TBD Meeting (3134-18)

MUNICH – The “overwhelming impression” that Paul K. Whelton, MD, has of the newly revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology is their similarity to hypertension guidelines released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in November 2017.

“We both recommend the same treatment target, of less than 130/80 mm Hg,” noted Dr. Whelton, professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, although the European guidelines (Euro J Cardiology. 2018 Sep 1; 39[33]:3021-104) put more qualifications on this target and specify treating to no lower than 130 mm Hg systolic pressure in patients who are at least 65 years old as well as in patients with chronic kidney disease at any age. In a video interview, Dr. Whelton also cited areas of disagreement, such as how patients with an untreated blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg are classified (high normal in the European guidelines, stage 1 hypertension in the U.S. guidelines), and whether initial drug monotherapy is a reasonable treatment strategy (U.S. says yes, Europe says no).

Dr. Whelton noted that recent modeling studies have documented the potential public health benefits from following the diagnosis and management approaches set forth in the 2017 U.S. guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248). For example, an analysis based on data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2013-2016 showed that following the 2017 guidelines for diagnosing and treating hypertension would have resulted in prevention of more than twice the number of cardiovascular disease events nationally as compared with application of the prior, 2014 U.S. hypertension guideline (JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311[5]:507-20): 610,000 events prevented, compared with 270,000 events prevented. The same study showed that the 2017 guidelines would have nearly doubled the number of all-cause deaths prevented, with 334,000 deaths prevented, compared with 177,000 prevented by applying the 2014 guidelines (JAMA Cardiology. 2018 July;3[7]:572-81).

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The “overwhelming impression” that Paul K. Whelton, MD, has of the newly revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology is their similarity to hypertension guidelines released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in November 2017.

“We both recommend the same treatment target, of less than 130/80 mm Hg,” noted Dr. Whelton, professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, although the European guidelines (Euro J Cardiology. 2018 Sep 1; 39[33]:3021-104) put more qualifications on this target and specify treating to no lower than 130 mm Hg systolic pressure in patients who are at least 65 years old as well as in patients with chronic kidney disease at any age. In a video interview, Dr. Whelton also cited areas of disagreement, such as how patients with an untreated blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg are classified (high normal in the European guidelines, stage 1 hypertension in the U.S. guidelines), and whether initial drug monotherapy is a reasonable treatment strategy (U.S. says yes, Europe says no).

Dr. Whelton noted that recent modeling studies have documented the potential public health benefits from following the diagnosis and management approaches set forth in the 2017 U.S. guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248). For example, an analysis based on data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2013-2016 showed that following the 2017 guidelines for diagnosing and treating hypertension would have resulted in prevention of more than twice the number of cardiovascular disease events nationally as compared with application of the prior, 2014 U.S. hypertension guideline (JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311[5]:507-20): 610,000 events prevented, compared with 270,000 events prevented. The same study showed that the 2017 guidelines would have nearly doubled the number of all-cause deaths prevented, with 334,000 deaths prevented, compared with 177,000 prevented by applying the 2014 guidelines (JAMA Cardiology. 2018 July;3[7]:572-81).

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The “overwhelming impression” that Paul K. Whelton, MD, has of the newly revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology is their similarity to hypertension guidelines released by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association in November 2017.

“We both recommend the same treatment target, of less than 130/80 mm Hg,” noted Dr. Whelton, professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, although the European guidelines (Euro J Cardiology. 2018 Sep 1; 39[33]:3021-104) put more qualifications on this target and specify treating to no lower than 130 mm Hg systolic pressure in patients who are at least 65 years old as well as in patients with chronic kidney disease at any age. In a video interview, Dr. Whelton also cited areas of disagreement, such as how patients with an untreated blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg are classified (high normal in the European guidelines, stage 1 hypertension in the U.S. guidelines), and whether initial drug monotherapy is a reasonable treatment strategy (U.S. says yes, Europe says no).

Dr. Whelton noted that recent modeling studies have documented the potential public health benefits from following the diagnosis and management approaches set forth in the 2017 U.S. guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248). For example, an analysis based on data collected by the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2013-2016 showed that following the 2017 guidelines for diagnosing and treating hypertension would have resulted in prevention of more than twice the number of cardiovascular disease events nationally as compared with application of the prior, 2014 U.S. hypertension guideline (JAMA. 2014 Feb 5;311[5]:507-20): 610,000 events prevented, compared with 270,000 events prevented. The same study showed that the 2017 guidelines would have nearly doubled the number of all-cause deaths prevented, with 334,000 deaths prevented, compared with 177,000 prevented by applying the 2014 guidelines (JAMA Cardiology. 2018 July;3[7]:572-81).

Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The European Society of Cardiology joined other international cardiology groups in endorsing lower targets for blood pressure treatment and lower pressure thresholds for starting drug treatment in its revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines released in August during the Society’s annual congress here.

“Provided that treatment is well tolerated, treated blood pressure should be targeted to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in most patients,” Giuseppe Mancia, MD, said as he and his colleagues presented the new guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the new European guidelines further buttress this more aggressive approach to blood pressure management that first appeared almost a year ago in U.S. guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, an approach that remains controversial among U.S. primary care physicians, the European strategy (Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39[33]:3021-104) was generally more cautious than the broader endorsement of lower blood pressure goals advanced by the U.S. recommendations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248).

In the European approach, “the first objective is to treat to less than 140/90 mm Hg. If this is well tolerated, then treat to less than 130/80 mm Hg in most patients,” said Dr. Mancia, cochair of the European writing panel. Further pressure reductions to less than 130/80 mm Hg are usually harder, the incremental benefit from further reduction is less than when pressures first fall below 140/90 mm Hg, and the evidence for incremental benefit of any size from further pressure reduction is less strong for certain key patient subgroups: people at least 80 years old, and patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease, said Dr. Mancia, an emeritus professor at the University of Milan.

“The consistency between two major guidelines is important, but there are differences that may look subtle but are not subtle,” he said in a video interview. “If a patient gets to less than 140 mm Hg, the doctor should not think that’s a failure; it’s a very important result.”

One striking example of how the two guidelines differ on treatment targets is for people at least 80 years old. The overall blood pressure threshold for starting drug treatment in patients this age in the European guidelines is 160/90 mm Hg, although it remains at 140/90 for people aged 65-79 years old “provided that treatment is well tolerated” and the patients are “fit.” The 2017 U.S. guidelines, by contrast, say that considering drug treatment for everyone with a pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg is a class I recommendation regardless of age as long as the person is “noninstitutionalized, ambulatory, [and] community-dwelling.” Once an older patient of any age, 65 years or older, starts drug treatment to reduce blood pressure, the European guidelines allow for treating to a target systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg as long as the regimen is well tolerated, and the guidelines say that a diastolic pressure target of less than 80 mm Hg should be considered for all adults regardless of age.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new European guidelines also define adults with an untreated pressure of 130-139/85-89 mm Hg as “high normal,” rather than the “stage 1 hypertension” designation given to people with pressures of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg in the U.S. guidelines. Robert M. Carey, MD, vice chair of the U.S. guidelines panel, minimized this as a “semantic” difference, and he highlighted that management of people with pressures in this range is roughly similar in the two sets of recommendations. “The name is different, but treatment is the same,” Dr. Carey said.

The European guidelines call for initial lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment “that may be considered” for patients who have “very-high” cardiovascular risk because of established cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease, and detail the specific clinical conditions that fall into the very-high-risk category. The U.S. guidelines say that stage 1 hypertension patients should get lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment for the roughly 30% of patients in this category who score at least a 10% 10-year risk on the American College of Cardiology’s Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus.The new European guidelines are a “validation” of the ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines, commented Dr. Carey, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Overall, we’re delighted to have these two major groups” agree, he said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount of concurrence.”

Other areas of agreement between the two guidelines include their emphasis on careful and repeated blood pressure measurement, including out-of-office measurement, before settling on a diagnosis of hypertension; systematic assessment of possible masked or white-coat hypertension in selected people; and frequent use of combined drug treatment including initiation of a dual-drug, single-pill regimen when starting drug treatment and aggressive follow-up by adding a third drug when needed. However, in another divergence the U.S. guidelines give a much stronger endorsement to starting treatment with monotherapy, a strategy the European guidelines scrapped.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Carey also noted that the European endorsement of three antihypertensives formulated into a single pill for patients who need more than two drugs would be difficult for American clinicians to follow as virtually no such formulations are approved for U.S. use.

Dr. Mancini has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, and Servier. Dr. Williams has been a consultant to Novartis, Relypsa, and Vascular Dynamics, and he has spoken on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Carey and Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The European Society of Cardiology joined other international cardiology groups in endorsing lower targets for blood pressure treatment and lower pressure thresholds for starting drug treatment in its revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines released in August during the Society’s annual congress here.

“Provided that treatment is well tolerated, treated blood pressure should be targeted to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in most patients,” Giuseppe Mancia, MD, said as he and his colleagues presented the new guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the new European guidelines further buttress this more aggressive approach to blood pressure management that first appeared almost a year ago in U.S. guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, an approach that remains controversial among U.S. primary care physicians, the European strategy (Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39[33]:3021-104) was generally more cautious than the broader endorsement of lower blood pressure goals advanced by the U.S. recommendations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248).

In the European approach, “the first objective is to treat to less than 140/90 mm Hg. If this is well tolerated, then treat to less than 130/80 mm Hg in most patients,” said Dr. Mancia, cochair of the European writing panel. Further pressure reductions to less than 130/80 mm Hg are usually harder, the incremental benefit from further reduction is less than when pressures first fall below 140/90 mm Hg, and the evidence for incremental benefit of any size from further pressure reduction is less strong for certain key patient subgroups: people at least 80 years old, and patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease, said Dr. Mancia, an emeritus professor at the University of Milan.

“The consistency between two major guidelines is important, but there are differences that may look subtle but are not subtle,” he said in a video interview. “If a patient gets to less than 140 mm Hg, the doctor should not think that’s a failure; it’s a very important result.”

