donor heart allocation system may have backfired
The U.S. donor heart allocation system was redesigned in the fall of 2018 in an effort to reduce waiting times. One of the biggest changes involved breaking down the category with the highest urgency status into three new subcategories based upon sickness. Now, the highest-urgency category is for patients in cardiogenic shock who are supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.
But an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data suggests this change has unintended adverse consequences for clinical outcomes.
Indeed, the investigators reported that the use of ECMO support is fourfold greater in the new system, the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant is down, and outcomes are worse. The 180-day rate of freedom from death or retransplantation was 77.9%, down significantly from 93.4% in the former system. In a multivariate analysis, patients transplanted in the new system had an adjusted 2.1-fold increased risk of death or retransplantation (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 Jan;39[1]:1-4).
“When you create a new listing system, you create new incentives, and people start to manage patients differently,” Dr. Desai observed. “Increasingly now, the path direct to transplant is through temporary mechanical circulatory support rather than durable mechanical circulatory support. Is that a good idea? We don’t know, but if you look at the best data, those on ECMO or percutaneous VADs have the worst outcomes. So the question of whether we should take the sickest of sick patients directly to transplant as a standard strategy has come under scrutiny.”
Improved durable LVAD technology brings impressive clinical outcomes
Results of the landmark MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial showed that 2-year clinical outcomes with the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 LVAD now rival those of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device. Two-year all-cause mortality in the LVAD recipients was 22% versus 29.1% with the MitraClip in the COAPT trial and 34.9% in the MITRA-FR trial. The HeartMate 3 reduces the hemocompatibility issues that plagued earlier-generation durable LVADs, with resultant lower rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and GI bleeding. Indeed, the outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 were so good – and so similar – with the HeartMate 3, regardless of whether the intended treatment goal was as a bridge to transplant or as lifelong destination therapy, that the investigators have recently proposed doing away with those distinctions.
“It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure,” according to the investigators (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5323).
The next step forward in LVAD technology is already on the horizon: a fully implantable device that eliminates the transcutaneous drive-line for the power supply, which is prone to infection and diminishes overall quality of life. This investigational device utilizes wireless coplanar energy transfer, with a coil ring placed around the lung and fixed to the chest wall. The implanted battery provides more than 6 hours of power without a recharge (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019 Apr;38[4]:339-43).
“The first LVAD patient has gone swimming in Kazakhstan,” according to Dr. Desai.
Myocardial recovery in LVAD recipients remains elusive
The initial hope for LVADs was that they would not only be able to serve as a bridge to transplantation or as lifetime therapy, but that the prolonged unloading of the ventricle would enable potent medical therapy to rescue myocardial function so that the device could eventually be explanted. That does happen, but only rarely. In a large registry study, myocardial recovery occurred in only about 1% of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Attempts to enhance the process by add-on stem cell therapy have thus far been ineffective.
“For the moment, recovery is still a hope, not a reality,” the cardiologist said.
He reported serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies and receiving research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, MyoKardia, and Novartis.
bjancin@mdedge.com
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The tragic opioid epidemic has “one small bright spot”: an expanding pool of eligible donor hearts for transplantation, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
For decades, the annual volume of heart transplantations performed in the U.S. was static because of the huge mismatch between donor organ supply and demand. But heart transplant volume has increased steadily in the last few years – a result of the opioid epidemic.
Data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network show that the proportion of donor hearts obtained from individuals who died from drug intoxication climbed from a mere 1.5% in 1999 to 17.6% in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. Meanwhile, the size of the heart transplant waiting list, which rose year after year in 2009-2015, has since declined (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380[6]:597-9).
“What’s amazing is that, even though these patients might have historically been considered high risk in general, the organs recovered from these patients – and particularly the hearts – don’t seem to be any worse in terms of allograft survival than the organs recovered from patients who died from other causes, which are the traditional sources, like blunt head trauma, gunshot wounds, or stroke, that lead to brain death. In general, these organs are useful and do quite well,” according to Dr. Desai, medical director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
He highlighted several other recent developments in the field of cardiac transplantation that promise to further expand the donor heart pool, including acceptance of hepatitis C–infected donors and organ donation after circulatory rather than brain death. Dr. Desai also drew attention to the unintended perverse consequences of a recent redesign of the U.S. donor heart allocation system and discussed the impressive improvement in clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. He noted that, while relatively few cardiologists practice in the highly specialized centers where heart transplants take place, virtually all cardiologists are affected by advances in heart transplantation since hundreds of thousands of the estimated 7 million Americans with heart failure have advanced disease.