One striking example of how the two guidelines differ on treatment targets is for people at least 80 years old. The overall blood pressure threshold for starting drug treatment in patients this age in the European guidelines is 160/90 mm Hg, although it remains at 140/90 for people aged 65-79 years old “provided that treatment is well tolerated” and the patients are “fit.” The 2017 U.S. guidelines, by contrast, say that considering drug treatment for everyone with a pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg is a class I recommendation regardless of age as long as the person is “noninstitutionalized, ambulatory, [and] community-dwelling.” Once an older patient of any age, 65 years or older, starts drug treatment to reduce blood pressure, the European guidelines allow for treating to a target systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg as long as the regimen is well tolerated, and the guidelines say that a diastolic pressure target of less than 80 mm Hg should be considered for all adults regardless of age.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new European guidelines also define adults with an untreated pressure of 130-139/85-89 mm Hg as “high normal,” rather than the “stage 1 hypertension” designation given to people with pressures of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg in the U.S. guidelines. Robert M. Carey, MD, vice chair of the U.S. guidelines panel, minimized this as a “semantic” difference, and he highlighted that management of people with pressures in this range is roughly similar in the two sets of recommendations. “The name is different, but treatment is the same,” Dr. Carey said.

The European guidelines call for initial lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment “that may be considered” for patients who have “very-high” cardiovascular risk because of established cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease, and detail the specific clinical conditions that fall into the very-high-risk category. The U.S. guidelines say that stage 1 hypertension patients should get lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment for the roughly 30% of patients in this category who score at least a 10% 10-year risk on the American College of Cardiology’s Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus.The new European guidelines are a “validation” of the ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines, commented Dr. Carey, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Overall, we’re delighted to have these two major groups” agree, he said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount of concurrence.”

Other areas of agreement between the two guidelines include their emphasis on careful and repeated blood pressure measurement, including out-of-office measurement, before settling on a diagnosis of hypertension; systematic assessment of possible masked or white-coat hypertension in selected people; and frequent use of combined drug treatment including initiation of a dual-drug, single-pill regimen when starting drug treatment and aggressive follow-up by adding a third drug when needed. However, in another divergence the U.S. guidelines give a much stronger endorsement to starting treatment with monotherapy, a strategy the European guidelines scrapped.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Carey also noted that the European endorsement of three antihypertensives formulated into a single pill for patients who need more than two drugs would be difficult for American clinicians to follow as virtually no such formulations are approved for U.S. use.

Dr. Mancini has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, and Servier. Dr. Williams has been a consultant to Novartis, Relypsa, and Vascular Dynamics, and he has spoken on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Carey and Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The European Society of Cardiology joined other international cardiology groups in endorsing lower targets for blood pressure treatment and lower pressure thresholds for starting drug treatment in its revised hypertension diagnosis and management guidelines released in August during the Society’s annual congress here.

“Provided that treatment is well tolerated, treated blood pressure should be targeted to 130/80 mm Hg or lower in most patients,” Giuseppe Mancia, MD, said as he and his colleagues presented the new guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the new European guidelines further buttress this more aggressive approach to blood pressure management that first appeared almost a year ago in U.S. guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, an approach that remains controversial among U.S. primary care physicians, the European strategy (Eur Heart J. 2018 Sep 1;39[33]:3021-104) was generally more cautious than the broader endorsement of lower blood pressure goals advanced by the U.S. recommendations (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e127-e248).

In the European approach, “the first objective is to treat to less than 140/90 mm Hg. If this is well tolerated, then treat to less than 130/80 mm Hg in most patients,” said Dr. Mancia, cochair of the European writing panel. Further pressure reductions to less than 130/80 mm Hg are usually harder, the incremental benefit from further reduction is less than when pressures first fall below 140/90 mm Hg, and the evidence for incremental benefit of any size from further pressure reduction is less strong for certain key patient subgroups: people at least 80 years old, and patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or coronary artery disease, said Dr. Mancia, an emeritus professor at the University of Milan.

“The consistency between two major guidelines is important, but there are differences that may look subtle but are not subtle,” he said in a video interview. “If a patient gets to less than 140 mm Hg, the doctor should not think that’s a failure; it’s a very important result.”

One striking example of how the two guidelines differ on treatment targets is for people at least 80 years old. The overall blood pressure threshold for starting drug treatment in patients this age in the European guidelines is 160/90 mm Hg, although it remains at 140/90 for people aged 65-79 years old “provided that treatment is well tolerated” and the patients are “fit.” The 2017 U.S. guidelines, by contrast, say that considering drug treatment for everyone with a pressure at or above 130/80 mm Hg is a class I recommendation regardless of age as long as the person is “noninstitutionalized, ambulatory, [and] community-dwelling.” Once an older patient of any age, 65 years or older, starts drug treatment to reduce blood pressure, the European guidelines allow for treating to a target systolic blood pressure of 130-139 mm Hg as long as the regimen is well tolerated, and the guidelines say that a diastolic pressure target of less than 80 mm Hg should be considered for all adults regardless of age.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new European guidelines also define adults with an untreated pressure of 130-139/85-89 mm Hg as “high normal,” rather than the “stage 1 hypertension” designation given to people with pressures of 130-139/80-89 mm Hg in the U.S. guidelines. Robert M. Carey, MD, vice chair of the U.S. guidelines panel, minimized this as a “semantic” difference, and he highlighted that management of people with pressures in this range is roughly similar in the two sets of recommendations. “The name is different, but treatment is the same,” Dr. Carey said.

The European guidelines call for initial lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment “that may be considered” for patients who have “very-high” cardiovascular risk because of established cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease, and detail the specific clinical conditions that fall into the very-high-risk category. The U.S. guidelines say that stage 1 hypertension patients should get lifestyle interventions, followed by drug treatment for the roughly 30% of patients in this category who score at least a 10% 10-year risk on the American College of Cardiology’s Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus.The new European guidelines are a “validation” of the ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines, commented Dr. Carey, a professor of medicine at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Overall, we’re delighted to have these two major groups” agree, he said in an interview. “There is a tremendous amount of concurrence.”

Other areas of agreement between the two guidelines include their emphasis on careful and repeated blood pressure measurement, including out-of-office measurement, before settling on a diagnosis of hypertension; systematic assessment of possible masked or white-coat hypertension in selected people; and frequent use of combined drug treatment including initiation of a dual-drug, single-pill regimen when starting drug treatment and aggressive follow-up by adding a third drug when needed. However, in another divergence the U.S. guidelines give a much stronger endorsement to starting treatment with monotherapy, a strategy the European guidelines scrapped.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Dr. Carey also noted that the European endorsement of three antihypertensives formulated into a single pill for patients who need more than two drugs would be difficult for American clinicians to follow as virtually no such formulations are approved for U.S. use.

Dr. Mancini has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Daiichi Sankyo, Ferrer, Medtronic, Menarini, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, and Servier. Dr. Williams has been a consultant to Novartis, Relypsa, and Vascular Dynamics, and he has spoken on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Carey and Dr. Whelton had no commercial disclosures.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – Women with cardiac disease who became pregnant had a nearly 100-fold higher mortality rate, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease, according to the outcomes of more than 5,700 pregnancies in an international registry of women with cardiac disease.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In addition to increased mortality, women with cardiac disease who become pregnant also had a greater than 100-fold higher rate of developing heart failure, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease.

Despite these highly elevated relative risks, the absolute rate of serious complications from pregnancy for most women with heart disease was relatively modest. The worst prognosis by far was for the 1% of women in the registry who had pulmonary arterial hypertension at the time their pregnancy began. For these women, mortality during pregnancy was about 9%, and new-onset heart failure occurred in about one third. Another subgroup showing particularly poor outcomes were women classified with WHO IV maternal cardiovascular risk by the modified World Health Organization criteria, which corresponds to having an “extremely high risk of maternal mortality or severe morbidity,” according to guidelines published in the European Heart Journal (2011 Dec 1;32[24]:3147-97).These women, constituting 7% of the registry cohort, had a 2.5% mortality rate during pregnancy and a 33% incidence of heart failure.

Across all women with cardiac disease enrolled in the registry, the incidence of death during pregnancy was 0.6% and the incidence of heart failure was 11%. Women without cardiac disease have rates of 0.007% and less than 0.1%, respectively, Jolien Roos-Hesselink, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The most important message of my talk is that all patients should be counseled, not just the women at high risk, for whom pregnancy is contraindicated, but also the women at low risk,” who can have a child with relative safety, she said. “Many women [with cardiac disease] can go through pregnancy at low risk.” Counseling is the key so that women know their risk before becoming pregnant, stressed Dr. Roos-Hesselink, a cardiologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Based on the observed rates of mortality and other complications, pulmonary arterial hypertension and the other cardiac conditions that define a WHO IV maternal risk classification remain contraindications for pregnancy, she said. According to the 2011 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease during pregnancy, the full list of conditions that define a WHO IV classification are the following:

• Pulmonary arterial hypertension of any cause.
• Severe systemic ventricular dysfunction (a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%) or New York Heart Association functional class III or IV.
• Previous peripartum cardiomyopathy with any residual impairment of left ventricular function.
• Severe mitral stenosis or severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
• Marfan syndrome with the aorta dilated to more than 45 mm.
• Aortic dilatation greater than 50 mm in aortic disease associated with a bicuspid aortic valve.
• Native severe coarctation.

The registry data, collected during 2007-2018, showed a clear increase in the percentage of women with WHO class IV cardiovascular disease who became pregnant and entered the registry despite the contraindication designation for that classification, rising from about 1% of enrolled women in 2008 and 2009 to more than 10% of women in 2013, 2016, and 2017. “Individualization is necessary, but all these women are at very high risk and should be counseled against pregnancy,” Dr. Roos-Hesselink said.

The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC) enrolled 5,739 pregnant women at any of 138 participating centers in 53 countries including the United States. Clinicians submitted WHO classification of cardiovascular risk for 5,711 of these women. The most common risk was congenital heart disease in 57% of enrolled women, followed by valvular heart disease in 29% and cardiomyopathy in 7%. Nearly 1,200 women in the registry – about 21% of the total – had a WHO I classification, which meant that they would be expected to have no detectable increase in mortality rate during pregnancy, compared with women without cardiac disease, and either no rise in morbidity or a mild effect.

Delivery was by cesarean section in 44% of the pregnancies, roughly twice the rate in women without diagnosed cardiac disease, even though published guidelines don’t advise cesarean delivery because of cardiac disease, Dr. Roos-Hesselink said. “Cesarean sections are used too often, in my opinion,” she commented, but added that many of these women require delivery at a tertiary, specialized center.

Overall fetal mortality was 1%, nearly threefold higher than in pregnancies in women without cardiac disease, and the overall incidence of fetal and neonatal complications was especially high, at 53%, in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of obstetrical complications was roughly similar across the range of cardiac disease type, ranging from 16% to 24%. Premature delivery occurred in 28% of women in the high-risk WHO IV class, compared with a 13% rate among women in the WHO I class. The mortality rate was 0.2% among the WHO class I women, and their heart failure incidence was 5%.

The ROPAC registry is sponsored by the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Roos-Hesselink had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com


 

MUNICH – Women with cardiac disease who became pregnant had a nearly 100-fold higher mortality rate, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease, according to the outcomes of more than 5,700 pregnancies in an international registry of women with cardiac disease.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In addition to increased mortality, women with cardiac disease who become pregnant also had a greater than 100-fold higher rate of developing heart failure, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease.

Despite these highly elevated relative risks, the absolute rate of serious complications from pregnancy for most women with heart disease was relatively modest. The worst prognosis by far was for the 1% of women in the registry who had pulmonary arterial hypertension at the time their pregnancy began. For these women, mortality during pregnancy was about 9%, and new-onset heart failure occurred in about one third. Another subgroup showing particularly poor outcomes were women classified with WHO IV maternal cardiovascular risk by the modified World Health Organization criteria, which corresponds to having an “extremely high risk of maternal mortality or severe morbidity,” according to guidelines published in the European Heart Journal (2011 Dec 1;32[24]:3147-97).These women, constituting 7% of the registry cohort, had a 2.5% mortality rate during pregnancy and a 33% incidence of heart failure.

Across all women with cardiac disease enrolled in the registry, the incidence of death during pregnancy was 0.6% and the incidence of heart failure was 11%. Women without cardiac disease have rates of 0.007% and less than 0.1%, respectively, Jolien Roos-Hesselink, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The most important message of my talk is that all patients should be counseled, not just the women at high risk, for whom pregnancy is contraindicated, but also the women at low risk,” who can have a child with relative safety, she said. “Many women [with cardiac disease] can go through pregnancy at low risk.” Counseling is the key so that women know their risk before becoming pregnant, stressed Dr. Roos-Hesselink, a cardiologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Based on the observed rates of mortality and other complications, pulmonary arterial hypertension and the other cardiac conditions that define a WHO IV maternal risk classification remain contraindications for pregnancy, she said. According to the 2011 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease during pregnancy, the full list of conditions that define a WHO IV classification are the following:

• Pulmonary arterial hypertension of any cause.
• Severe systemic ventricular dysfunction (a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%) or New York Heart Association functional class III or IV.
• Previous peripartum cardiomyopathy with any residual impairment of left ventricular function.
• Severe mitral stenosis or severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
• Marfan syndrome with the aorta dilated to more than 45 mm.
• Aortic dilatation greater than 50 mm in aortic disease associated with a bicuspid aortic valve.
• Native severe coarctation.

The registry data, collected during 2007-2018, showed a clear increase in the percentage of women with WHO class IV cardiovascular disease who became pregnant and entered the registry despite the contraindication designation for that classification, rising from about 1% of enrolled women in 2008 and 2009 to more than 10% of women in 2013, 2016, and 2017. “Individualization is necessary, but all these women are at very high risk and should be counseled against pregnancy,” Dr. Roos-Hesselink said.

The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC) enrolled 5,739 pregnant women at any of 138 participating centers in 53 countries including the United States. Clinicians submitted WHO classification of cardiovascular risk for 5,711 of these women. The most common risk was congenital heart disease in 57% of enrolled women, followed by valvular heart disease in 29% and cardiomyopathy in 7%. Nearly 1,200 women in the registry – about 21% of the total – had a WHO I classification, which meant that they would be expected to have no detectable increase in mortality rate during pregnancy, compared with women without cardiac disease, and either no rise in morbidity or a mild effect.

Delivery was by cesarean section in 44% of the pregnancies, roughly twice the rate in women without diagnosed cardiac disease, even though published guidelines don’t advise cesarean delivery because of cardiac disease, Dr. Roos-Hesselink said. “Cesarean sections are used too often, in my opinion,” she commented, but added that many of these women require delivery at a tertiary, specialized center.

Overall fetal mortality was 1%, nearly threefold higher than in pregnancies in women without cardiac disease, and the overall incidence of fetal and neonatal complications was especially high, at 53%, in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of obstetrical complications was roughly similar across the range of cardiac disease type, ranging from 16% to 24%. Premature delivery occurred in 28% of women in the high-risk WHO IV class, compared with a 13% rate among women in the WHO I class. The mortality rate was 0.2% among the WHO class I women, and their heart failure incidence was 5%.

The ROPAC registry is sponsored by the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Roos-Hesselink had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com


 

MUNICH – Women with cardiac disease who became pregnant had a nearly 100-fold higher mortality rate, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease, according to the outcomes of more than 5,700 pregnancies in an international registry of women with cardiac disease.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

In addition to increased mortality, women with cardiac disease who become pregnant also had a greater than 100-fold higher rate of developing heart failure, compared with pregnant women without cardiac disease.

Despite these highly elevated relative risks, the absolute rate of serious complications from pregnancy for most women with heart disease was relatively modest. The worst prognosis by far was for the 1% of women in the registry who had pulmonary arterial hypertension at the time their pregnancy began. For these women, mortality during pregnancy was about 9%, and new-onset heart failure occurred in about one third. Another subgroup showing particularly poor outcomes were women classified with WHO IV maternal cardiovascular risk by the modified World Health Organization criteria, which corresponds to having an “extremely high risk of maternal mortality or severe morbidity,” according to guidelines published in the European Heart Journal (2011 Dec 1;32[24]:3147-97).These women, constituting 7% of the registry cohort, had a 2.5% mortality rate during pregnancy and a 33% incidence of heart failure.

Across all women with cardiac disease enrolled in the registry, the incidence of death during pregnancy was 0.6% and the incidence of heart failure was 11%. Women without cardiac disease have rates of 0.007% and less than 0.1%, respectively, Jolien Roos-Hesselink, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“The most important message of my talk is that all patients should be counseled, not just the women at high risk, for whom pregnancy is contraindicated, but also the women at low risk,” who can have a child with relative safety, she said. “Many women [with cardiac disease] can go through pregnancy at low risk.” Counseling is the key so that women know their risk before becoming pregnant, stressed Dr. Roos-Hesselink, a cardiologist at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Based on the observed rates of mortality and other complications, pulmonary arterial hypertension and the other cardiac conditions that define a WHO IV maternal risk classification remain contraindications for pregnancy, she said. According to the 2011 guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology for managing cardiovascular disease during pregnancy, the full list of conditions that define a WHO IV classification are the following:

• Pulmonary arterial hypertension of any cause.
• Severe systemic ventricular dysfunction (a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 30%) or New York Heart Association functional class III or IV.
• Previous peripartum cardiomyopathy with any residual impairment of left ventricular function.
• Severe mitral stenosis or severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
• Marfan syndrome with the aorta dilated to more than 45 mm.
• Aortic dilatation greater than 50 mm in aortic disease associated with a bicuspid aortic valve.
• Native severe coarctation.

The registry data, collected during 2007-2018, showed a clear increase in the percentage of women with WHO class IV cardiovascular disease who became pregnant and entered the registry despite the contraindication designation for that classification, rising from about 1% of enrolled women in 2008 and 2009 to more than 10% of women in 2013, 2016, and 2017. “Individualization is necessary, but all these women are at very high risk and should be counseled against pregnancy,” Dr. Roos-Hesselink said.

The Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease (ROPAC) enrolled 5,739 pregnant women at any of 138 participating centers in 53 countries including the United States. Clinicians submitted WHO classification of cardiovascular risk for 5,711 of these women. The most common risk was congenital heart disease in 57% of enrolled women, followed by valvular heart disease in 29% and cardiomyopathy in 7%. Nearly 1,200 women in the registry – about 21% of the total – had a WHO I classification, which meant that they would be expected to have no detectable increase in mortality rate during pregnancy, compared with women without cardiac disease, and either no rise in morbidity or a mild effect.

Delivery was by cesarean section in 44% of the pregnancies, roughly twice the rate in women without diagnosed cardiac disease, even though published guidelines don’t advise cesarean delivery because of cardiac disease, Dr. Roos-Hesselink said. “Cesarean sections are used too often, in my opinion,” she commented, but added that many of these women require delivery at a tertiary, specialized center.

Overall fetal mortality was 1%, nearly threefold higher than in pregnancies in women without cardiac disease, and the overall incidence of fetal and neonatal complications was especially high, at 53%, in women with pulmonary arterial hypertension. The incidence of obstetrical complications was roughly similar across the range of cardiac disease type, ranging from 16% to 24%. Premature delivery occurred in 28% of women in the high-risk WHO IV class, compared with a 13% rate among women in the WHO I class. The mortality rate was 0.2% among the WHO class I women, and their heart failure incidence was 5%.

The ROPAC registry is sponsored by the European Society of Cardiology. Dr. Roos-Hesselink had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com


 

MUNICH – The median radiation dosage received by patients worldwide undergoing coronary CT angiography fell by 78% from 2007 to 2017, according to a prospective study with more than 4,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This substantial drop in radiation occurred with a steady rate of nondiagnostic CT scans, less than 2% in both 2007 and 2017.

“Given the high diagnostic accuracy and the low radiation dose, coronary CT angiography should be considered as a first-line diagnostic test,” Jörg Hausleiter, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results also showed a huge disparity in the range of radiation doses used worldwide, with a 37-fold intersite variability in the median dose. This finding “underlines the need for further site-specific training and adaptation of contemporary cardiac scan protocols,” said Dr. Hausleiter, professor of medicine at the University of Munich Clinic. He suggested updated imaging guidelines on radiation levels, more educational sessions on how to perform coronary CT angiography, and actions by vendors to adjust their standard imaging protocols.

The Prospective Multicenter Registry on Radiation Dose Estimates of Cardiac CT Angiography in Daily Practice in 2017 (PROTECTION-VI) study included 4,502 patients from a total of 61 sites in 32 countries. At each participating site, investigators enrolled consecutive adults during a randomly selected month in 2017, with a median of 51 patients enrolled at each site undergoing diagnostic coronary CT angiography. Comparison data for 2007 came from a similar study run by Dr. Hausleiter and his associates at that time, with 1,965 patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301[5]:500-7). In 2007, the median dose-length product of radiation for each scan was 885 mGy x cm, which corresponds to a radiation dose of about 12.4 mSv. In 2017, the median dose-length product was 195 mGy x cm, corresponding to a dose of about 2.7 mSv. By both measures the median dose dropped by roughly 78%.

A multivariate analysis identified three changes in the way clinicians obtained most of the CT scans during the two studied time periods that seemed to explain the drop in radiation dose. First, more scan protocols in 2017 used low tube potential; second, more protocols in 2017 used prospectively ECG-triggered axial high-pitch scans; and third, 2017 had increased use of iterative image reconstruction, Dr. Hausleiter said. Patient variables that had modest but significant links with increased radiation doses were higher body weight, higher heart rate, and no sinus rhythm.