Heart transplantation, he emphasized, is becoming increasingly complex. Recipients are on average older, sicker, and have more comorbidities than in times past. As a result, there is greater need for dual organ transplants: heart/lung, heart/liver, or heart/kidney. Plus, more patients come to transplantation after prior cardiac surgery for implantation of a ventricular assist device, so sensitization to blood products is a growing issue. And, of course, the pool of transplant candidates has expanded.
“We’re now forced to take patients previously considered to have contraindications to transplant; for example, diabetes was a contraindication to transplant in the early years, but now it’s the rule in 35%-40% of our patients who present with advanced heart failure,” the cardiologist noted.
Transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients
Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia were traditionally deemed unsuitable for transplant. That’s all changed in the current era of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection.
In the DONATE HCV trial, Dr. Desai’s colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital showed that giving HCV-uninfected recipients of hearts or lungs from HCV-viremic donors a shortened 4-week course of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) beginning within a few hours after transplantation uniformly blocked viral replication. Six months after transplantation, none of the study participants had a detectable HCV viral load, and all had excellent graft function (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 25;380[17]:1606-17).
“This is effective prevention of HCV infection by aggressive upfront therapy,” Dr. Desai explained. “We can now take organs from HCV-viremic patients and use them in solid organ transplantation. This has led to a skyrocketing increase in donors with HCV infection, and those donations have helped us clear the waiting list.”
Donation after circulatory death
Australian transplant physicians have pioneered the use of donor hearts obtained after circulatory death in individuals with devastating neurologic injury who didn’t quite meet the criteria for brain death, which is the traditional prerequisite. In the new scenario, withdrawal of life-supporting therapy is followed by circulatory death, then the donor heart is procured and preserved via extracorporeal perfusion until transplantation.
The Australians report excellent outcomes, with rates of overall survival and rejection episodes similar to outcomes from brain-dead donors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73[12]:1447-59). The first U.S. heart transplant involving donation after circulatory death took place at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. A multicenter U.S. clinical trial of this practice is underway.
If the results are positive and the practice of donation after circulatory death becomes widely implemented, the U.S. heart donor pool could increase by 30%.
Recent overhaul of donor heart allocation system may have backfired
The U.S. donor heart allocation system was redesigned in the fall of 2018 in an effort to reduce waiting times. One of the biggest changes involved breaking down the category with the highest urgency status into three new subcategories based upon sickness. Now, the highest-urgency category is for patients in cardiogenic shock who are supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.
But an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data suggests this change has unintended adverse consequences for clinical outcomes.
Indeed, the investigators reported that the use of ECMO support is fourfold greater in the new system, the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant is down, and outcomes are worse. The 180-day rate of freedom from death or retransplantation was 77.9%, down significantly from 93.4% in the former system. In a multivariate analysis, patients transplanted in the new system had an adjusted 2.1-fold increased risk of death or retransplantation (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 Jan;39[1]:1-4).
“When you create a new listing system, you create new incentives, and people start to manage patients differently,” Dr. Desai observed. “Increasingly now, the path direct to transplant is through temporary mechanical circulatory support rather than durable mechanical circulatory support. Is that a good idea? We don’t know, but if you look at the best data, those on ECMO or percutaneous VADs have the worst outcomes. So the question of whether we should take the sickest of sick patients directly to transplant as a standard strategy has come under scrutiny.”
Improved durable LVAD technology brings impressive clinical outcomes
Results of the landmark MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial showed that 2-year clinical outcomes with the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 LVAD now rival those of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device. Two-year all-cause mortality in the LVAD recipients was 22% versus 29.1% with the MitraClip in the COAPT trial and 34.9% in the MITRA-FR trial. The HeartMate 3 reduces the hemocompatibility issues that plagued earlier-generation durable LVADs, with resultant lower rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and GI bleeding. Indeed, the outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 were so good – and so similar – with the HeartMate 3, regardless of whether the intended treatment goal was as a bridge to transplant or as lifelong destination therapy, that the investigators have recently proposed doing away with those distinctions.
“It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure,” according to the investigators (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5323).
The next step forward in LVAD technology is already on the horizon: a fully implantable device that eliminates the transcutaneous drive-line for the power supply, which is prone to infection and diminishes overall quality of life. This investigational device utilizes wireless coplanar energy transfer, with a coil ring placed around the lung and fixed to the chest wall. The implanted battery provides more than 6 hours of power without a recharge (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019 Apr;38[4]:339-43).
“The first LVAD patient has gone swimming in Kazakhstan,” according to Dr. Desai.
Myocardial recovery in LVAD recipients remains elusive
The initial hope for LVADs was that they would not only be able to serve as a bridge to transplantation or as lifetime therapy, but that the prolonged unloading of the ventricle would enable potent medical therapy to rescue myocardial function so that the device could eventually be explanted. That does happen, but only rarely. In a large registry study, myocardial recovery occurred in only about 1% of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Attempts to enhance the process by add-on stem cell therapy have thus far been ineffective.
“For the moment, recovery is still a hope, not a reality,” the cardiologist said.
He reported serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies and receiving research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, MyoKardia, and Novartis.
bjancin@mdedge.com
SNOWMASS, COLO. – The tragic opioid epidemic has “one small bright spot”: an expanding pool of eligible donor hearts for transplantation, Akshay S. Desai, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.
For decades, the annual volume of heart transplantations performed in the U.S. was static because of the huge mismatch between donor organ supply and demand. But heart transplant volume has increased steadily in the last few years – a result of the opioid epidemic.
Data from the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network show that the proportion of donor hearts obtained from individuals who died from drug intoxication climbed from a mere 1.5% in 1999 to 17.6% in 2017, the most recent year for which data are available. Meanwhile, the size of the heart transplant waiting list, which rose year after year in 2009-2015, has since declined (N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 7;380[6]:597-9).
“What’s amazing is that, even though these patients might have historically been considered high risk in general, the organs recovered from these patients – and particularly the hearts – don’t seem to be any worse in terms of allograft survival than the organs recovered from patients who died from other causes, which are the traditional sources, like blunt head trauma, gunshot wounds, or stroke, that lead to brain death. In general, these organs are useful and do quite well,” according to Dr. Desai, medical director of the cardiomyopathy and heart failure program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
He highlighted several other recent developments in the field of cardiac transplantation that promise to further expand the donor heart pool, including acceptance of hepatitis C–infected donors and organ donation after circulatory rather than brain death. Dr. Desai also drew attention to the unintended perverse consequences of a recent redesign of the U.S. donor heart allocation system and discussed the impressive improvement in clinical outcomes with mechanical circulatory support. He noted that, while relatively few cardiologists practice in the highly specialized centers where heart transplants take place, virtually all cardiologists are affected by advances in heart transplantation since hundreds of thousands of the estimated 7 million Americans with heart failure have advanced disease.
Heart transplantation, he emphasized, is becoming increasingly complex. Recipients are on average older, sicker, and have more comorbidities than in times past. As a result, there is greater need for dual organ transplants: heart/lung, heart/liver, or heart/kidney. Plus, more patients come to transplantation after prior cardiac surgery for implantation of a ventricular assist device, so sensitization to blood products is a growing issue. And, of course, the pool of transplant candidates has expanded.
“We’re now forced to take patients previously considered to have contraindications to transplant; for example, diabetes was a contraindication to transplant in the early years, but now it’s the rule in 35%-40% of our patients who present with advanced heart failure,” the cardiologist noted.
Transplants from HCV-infected donors to uninfected recipients
Hearts and lungs from donors with hepatitis C viremia were traditionally deemed unsuitable for transplant. That’s all changed in the current era of highly effective direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of HCV infection.
In the DONATE HCV trial, Dr. Desai’s colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital showed that giving HCV-uninfected recipients of hearts or lungs from HCV-viremic donors a shortened 4-week course of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (Epclusa) beginning within a few hours after transplantation uniformly blocked viral replication. Six months after transplantation, none of the study participants had a detectable HCV viral load, and all had excellent graft function (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 25;380[17]:1606-17).
“This is effective prevention of HCV infection by aggressive upfront therapy,” Dr. Desai explained. “We can now take organs from HCV-viremic patients and use them in solid organ transplantation. This has led to a skyrocketing increase in donors with HCV infection, and those donations have helped us clear the waiting list.”