Concurrently with Dr. Hausleiter’s talk at the congress, the results appeared in an article online (Euro Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy546).

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The median radiation dosage received by patients worldwide undergoing coronary CT angiography fell by 78% from 2007 to 2017, according to a prospective study with more than 4,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This substantial drop in radiation occurred with a steady rate of nondiagnostic CT scans, less than 2% in both 2007 and 2017.

“Given the high diagnostic accuracy and the low radiation dose, coronary CT angiography should be considered as a first-line diagnostic test,” Jörg Hausleiter, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results also showed a huge disparity in the range of radiation doses used worldwide, with a 37-fold intersite variability in the median dose. This finding “underlines the need for further site-specific training and adaptation of contemporary cardiac scan protocols,” said Dr. Hausleiter, professor of medicine at the University of Munich Clinic. He suggested updated imaging guidelines on radiation levels, more educational sessions on how to perform coronary CT angiography, and actions by vendors to adjust their standard imaging protocols.

The Prospective Multicenter Registry on Radiation Dose Estimates of Cardiac CT Angiography in Daily Practice in 2017 (PROTECTION-VI) study included 4,502 patients from a total of 61 sites in 32 countries. At each participating site, investigators enrolled consecutive adults during a randomly selected month in 2017, with a median of 51 patients enrolled at each site undergoing diagnostic coronary CT angiography. Comparison data for 2007 came from a similar study run by Dr. Hausleiter and his associates at that time, with 1,965 patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301[5]:500-7). In 2007, the median dose-length product of radiation for each scan was 885 mGy x cm, which corresponds to a radiation dose of about 12.4 mSv. In 2017, the median dose-length product was 195 mGy x cm, corresponding to a dose of about 2.7 mSv. By both measures the median dose dropped by roughly 78%.

A multivariate analysis identified three changes in the way clinicians obtained most of the CT scans during the two studied time periods that seemed to explain the drop in radiation dose. First, more scan protocols in 2017 used low tube potential; second, more protocols in 2017 used prospectively ECG-triggered axial high-pitch scans; and third, 2017 had increased use of iterative image reconstruction, Dr. Hausleiter said. Patient variables that had modest but significant links with increased radiation doses were higher body weight, higher heart rate, and no sinus rhythm.

Concurrently with Dr. Hausleiter’s talk at the congress, the results appeared in an article online (Euro Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy546).

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The median radiation dosage received by patients worldwide undergoing coronary CT angiography fell by 78% from 2007 to 2017, according to a prospective study with more than 4,500 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This substantial drop in radiation occurred with a steady rate of nondiagnostic CT scans, less than 2% in both 2007 and 2017.

“Given the high diagnostic accuracy and the low radiation dose, coronary CT angiography should be considered as a first-line diagnostic test,” Jörg Hausleiter, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The results also showed a huge disparity in the range of radiation doses used worldwide, with a 37-fold intersite variability in the median dose. This finding “underlines the need for further site-specific training and adaptation of contemporary cardiac scan protocols,” said Dr. Hausleiter, professor of medicine at the University of Munich Clinic. He suggested updated imaging guidelines on radiation levels, more educational sessions on how to perform coronary CT angiography, and actions by vendors to adjust their standard imaging protocols.

The Prospective Multicenter Registry on Radiation Dose Estimates of Cardiac CT Angiography in Daily Practice in 2017 (PROTECTION-VI) study included 4,502 patients from a total of 61 sites in 32 countries. At each participating site, investigators enrolled consecutive adults during a randomly selected month in 2017, with a median of 51 patients enrolled at each site undergoing diagnostic coronary CT angiography. Comparison data for 2007 came from a similar study run by Dr. Hausleiter and his associates at that time, with 1,965 patients undergoing coronary CT angiography (JAMA. 2009 Feb 4;301[5]:500-7). In 2007, the median dose-length product of radiation for each scan was 885 mGy x cm, which corresponds to a radiation dose of about 12.4 mSv. In 2017, the median dose-length product was 195 mGy x cm, corresponding to a dose of about 2.7 mSv. By both measures the median dose dropped by roughly 78%.

A multivariate analysis identified three changes in the way clinicians obtained most of the CT scans during the two studied time periods that seemed to explain the drop in radiation dose. First, more scan protocols in 2017 used low tube potential; second, more protocols in 2017 used prospectively ECG-triggered axial high-pitch scans; and third, 2017 had increased use of iterative image reconstruction, Dr. Hausleiter said. Patient variables that had modest but significant links with increased radiation doses were higher body weight, higher heart rate, and no sinus rhythm.

Concurrently with Dr. Hausleiter’s talk at the congress, the results appeared in an article online (Euro Heart J. 2018 Aug 25. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy546).

mzoler@mdedge.com

MUNICH – Patients with left-sided endocarditis who are clinically stable after a couple weeks of inpatient intravenous antibiotics may at that point become candidates for discharge on oral antibiotics for the remainder of their treatment course, according to the findings of the randomized, multicenter, Danish POET trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Shifting to oral antibiotic treatment in stabilized patients with endocarditis was as effective and safe as continued intravenous antibiotic treatment and was given during half the antibiotic treatment period. These novel findings may have a significant impact on future clinical practice for the management of patients who are stable,” Henning Bundgård, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Both ESC and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines now recommend treatment of infective endocarditis with intravenous antibiotics for up to 6 weeks. Safely cutting the duration of in-hospital intravenous antibiotics in half is likely to generate major cost savings while improving patient quality of life and avoiding prolonged exposure to the iatrogenic risks inherent to the hospital environment, noted Dr. Bundgård, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

The rationale for the POET (Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis) trial was the investigators’ recognition that, even though infectious endocarditis is a feared disease with an in-hospital mortality of 15% or more, the great majority of serious complications occur in the early critical phase of therapy; that is, during the first 10 days or so of inpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy.

“After stabilization, the main reason for staying in the hospital is just to receive IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bundgård noted.

POET included 400 patients with left-sided endocarditis hospitalized at multiple cardiac centers across Denmark, 35% of whom had at least one major comorbid condition. When this reporter observed that this was the smallest study he’d ever seen reported from Denmark, where researchers famously like to utilize interconnected national databases to conduct nationwide observational studies incorporating the country’s entire population, the cardiologist replied, “Denmark is a small country, but we like to make big trials. And this is actually the largest-ever clinical trial in endocarditis, so we are still going big.”

Important to the generalizability of the POET results was the requirement that all 400 participants had to be infected with streptococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, or coagulase-negative staphylococci – the major pathogens responsible for three-quarters of all cases of infectious endocarditis.

Once participants were clinically stable after a median of 17 days of intravenous antibiotics, they were randomized to continued in-hospital intravenous antibiotic therapy for a median of another 19 days or to discharge on two oral antibiotics from different classes with different mechanisms of action administered for a median of 17 days, with selection of the oral agents being guided by the results of bacterial susceptibility testing.

The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, embolic events, unplanned cardiac surgery, and relapse of bacteremia from randomization through 6 months after completion of antibiotic therapy. This occurred in 9.0% of the orally treated group and 12.1% of patients on full-course intravenous therapy for a 28% relative risk reduction, which statistically established the noninferioritiy of the partial oral regimen. The results were similar in patients with native as compared with prosthetic valves, with or without major comorbidities, and in surgically as opposed to conservatively treated patients.

Rates of three of the four components of the composite endpoint were similar in both groups. However, all-cause mortality occurred in 3.5% of the oral therapy group, compared with 6.5% of those on intravenous therapy. Dr. Bundgård said he and his coinvestigators think the disparity in mortality was probably caused by play of chance, although he added that they were struck that four sudden deaths occurred in the intravenous group and none in patients who got oral antibiotics.

Side effects were similarly mild and low frequency in both study arms.

Audience members were eager for details on how the Danish investigators decided patients were clinically stable on intravenous antibiotics and thus ready for randomization, as well as the outpatient follow-up procedures employed in those discharged on oral therapy.

Dr. Bundgård explained that clinical stability required that a patient be afebrile, have C-reactive protein and leukocyte levels less than 35% of their peaks, and needed to have been on intravenous antibiotics for a minimum of 10 days. Moreover, patients who underwent valve surgery during their hospitalization, as did 38% of POET participants, had to wait a minimum of 7 days afterwards before they could be declared clinically stable. Lastly, just prior to randomization all participants underwent transesophageal echocardiography to rule out abscess formation or other valve abnormalities requiring surgery.

Outpatient follow-up required that patients drop in two or three times per week to be checked by a familiar physician or nurse at the hospital ward where they had stayed. Compliance was very good, although it should be noted that only five patients in the POET study were intravenous drug abusers.

Asked why investigators discharged patients on oral therapy rather than on home intravenous antibiotics, Dr. Bundgård explained that home intravenous antibiotic therapy isn’t utilized in Denmark because of the expense and logistic complexity.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Discussant Chris P. Gale, MD, urged care in generalizing the study findings.

“The ‘O’ in POET does not stand for ‘outpatient.’ Outpatients were only selected for oral therapy if they had no heart failure, no emboli, no arrhythmia, no complicating comorbidities, and they were strictly monitored – and frequently. Should we elect to adopt POET into practice, I would recommend strict adherence to the study’s patient selection and monitoring criteria,” said Dr. Gale, a cardiologist at the University of Leeds (England).

The POET results clearly swayed the full-house audience attending the late-breaking Hot Line session in the conference main arena. Immediately before Dr. Bundgård’s presentation, 66% of the audience indicated electronically that they would continue intravenous antibiotics for another 2-4 weeks in a patient with infectious endocarditis who had responded well to 2 weeks of such therapy. After seeing the study results, however, only 19% would still follow that course of action, while 59% of the audience would switch to oral antibiotics and discharge the patient.

Dr. Bundgård reported having no financial conflicts regarding the POET study, which was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and other research foundations.

Simultaneous with Dr. Bundgård’s presentation in Munich, the POET results were published online by the New England Journal of Medicine (2018 Aug 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808312).

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – Patients with left-sided endocarditis who are clinically stable after a couple weeks of inpatient intravenous antibiotics may at that point become candidates for discharge on oral antibiotics for the remainder of their treatment course, according to the findings of the randomized, multicenter, Danish POET trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Shifting to oral antibiotic treatment in stabilized patients with endocarditis was as effective and safe as continued intravenous antibiotic treatment and was given during half the antibiotic treatment period. These novel findings may have a significant impact on future clinical practice for the management of patients who are stable,” Henning Bundgård, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Both ESC and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines now recommend treatment of infective endocarditis with intravenous antibiotics for up to 6 weeks. Safely cutting the duration of in-hospital intravenous antibiotics in half is likely to generate major cost savings while improving patient quality of life and avoiding prolonged exposure to the iatrogenic risks inherent to the hospital environment, noted Dr. Bundgård, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

The rationale for the POET (Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis) trial was the investigators’ recognition that, even though infectious endocarditis is a feared disease with an in-hospital mortality of 15% or more, the great majority of serious complications occur in the early critical phase of therapy; that is, during the first 10 days or so of inpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy.

“After stabilization, the main reason for staying in the hospital is just to receive IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bundgård noted.

POET included 400 patients with left-sided endocarditis hospitalized at multiple cardiac centers across Denmark, 35% of whom had at least one major comorbid condition. When this reporter observed that this was the smallest study he’d ever seen reported from Denmark, where researchers famously like to utilize interconnected national databases to conduct nationwide observational studies incorporating the country’s entire population, the cardiologist replied, “Denmark is a small country, but we like to make big trials. And this is actually the largest-ever clinical trial in endocarditis, so we are still going big.”

Important to the generalizability of the POET results was the requirement that all 400 participants had to be infected with streptococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, or coagulase-negative staphylococci – the major pathogens responsible for three-quarters of all cases of infectious endocarditis.

Once participants were clinically stable after a median of 17 days of intravenous antibiotics, they were randomized to continued in-hospital intravenous antibiotic therapy for a median of another 19 days or to discharge on two oral antibiotics from different classes with different mechanisms of action administered for a median of 17 days, with selection of the oral agents being guided by the results of bacterial susceptibility testing.

The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, embolic events, unplanned cardiac surgery, and relapse of bacteremia from randomization through 6 months after completion of antibiotic therapy. This occurred in 9.0% of the orally treated group and 12.1% of patients on full-course intravenous therapy for a 28% relative risk reduction, which statistically established the noninferioritiy of the partial oral regimen. The results were similar in patients with native as compared with prosthetic valves, with or without major comorbidities, and in surgically as opposed to conservatively treated patients.

Rates of three of the four components of the composite endpoint were similar in both groups. However, all-cause mortality occurred in 3.5% of the oral therapy group, compared with 6.5% of those on intravenous therapy. Dr. Bundgård said he and his coinvestigators think the disparity in mortality was probably caused by play of chance, although he added that they were struck that four sudden deaths occurred in the intravenous group and none in patients who got oral antibiotics.

Side effects were similarly mild and low frequency in both study arms.

Audience members were eager for details on how the Danish investigators decided patients were clinically stable on intravenous antibiotics and thus ready for randomization, as well as the outpatient follow-up procedures employed in those discharged on oral therapy.

Dr. Bundgård explained that clinical stability required that a patient be afebrile, have C-reactive protein and leukocyte levels less than 35% of their peaks, and needed to have been on intravenous antibiotics for a minimum of 10 days. Moreover, patients who underwent valve surgery during their hospitalization, as did 38% of POET participants, had to wait a minimum of 7 days afterwards before they could be declared clinically stable. Lastly, just prior to randomization all participants underwent transesophageal echocardiography to rule out abscess formation or other valve abnormalities requiring surgery.

Outpatient follow-up required that patients drop in two or three times per week to be checked by a familiar physician or nurse at the hospital ward where they had stayed. Compliance was very good, although it should be noted that only five patients in the POET study were intravenous drug abusers.

Asked why investigators discharged patients on oral therapy rather than on home intravenous antibiotics, Dr. Bundgård explained that home intravenous antibiotic therapy isn’t utilized in Denmark because of the expense and logistic complexity.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Discussant Chris P. Gale, MD, urged care in generalizing the study findings.

“The ‘O’ in POET does not stand for ‘outpatient.’ Outpatients were only selected for oral therapy if they had no heart failure, no emboli, no arrhythmia, no complicating comorbidities, and they were strictly monitored – and frequently. Should we elect to adopt POET into practice, I would recommend strict adherence to the study’s patient selection and monitoring criteria,” said Dr. Gale, a cardiologist at the University of Leeds (England).

The POET results clearly swayed the full-house audience attending the late-breaking Hot Line session in the conference main arena. Immediately before Dr. Bundgård’s presentation, 66% of the audience indicated electronically that they would continue intravenous antibiotics for another 2-4 weeks in a patient with infectious endocarditis who had responded well to 2 weeks of such therapy. After seeing the study results, however, only 19% would still follow that course of action, while 59% of the audience would switch to oral antibiotics and discharge the patient.

Dr. Bundgård reported having no financial conflicts regarding the POET study, which was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and other research foundations.

Simultaneous with Dr. Bundgård’s presentation in Munich, the POET results were published online by the New England Journal of Medicine (2018 Aug 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808312).

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – Patients with left-sided endocarditis who are clinically stable after a couple weeks of inpatient intravenous antibiotics may at that point become candidates for discharge on oral antibiotics for the remainder of their treatment course, according to the findings of the randomized, multicenter, Danish POET trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“Shifting to oral antibiotic treatment in stabilized patients with endocarditis was as effective and safe as continued intravenous antibiotic treatment and was given during half the antibiotic treatment period. These novel findings may have a significant impact on future clinical practice for the management of patients who are stable,” Henning Bundgård, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Both ESC and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines now recommend treatment of infective endocarditis with intravenous antibiotics for up to 6 weeks. Safely cutting the duration of in-hospital intravenous antibiotics in half is likely to generate major cost savings while improving patient quality of life and avoiding prolonged exposure to the iatrogenic risks inherent to the hospital environment, noted Dr. Bundgård, a cardiologist at Copenhagen University Hospital.

The rationale for the POET (Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis) trial was the investigators’ recognition that, even though infectious endocarditis is a feared disease with an in-hospital mortality of 15% or more, the great majority of serious complications occur in the early critical phase of therapy; that is, during the first 10 days or so of inpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy.

“After stabilization, the main reason for staying in the hospital is just to receive IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bundgård noted.

POET included 400 patients with left-sided endocarditis hospitalized at multiple cardiac centers across Denmark, 35% of whom had at least one major comorbid condition. When this reporter observed that this was the smallest study he’d ever seen reported from Denmark, where researchers famously like to utilize interconnected national databases to conduct nationwide observational studies incorporating the country’s entire population, the cardiologist replied, “Denmark is a small country, but we like to make big trials. And this is actually the largest-ever clinical trial in endocarditis, so we are still going big.”

Important to the generalizability of the POET results was the requirement that all 400 participants had to be infected with streptococcus, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, or coagulase-negative staphylococci – the major pathogens responsible for three-quarters of all cases of infectious endocarditis.

Once participants were clinically stable after a median of 17 days of intravenous antibiotics, they were randomized to continued in-hospital intravenous antibiotic therapy for a median of another 19 days or to discharge on two oral antibiotics from different classes with different mechanisms of action administered for a median of 17 days, with selection of the oral agents being guided by the results of bacterial susceptibility testing.

The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, embolic events, unplanned cardiac surgery, and relapse of bacteremia from randomization through 6 months after completion of antibiotic therapy. This occurred in 9.0% of the orally treated group and 12.1% of patients on full-course intravenous therapy for a 28% relative risk reduction, which statistically established the noninferioritiy of the partial oral regimen. The results were similar in patients with native as compared with prosthetic valves, with or without major comorbidities, and in surgically as opposed to conservatively treated patients.

Rates of three of the four components of the composite endpoint were similar in both groups. However, all-cause mortality occurred in 3.5% of the oral therapy group, compared with 6.5% of those on intravenous therapy. Dr. Bundgård said he and his coinvestigators think the disparity in mortality was probably caused by play of chance, although he added that they were struck that four sudden deaths occurred in the intravenous group and none in patients who got oral antibiotics.

Side effects were similarly mild and low frequency in both study arms.

Audience members were eager for details on how the Danish investigators decided patients were clinically stable on intravenous antibiotics and thus ready for randomization, as well as the outpatient follow-up procedures employed in those discharged on oral therapy.

Dr. Bundgård explained that clinical stability required that a patient be afebrile, have C-reactive protein and leukocyte levels less than 35% of their peaks, and needed to have been on intravenous antibiotics for a minimum of 10 days. Moreover, patients who underwent valve surgery during their hospitalization, as did 38% of POET participants, had to wait a minimum of 7 days afterwards before they could be declared clinically stable. Lastly, just prior to randomization all participants underwent transesophageal echocardiography to rule out abscess formation or other valve abnormalities requiring surgery.

Outpatient follow-up required that patients drop in two or three times per week to be checked by a familiar physician or nurse at the hospital ward where they had stayed. Compliance was very good, although it should be noted that only five patients in the POET study were intravenous drug abusers.

Asked why investigators discharged patients on oral therapy rather than on home intravenous antibiotics, Dr. Bundgård explained that home intravenous antibiotic therapy isn’t utilized in Denmark because of the expense and logistic complexity.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Discussant Chris P. Gale, MD, urged care in generalizing the study findings.

“The ‘O’ in POET does not stand for ‘outpatient.’ Outpatients were only selected for oral therapy if they had no heart failure, no emboli, no arrhythmia, no complicating comorbidities, and they were strictly monitored – and frequently. Should we elect to adopt POET into practice, I would recommend strict adherence to the study’s patient selection and monitoring criteria,” said Dr. Gale, a cardiologist at the University of Leeds (England).

The POET results clearly swayed the full-house audience attending the late-breaking Hot Line session in the conference main arena. Immediately before Dr. Bundgård’s presentation, 66% of the audience indicated electronically that they would continue intravenous antibiotics for another 2-4 weeks in a patient with infectious endocarditis who had responded well to 2 weeks of such therapy. After seeing the study results, however, only 19% would still follow that course of action, while 59% of the audience would switch to oral antibiotics and discharge the patient.

Dr. Bundgård reported having no financial conflicts regarding the POET study, which was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and other research foundations.

Simultaneous with Dr. Bundgård’s presentation in Munich, the POET results were published online by the New England Journal of Medicine (2018 Aug 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808312).

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The big news in the field of heart failure at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology concerned an obscure form of the disease traditionally considered rare: transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (TAC).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It turns out that TAC is far more common than previously recognized; it can now be diagnosed and staged noninvasively; and – most important of all – there is for the first time an effective disease-modifying treatment in the form of a novel oral drug called tafamidis, as demonstrated in the Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial (ATTR-ACT) presented at the meeting.

“This is the first phase 3 trial that can offer a chance for people with a terrible, severe disease. And within the last year, while the trial was being conducted, it became clear that this disease is much more underdiagnosed than rare,” said Claudio Rapezzi, MD, ATTR-ACT principal investigator and director of the school of cardiovascular diseases at the University of Bologna, Italy.