Donation after circulatory death
Australian transplant physicians have pioneered the use of donor hearts obtained after circulatory death in individuals with devastating neurologic injury who didn’t quite meet the criteria for brain death, which is the traditional prerequisite. In the new scenario, withdrawal of life-supporting therapy is followed by circulatory death, then the donor heart is procured and preserved via extracorporeal perfusion until transplantation.
The Australians report excellent outcomes, with rates of overall survival and rejection episodes similar to outcomes from brain-dead donors (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr 2;73[12]:1447-59). The first U.S. heart transplant involving donation after circulatory death took place at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. A multicenter U.S. clinical trial of this practice is underway.
If the results are positive and the practice of donation after circulatory death becomes widely implemented, the U.S. heart donor pool could increase by 30%.
Recent overhaul of donor heart allocation system may have backfired
The U.S. donor heart allocation system was redesigned in the fall of 2018 in an effort to reduce waiting times. One of the biggest changes involved breaking down the category with the highest urgency status into three new subcategories based upon sickness. Now, the highest-urgency category is for patients in cardiogenic shock who are supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or other temporary mechanical circulatory support devices.
But an analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data suggests this change has unintended adverse consequences for clinical outcomes.
Indeed, the investigators reported that the use of ECMO support is fourfold greater in the new system, the use of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to transplant is down, and outcomes are worse. The 180-day rate of freedom from death or retransplantation was 77.9%, down significantly from 93.4% in the former system. In a multivariate analysis, patients transplanted in the new system had an adjusted 2.1-fold increased risk of death or retransplantation (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020 Jan;39[1]:1-4).
“When you create a new listing system, you create new incentives, and people start to manage patients differently,” Dr. Desai observed. “Increasingly now, the path direct to transplant is through temporary mechanical circulatory support rather than durable mechanical circulatory support. Is that a good idea? We don’t know, but if you look at the best data, those on ECMO or percutaneous VADs have the worst outcomes. So the question of whether we should take the sickest of sick patients directly to transplant as a standard strategy has come under scrutiny.”
Improved durable LVAD technology brings impressive clinical outcomes
Results of the landmark MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial showed that 2-year clinical outcomes with the magnetically levitated centrifugal-flow HeartMate 3 LVAD now rival those of percutaneous mitral valve repair using the MitraClip device. Two-year all-cause mortality in the LVAD recipients was 22% versus 29.1% with the MitraClip in the COAPT trial and 34.9% in the MITRA-FR trial. The HeartMate 3 reduces the hemocompatibility issues that plagued earlier-generation durable LVADs, with resultant lower rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and GI bleeding. Indeed, the outcomes in MOMENTUM 3 were so good – and so similar – with the HeartMate 3, regardless of whether the intended treatment goal was as a bridge to transplant or as lifelong destination therapy, that the investigators have recently proposed doing away with those distinctions.
“It is possible that use of arbitrary categorizations based on current or future transplant eligibility should be clinically abandoned in favor of a single preimplant strategy: to extend the survival and improve the quality of life of patients with medically refractory heart failure,” according to the investigators (JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.5323).
The next step forward in LVAD technology is already on the horizon: a fully implantable device that eliminates the transcutaneous drive-line for the power supply, which is prone to infection and diminishes overall quality of life. This investigational device utilizes wireless coplanar energy transfer, with a coil ring placed around the lung and fixed to the chest wall. The implanted battery provides more than 6 hours of power without a recharge (J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019 Apr;38[4]:339-43).
“The first LVAD patient has gone swimming in Kazakhstan,” according to Dr. Desai.
Myocardial recovery in LVAD recipients remains elusive
The initial hope for LVADs was that they would not only be able to serve as a bridge to transplantation or as lifetime therapy, but that the prolonged unloading of the ventricle would enable potent medical therapy to rescue myocardial function so that the device could eventually be explanted. That does happen, but only rarely. In a large registry study, myocardial recovery occurred in only about 1% of patients on mechanical circulatory support. Attempts to enhance the process by add-on stem cell therapy have thus far been ineffective.
“For the moment, recovery is still a hope, not a reality,” the cardiologist said.
He reported serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical or medical device companies and receiving research grants from Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare, MyoKardia, and Novartis.
bjancin@mdedge.com
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ACC SNOWMASS 2020