ATTR-ACT participants randomized to tafamidis showed significant reductions in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with placebo-treated controls at 30 months follow-up. They also experienced significantly lesser declines in both quality of life as reflected in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores and in physical function as captured in 6-minute walk distance.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Designated discussant Jacob George, MD, was over the moon regarding the results.

“This is a pioneering, game-changing trial that is likely to transform the way we diagnose and treat patients with cardiac amyloidosis,” said Dr. George of Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, Israel.

“We’re now in an era that, to my opinion, any patient with nonischemic unexplained heart failure should be screened for the presence of amyloidosis because, first, we now know how to prognosticate these patients, and second, we can offer them a real disease-modifying agent,” he added.
 

An underdiagnosed disease

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy occurs when transthyretin, a transport protein, becomes destabilized and misfolds, promoting deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium. This results in progressive ventricular wall thickening and stiffness, manifest as restrictive cardiomyopathy and progressive heart failure. The cause of transthyretin destabilization can be either autosomal dominant inheritance of any of more than 100 pathogenic mutations in the transthyretin gene identified to date or a spontaneous wild type protein.

Think of TAC as a sort of dementia of the heart. As Dr. George noted, the cardiac disease bears “remarkable similarities” to Alzheimer’s disease, with both conditions entailing extracellular deposition of amyloid.

In the heritable form of TAC, patients typically present with heart failure symptoms at about age 50-55, while the wild type form becomes symptomatic much later at a mean age of about 75. Average survival from time of diagnosis is only about 3 years.

Recent studies from multiple centers have reported that the prevalence of TAC was 16% in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis, 13% among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and 5% in patients who had been presumed to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: So, not a rare condition.

“In our clinic, vast and surprising numbers of patients with unexplained nonischemic heart failure are scan positive [for TAC],” according to Dr. George.
 

Breakthroughs in diagnosis and staging

The echocardiographic red flag for TAC in a patient with heart failure symptoms is symmetric hypertrophy with a normal end-diastolic volume and thickened ventricles. The end-diastolic interventricular septal wall thickness is typically about 15 mm. The left ventricular ejection fraction is typically in the normal range, “but the clue is not the preservation of the ejection fraction, it’s the [normal] quality of the volume,” Dr. Rapezzi said.

A clinical clue suggestive of TAC upon physical examination, even in the absence of heart failure symptoms, is development of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in an older man. That’s because the same disease process that results in TAC can involve deposition of amyloid fibrils in peripheral nerves. Indeed, tafamidis is already approved in Europe and Japan under the trade name Vyndaqel as a treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy. For TAC, however, tafamidis remains investigational with fast-track status provided by both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

When TAC is suspected, it’s no longer necessary to subject patients to an onerous myocardial biopsy. Total body scintigraphy with bone tracers has been shown to be nearly as sensitive and specific as biopsy for the diagnosis.

Staging can now be done noninvasively as well. Investigators at the U.K. National Amyloidosis Centre recently reported that patients with TAC can be accurately staged using two biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In their series of 869 patients with TAC, median survival for those with stage I disease as defined by their protocol was 69 months, compared with 47 months for stage II disease and 24 months for those with stage III disease. This simple U.K. staging system was then validated in a separate French cohort of TAC patients (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 7;39[30]:2799-806).
 

The ATTR-ACT trial

Dr. Rapezzi reported on 441 patients with TAC who were randomized to oral tafamidis at either 20 mg or 80 mg per day or placebo and followed prospectively for 30 months in the 13-country, double-blind, phase 3 trial. At 30 months, all-cause mortality was 29.5% in patients who received tafamidis, compared with 42.9% in controls, for a 30% relative risk reduction. The rate of cardiovascular hospitalizations was 0.48 per year with tafamidis, compared with 0.70 per year with placebo, for a 38% relative risk reduction. The mortality benefit didn’t achieve significance until 15-18 months into the trial, as to be expected given tafamidis’ mechanism of action, which involves binding to transthyretin, gradually stabilizing it, and curbing amyloid fibril deposition.

Of note, the benefit was similar regardless of the dose used and whether patients had hereditary or wild type TAC.

Tafamidis proved safe and well tolerated, with a side-effect profile similar to placebo. While diarrhea and urinary tract infections have been an issue in tafamidis-treated patients with familial amyloid polyneuropathy, these adverse events were actually less common in TAC patients who received tafamidis than with placebo, according to Dr. Rapezzi.

A key point, the cardiologist emphasized, is that the benefits of active treatment were greatest in patients with earlier-stage disease. Therefore it’s vital that the diagnosis of TAC be made early, with prompt initiation of treatment to follow, in order to catch the disease at a more reversible stage. That could mean there will be a whole lot more bone scintigraphy being done in patients with unexplained nonischemic heart failure.

Dr. Rapezzi reported receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, and consulting fees from Pfizer, which sponsored the ATTR-ACT trial. Simultaneous with his presentation in Munich, the study results were published online at NEJM.org (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805689). Dr. George reported no financial conflicts.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The big news in the field of heart failure at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology concerned an obscure form of the disease traditionally considered rare: transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (TAC).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It turns out that TAC is far more common than previously recognized; it can now be diagnosed and staged noninvasively; and – most important of all – there is for the first time an effective disease-modifying treatment in the form of a novel oral drug called tafamidis, as demonstrated in the Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial (ATTR-ACT) presented at the meeting.

“This is the first phase 3 trial that can offer a chance for people with a terrible, severe disease. And within the last year, while the trial was being conducted, it became clear that this disease is much more underdiagnosed than rare,” said Claudio Rapezzi, MD, ATTR-ACT principal investigator and director of the school of cardiovascular diseases at the University of Bologna, Italy.

ATTR-ACT participants randomized to tafamidis showed significant reductions in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with placebo-treated controls at 30 months follow-up. They also experienced significantly lesser declines in both quality of life as reflected in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores and in physical function as captured in 6-minute walk distance.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Designated discussant Jacob George, MD, was over the moon regarding the results.

“This is a pioneering, game-changing trial that is likely to transform the way we diagnose and treat patients with cardiac amyloidosis,” said Dr. George of Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, Israel.

“We’re now in an era that, to my opinion, any patient with nonischemic unexplained heart failure should be screened for the presence of amyloidosis because, first, we now know how to prognosticate these patients, and second, we can offer them a real disease-modifying agent,” he added.
 

An underdiagnosed disease

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy occurs when transthyretin, a transport protein, becomes destabilized and misfolds, promoting deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium. This results in progressive ventricular wall thickening and stiffness, manifest as restrictive cardiomyopathy and progressive heart failure. The cause of transthyretin destabilization can be either autosomal dominant inheritance of any of more than 100 pathogenic mutations in the transthyretin gene identified to date or a spontaneous wild type protein.

Think of TAC as a sort of dementia of the heart. As Dr. George noted, the cardiac disease bears “remarkable similarities” to Alzheimer’s disease, with both conditions entailing extracellular deposition of amyloid.

In the heritable form of TAC, patients typically present with heart failure symptoms at about age 50-55, while the wild type form becomes symptomatic much later at a mean age of about 75. Average survival from time of diagnosis is only about 3 years.

Recent studies from multiple centers have reported that the prevalence of TAC was 16% in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis, 13% among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and 5% in patients who had been presumed to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: So, not a rare condition.

“In our clinic, vast and surprising numbers of patients with unexplained nonischemic heart failure are scan positive [for TAC],” according to Dr. George.
 

Breakthroughs in diagnosis and staging

The echocardiographic red flag for TAC in a patient with heart failure symptoms is symmetric hypertrophy with a normal end-diastolic volume and thickened ventricles. The end-diastolic interventricular septal wall thickness is typically about 15 mm. The left ventricular ejection fraction is typically in the normal range, “but the clue is not the preservation of the ejection fraction, it’s the [normal] quality of the volume,” Dr. Rapezzi said.

A clinical clue suggestive of TAC upon physical examination, even in the absence of heart failure symptoms, is development of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in an older man. That’s because the same disease process that results in TAC can involve deposition of amyloid fibrils in peripheral nerves. Indeed, tafamidis is already approved in Europe and Japan under the trade name Vyndaqel as a treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy. For TAC, however, tafamidis remains investigational with fast-track status provided by both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

When TAC is suspected, it’s no longer necessary to subject patients to an onerous myocardial biopsy. Total body scintigraphy with bone tracers has been shown to be nearly as sensitive and specific as biopsy for the diagnosis.

Staging can now be done noninvasively as well. Investigators at the U.K. National Amyloidosis Centre recently reported that patients with TAC can be accurately staged using two biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In their series of 869 patients with TAC, median survival for those with stage I disease as defined by their protocol was 69 months, compared with 47 months for stage II disease and 24 months for those with stage III disease. This simple U.K. staging system was then validated in a separate French cohort of TAC patients (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 7;39[30]:2799-806).
 

The ATTR-ACT trial

Dr. Rapezzi reported on 441 patients with TAC who were randomized to oral tafamidis at either 20 mg or 80 mg per day or placebo and followed prospectively for 30 months in the 13-country, double-blind, phase 3 trial. At 30 months, all-cause mortality was 29.5% in patients who received tafamidis, compared with 42.9% in controls, for a 30% relative risk reduction. The rate of cardiovascular hospitalizations was 0.48 per year with tafamidis, compared with 0.70 per year with placebo, for a 38% relative risk reduction. The mortality benefit didn’t achieve significance until 15-18 months into the trial, as to be expected given tafamidis’ mechanism of action, which involves binding to transthyretin, gradually stabilizing it, and curbing amyloid fibril deposition.

Of note, the benefit was similar regardless of the dose used and whether patients had hereditary or wild type TAC.

Tafamidis proved safe and well tolerated, with a side-effect profile similar to placebo. While diarrhea and urinary tract infections have been an issue in tafamidis-treated patients with familial amyloid polyneuropathy, these adverse events were actually less common in TAC patients who received tafamidis than with placebo, according to Dr. Rapezzi.

A key point, the cardiologist emphasized, is that the benefits of active treatment were greatest in patients with earlier-stage disease. Therefore it’s vital that the diagnosis of TAC be made early, with prompt initiation of treatment to follow, in order to catch the disease at a more reversible stage. That could mean there will be a whole lot more bone scintigraphy being done in patients with unexplained nonischemic heart failure.

Dr. Rapezzi reported receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, and consulting fees from Pfizer, which sponsored the ATTR-ACT trial. Simultaneous with his presentation in Munich, the study results were published online at NEJM.org (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805689). Dr. George reported no financial conflicts.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – The big news in the field of heart failure at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology concerned an obscure form of the disease traditionally considered rare: transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (TAC).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

It turns out that TAC is far more common than previously recognized; it can now be diagnosed and staged noninvasively; and – most important of all – there is for the first time an effective disease-modifying treatment in the form of a novel oral drug called tafamidis, as demonstrated in the Transthyretin Amyloidosis Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial (ATTR-ACT) presented at the meeting.

“This is the first phase 3 trial that can offer a chance for people with a terrible, severe disease. And within the last year, while the trial was being conducted, it became clear that this disease is much more underdiagnosed than rare,” said Claudio Rapezzi, MD, ATTR-ACT principal investigator and director of the school of cardiovascular diseases at the University of Bologna, Italy.

ATTR-ACT participants randomized to tafamidis showed significant reductions in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations, compared with placebo-treated controls at 30 months follow-up. They also experienced significantly lesser declines in both quality of life as reflected in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores and in physical function as captured in 6-minute walk distance.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Designated discussant Jacob George, MD, was over the moon regarding the results.

“This is a pioneering, game-changing trial that is likely to transform the way we diagnose and treat patients with cardiac amyloidosis,” said Dr. George of Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, Israel.

“We’re now in an era that, to my opinion, any patient with nonischemic unexplained heart failure should be screened for the presence of amyloidosis because, first, we now know how to prognosticate these patients, and second, we can offer them a real disease-modifying agent,” he added.
 

An underdiagnosed disease

Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy occurs when transthyretin, a transport protein, becomes destabilized and misfolds, promoting deposition of amyloid fibrils in the myocardium. This results in progressive ventricular wall thickening and stiffness, manifest as restrictive cardiomyopathy and progressive heart failure. The cause of transthyretin destabilization can be either autosomal dominant inheritance of any of more than 100 pathogenic mutations in the transthyretin gene identified to date or a spontaneous wild type protein.

Think of TAC as a sort of dementia of the heart. As Dr. George noted, the cardiac disease bears “remarkable similarities” to Alzheimer’s disease, with both conditions entailing extracellular deposition of amyloid.

In the heritable form of TAC, patients typically present with heart failure symptoms at about age 50-55, while the wild type form becomes symptomatic much later at a mean age of about 75. Average survival from time of diagnosis is only about 3 years.

Recent studies from multiple centers have reported that the prevalence of TAC was 16% in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis, 13% among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and 5% in patients who had been presumed to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: So, not a rare condition.

“In our clinic, vast and surprising numbers of patients with unexplained nonischemic heart failure are scan positive [for TAC],” according to Dr. George.
 

Breakthroughs in diagnosis and staging

The echocardiographic red flag for TAC in a patient with heart failure symptoms is symmetric hypertrophy with a normal end-diastolic volume and thickened ventricles. The end-diastolic interventricular septal wall thickness is typically about 15 mm. The left ventricular ejection fraction is typically in the normal range, “but the clue is not the preservation of the ejection fraction, it’s the [normal] quality of the volume,” Dr. Rapezzi said.

A clinical clue suggestive of TAC upon physical examination, even in the absence of heart failure symptoms, is development of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in an older man. That’s because the same disease process that results in TAC can involve deposition of amyloid fibrils in peripheral nerves. Indeed, tafamidis is already approved in Europe and Japan under the trade name Vyndaqel as a treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy. For TAC, however, tafamidis remains investigational with fast-track status provided by both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

When TAC is suspected, it’s no longer necessary to subject patients to an onerous myocardial biopsy. Total body scintigraphy with bone tracers has been shown to be nearly as sensitive and specific as biopsy for the diagnosis.

Staging can now be done noninvasively as well. Investigators at the U.K. National Amyloidosis Centre recently reported that patients with TAC can be accurately staged using two biomarkers: N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). In their series of 869 patients with TAC, median survival for those with stage I disease as defined by their protocol was 69 months, compared with 47 months for stage II disease and 24 months for those with stage III disease. This simple U.K. staging system was then validated in a separate French cohort of TAC patients (Eur Heart J. 2018 Aug 7;39[30]:2799-806).
 

The ATTR-ACT trial

Dr. Rapezzi reported on 441 patients with TAC who were randomized to oral tafamidis at either 20 mg or 80 mg per day or placebo and followed prospectively for 30 months in the 13-country, double-blind, phase 3 trial. At 30 months, all-cause mortality was 29.5% in patients who received tafamidis, compared with 42.9% in controls, for a 30% relative risk reduction. The rate of cardiovascular hospitalizations was 0.48 per year with tafamidis, compared with 0.70 per year with placebo, for a 38% relative risk reduction. The mortality benefit didn’t achieve significance until 15-18 months into the trial, as to be expected given tafamidis’ mechanism of action, which involves binding to transthyretin, gradually stabilizing it, and curbing amyloid fibril deposition.

Of note, the benefit was similar regardless of the dose used and whether patients had hereditary or wild type TAC.

Tafamidis proved safe and well tolerated, with a side-effect profile similar to placebo. While diarrhea and urinary tract infections have been an issue in tafamidis-treated patients with familial amyloid polyneuropathy, these adverse events were actually less common in TAC patients who received tafamidis than with placebo, according to Dr. Rapezzi.

A key point, the cardiologist emphasized, is that the benefits of active treatment were greatest in patients with earlier-stage disease. Therefore it’s vital that the diagnosis of TAC be made early, with prompt initiation of treatment to follow, in order to catch the disease at a more reversible stage. That could mean there will be a whole lot more bone scintigraphy being done in patients with unexplained nonischemic heart failure.

Dr. Rapezzi reported receiving research grants, speaker honoraria, and consulting fees from Pfizer, which sponsored the ATTR-ACT trial. Simultaneous with his presentation in Munich, the study results were published online at NEJM.org (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805689). Dr. George reported no financial conflicts.

bjancin@mdedge.com

The MDedge Cardiology team unpacks one of the world’s largest cardiology meetings from a Munich beer garden. Join MDedge reporters Bruce Jancin and Mitchel Zoler alongside MDedge Cardiology editor Catherine Hackett as they discuss practice changing data as well as what the world’s leading cardiologists are talking about.

The MDedge Cardiology team unpacks one of the world’s largest cardiology meetings from a Munich beer garden. Join MDedge reporters Bruce Jancin and Mitchel Zoler alongside MDedge Cardiology editor Catherine Hackett as they discuss practice changing data as well as what the world’s leading cardiologists are talking about.

The MDedge Cardiology team unpacks one of the world’s largest cardiology meetings from a Munich beer garden. Join MDedge reporters Bruce Jancin and Mitchel Zoler alongside MDedge Cardiology editor Catherine Hackett as they discuss practice changing data as well as what the world’s leading cardiologists are talking about.

MUNICH – The worldwide cardiology community’s newly revised universal definition of an MI refines the way that cardiologists distinguish between myocardial infarction and myocardial injury, said Joseph S. Alpert, MD, one of the two chairs of the definition-writing panel.

“We had three previous definitions, but there is still a lot of confusion [about distinguishing] between injury and infarction. We definitely hope that this fourth definition will further help people distinguish the two and help people determine whether or not a patient has an MI,” said Dr. Alpert following a session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology that introduced some of the key elements of the new revision.

Days before the ESC congress, a task force formed by the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation released the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018) (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038), which follows the series of three prior MI definitions that these groups have issued since the first iteration came out in 2007 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50[22]:2173-95).

The new revision includes 5 “new concepts,” 14 updated concepts, and 6 new sections since the third universal definition from 2012. The change that topped Dr. Alpert’s list of key messages was the need to determine whether a rise in cardiac troponin, a key biomarker of cardiac damage, resulted from infarction or injury.

These two alternative diagnoses mean “a very different outlook for patients. Treatment is different, and their prognosis is different. It’s important to make the distinction,” said Dr. Alpert, professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The new changes to making an MI diagnosis will likely help drive a couple of important changes in the way U.S. patients with suspected myocardial injury or infarction get assessed, he said in an interview. The first change will be wide uptake of high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn) assays over the next 5 years or so, as the ability to measure this key diagnostic biomarker progresses from its initial Food and Drug Administration approval for the U.S. market in 2017 to “close to 100% of U.S. hospitals using it,” he predicted. A big issue that is currently slowing even quicker adoption of hscTn is that many hospitals, including the one where Dr. Alpert practices, still have laboratory contracts in place that tether them to older troponin-testing technologies and make it economically unfeasible to change until their contracts expire. The contract in place where Dr. Alpert practices runs out in 2019, and soon after that happens he expects to gain the ability to order a hscTn test.

The new, fourth definition says that hscTn is “recommended for routine clinical use,” but routine U.S. use “won’t be immediate because many hospitals will put in hscTn only when their old contract runs out,” he said.

Another practice-changing impact from the fourth definition may be expanded U.S. availability and use of MR imaging, which the fourth definition identified as the most informative and versatile of the several imaging options used to confirm or rule out an MI.

Cardiac MR “provides both functional and tissue characterization. It’s the technique with the most potential,” able to noninvasively identify “both the nature and extent of myocardial damage,” explained Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, MD, a cardiologist and imaging specialist at the Bristol (England) Heart Institute. A single cardiac MR scan “gives many answers,” said Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci, who also served on the fourth definition task force and spoke at the session about the document’s revised imaging recommendations.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the setting of acute MI, cardiac MR can also be used to assess the presence and extent of myocardium at risk (myocardial edema), myocardial salvage, microvascular obstruction, intramyocardial hemorrhage, and infarct size, all markers of myocardial injury that have prognostic value,” according to the fourth definition. “In patients with possible acute MI but unobstructed coronary arteries, cardiac MR can help to diagnose alternative conditions such as myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, embolic infarction, or MI with spontaneous recanalization.”

“What’s turning out is that, a large number of patients with chest pain have an infection and not an MI, and cardiac MR can distinguish inflammation and myocarditis from infarction. We’re now doing a lot more MRs,” Dr. Alpert said. Although MR capability is not as widely available today as other imaging methods, like echocardiography and CT, over the next 5 years that will likely change, he said. But Dr. Alpert cautioned that not every patient with a suspected MI needs MR assessment. It’s best focused for selected patients with an uncertain diagnosis based on the core indicators of disease: history, ECG, changes in hscTn levels over time, and a chest x-ray. “MR is for when there are questions,” he said. When patients present with classic MI signs and symptoms the diagnosis can depend just on the basics, perhaps supplemented with a more widely available imaging method like echocardiography to look for wall motion abnormalities, he said. “If echo shows good left ventricular function you probably don’t need MR.” he said.

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is another useful diagnostic tool, and right now is more widely available than MR. CTCA “may be used to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with an acute coronary syndrome event in the emergency department or chest pain unit, particularly in low- to intermediate-risk patients with normal hscTn at presentation,” said the fourth definition. But Dr. Alpert cited the radiation dose from CT as a limiting factor. “We have patients who get repeat CT scans, and we know that increases their cancer risk. There is no such thing as a totally safe dose of radiation.” Lack of radiation exposure is another feature that makes MR imaging attractive.

Dr. Alpert had no disclosures. Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci has had a financial relationship with Circle Cardiovascular Imaging.

mzoler@mdedge.com


 

MUNICH – The worldwide cardiology community’s newly revised universal definition of an MI refines the way that cardiologists distinguish between myocardial infarction and myocardial injury, said Joseph S. Alpert, MD, one of the two chairs of the definition-writing panel.

“We had three previous definitions, but there is still a lot of confusion [about distinguishing] between injury and infarction. We definitely hope that this fourth definition will further help people distinguish the two and help people determine whether or not a patient has an MI,” said Dr. Alpert following a session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology that introduced some of the key elements of the new revision.

Days before the ESC congress, a task force formed by the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation released the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018) (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038), which follows the series of three prior MI definitions that these groups have issued since the first iteration came out in 2007 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50[22]:2173-95).

The new revision includes 5 “new concepts,” 14 updated concepts, and 6 new sections since the third universal definition from 2012. The change that topped Dr. Alpert’s list of key messages was the need to determine whether a rise in cardiac troponin, a key biomarker of cardiac damage, resulted from infarction or injury.

These two alternative diagnoses mean “a very different outlook for patients. Treatment is different, and their prognosis is different. It’s important to make the distinction,” said Dr. Alpert, professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The new changes to making an MI diagnosis will likely help drive a couple of important changes in the way U.S. patients with suspected myocardial injury or infarction get assessed, he said in an interview. The first change will be wide uptake of high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn) assays over the next 5 years or so, as the ability to measure this key diagnostic biomarker progresses from its initial Food and Drug Administration approval for the U.S. market in 2017 to “close to 100% of U.S. hospitals using it,” he predicted. A big issue that is currently slowing even quicker adoption of hscTn is that many hospitals, including the one where Dr. Alpert practices, still have laboratory contracts in place that tether them to older troponin-testing technologies and make it economically unfeasible to change until their contracts expire. The contract in place where Dr. Alpert practices runs out in 2019, and soon after that happens he expects to gain the ability to order a hscTn test.

The new, fourth definition says that hscTn is “recommended for routine clinical use,” but routine U.S. use “won’t be immediate because many hospitals will put in hscTn only when their old contract runs out,” he said.

Another practice-changing impact from the fourth definition may be expanded U.S. availability and use of MR imaging, which the fourth definition identified as the most informative and versatile of the several imaging options used to confirm or rule out an MI.

Cardiac MR “provides both functional and tissue characterization. It’s the technique with the most potential,” able to noninvasively identify “both the nature and extent of myocardial damage,” explained Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, MD, a cardiologist and imaging specialist at the Bristol (England) Heart Institute. A single cardiac MR scan “gives many answers,” said Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci, who also served on the fourth definition task force and spoke at the session about the document’s revised imaging recommendations.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the setting of acute MI, cardiac MR can also be used to assess the presence and extent of myocardium at risk (myocardial edema), myocardial salvage, microvascular obstruction, intramyocardial hemorrhage, and infarct size, all markers of myocardial injury that have prognostic value,” according to the fourth definition. “In patients with possible acute MI but unobstructed coronary arteries, cardiac MR can help to diagnose alternative conditions such as myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, embolic infarction, or MI with spontaneous recanalization.”

“What’s turning out is that, a large number of patients with chest pain have an infection and not an MI, and cardiac MR can distinguish inflammation and myocarditis from infarction. We’re now doing a lot more MRs,” Dr. Alpert said. Although MR capability is not as widely available today as other imaging methods, like echocardiography and CT, over the next 5 years that will likely change, he said. But Dr. Alpert cautioned that not every patient with a suspected MI needs MR assessment. It’s best focused for selected patients with an uncertain diagnosis based on the core indicators of disease: history, ECG, changes in hscTn levels over time, and a chest x-ray. “MR is for when there are questions,” he said. When patients present with classic MI signs and symptoms the diagnosis can depend just on the basics, perhaps supplemented with a more widely available imaging method like echocardiography to look for wall motion abnormalities, he said. “If echo shows good left ventricular function you probably don’t need MR.” he said.

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is another useful diagnostic tool, and right now is more widely available than MR. CTCA “may be used to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with an acute coronary syndrome event in the emergency department or chest pain unit, particularly in low- to intermediate-risk patients with normal hscTn at presentation,” said the fourth definition. But Dr. Alpert cited the radiation dose from CT as a limiting factor. “We have patients who get repeat CT scans, and we know that increases their cancer risk. There is no such thing as a totally safe dose of radiation.” Lack of radiation exposure is another feature that makes MR imaging attractive.

Dr. Alpert had no disclosures. Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci has had a financial relationship with Circle Cardiovascular Imaging.

mzoler@mdedge.com


 

MUNICH – The worldwide cardiology community’s newly revised universal definition of an MI refines the way that cardiologists distinguish between myocardial infarction and myocardial injury, said Joseph S. Alpert, MD, one of the two chairs of the definition-writing panel.

“We had three previous definitions, but there is still a lot of confusion [about distinguishing] between injury and infarction. We definitely hope that this fourth definition will further help people distinguish the two and help people determine whether or not a patient has an MI,” said Dr. Alpert following a session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology that introduced some of the key elements of the new revision.

Days before the ESC congress, a task force formed by the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation released the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018) (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038), which follows the series of three prior MI definitions that these groups have issued since the first iteration came out in 2007 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50[22]:2173-95).

The new revision includes 5 “new concepts,” 14 updated concepts, and 6 new sections since the third universal definition from 2012. The change that topped Dr. Alpert’s list of key messages was the need to determine whether a rise in cardiac troponin, a key biomarker of cardiac damage, resulted from infarction or injury.

These two alternative diagnoses mean “a very different outlook for patients. Treatment is different, and their prognosis is different. It’s important to make the distinction,” said Dr. Alpert, professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The new changes to making an MI diagnosis will likely help drive a couple of important changes in the way U.S. patients with suspected myocardial injury or infarction get assessed, he said in an interview. The first change will be wide uptake of high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn) assays over the next 5 years or so, as the ability to measure this key diagnostic biomarker progresses from its initial Food and Drug Administration approval for the U.S. market in 2017 to “close to 100% of U.S. hospitals using it,” he predicted. A big issue that is currently slowing even quicker adoption of hscTn is that many hospitals, including the one where Dr. Alpert practices, still have laboratory contracts in place that tether them to older troponin-testing technologies and make it economically unfeasible to change until their contracts expire. The contract in place where Dr. Alpert practices runs out in 2019, and soon after that happens he expects to gain the ability to order a hscTn test.

The new, fourth definition says that hscTn is “recommended for routine clinical use,” but routine U.S. use “won’t be immediate because many hospitals will put in hscTn only when their old contract runs out,” he said.

Another practice-changing impact from the fourth definition may be expanded U.S. availability and use of MR imaging, which the fourth definition identified as the most informative and versatile of the several imaging options used to confirm or rule out an MI.

Cardiac MR “provides both functional and tissue characterization. It’s the technique with the most potential,” able to noninvasively identify “both the nature and extent of myocardial damage,” explained Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, MD, a cardiologist and imaging specialist at the Bristol (England) Heart Institute. A single cardiac MR scan “gives many answers,” said Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci, who also served on the fourth definition task force and spoke at the session about the document’s revised imaging recommendations.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the setting of acute MI, cardiac MR can also be used to assess the presence and extent of myocardium at risk (myocardial edema), myocardial salvage, microvascular obstruction, intramyocardial hemorrhage, and infarct size, all markers of myocardial injury that have prognostic value,” according to the fourth definition. “In patients with possible acute MI but unobstructed coronary arteries, cardiac MR can help to diagnose alternative conditions such as myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, embolic infarction, or MI with spontaneous recanalization.”

“What’s turning out is that, a large number of patients with chest pain have an infection and not an MI, and cardiac MR can distinguish inflammation and myocarditis from infarction. We’re now doing a lot more MRs,” Dr. Alpert said. Although MR capability is not as widely available today as other imaging methods, like echocardiography and CT, over the next 5 years that will likely change, he said. But Dr. Alpert cautioned that not every patient with a suspected MI needs MR assessment. It’s best focused for selected patients with an uncertain diagnosis based on the core indicators of disease: history, ECG, changes in hscTn levels over time, and a chest x-ray. “MR is for when there are questions,” he said. When patients present with classic MI signs and symptoms the diagnosis can depend just on the basics, perhaps supplemented with a more widely available imaging method like echocardiography to look for wall motion abnormalities, he said. “If echo shows good left ventricular function you probably don’t need MR.” he said.

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is another useful diagnostic tool, and right now is more widely available than MR. CTCA “may be used to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with an acute coronary syndrome event in the emergency department or chest pain unit, particularly in low- to intermediate-risk patients with normal hscTn at presentation,” said the fourth definition. But Dr. Alpert cited the radiation dose from CT as a limiting factor. “We have patients who get repeat CT scans, and we know that increases their cancer risk. There is no such thing as a totally safe dose of radiation.” Lack of radiation exposure is another feature that makes MR imaging attractive.

Dr. Alpert had no disclosures. Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci has had a financial relationship with Circle Cardiovascular Imaging.

mzoler@mdedge.com


 

MUNICH – In a double blow to the current, widespread routine use of low-dose aspirin and fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes, neither treatment provided any net clinical benefit in the massive, long-term ASCEND study, investigators reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

And, in yet another bitter pill to swallow, low-dose aspirin failed to reduce the incidence of GI cancer or any other type of cancer, compared with placebo in the study. Earlier, nondefinitive meta-analyses of much smaller randomized trials had raised the possibility of a roughly 30% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer in long-time users, said Jane Armitage, MD, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).

“We saw no suggestion of an anticancer effect emerging over time,” Dr. Armitage said. “We did see a significant reduction in the risk of vascular events but also an increase in major bleeding such that the absolute benefits from avoiding a serious vascular event were largely counterbalanced by increased risk of bleeding. And there was no subgroup in which we could clearly define that the benefit outweighs the risk,” she added in a video interview.

ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) was a randomized, blinded trial in which 15,480 U.K. patients with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease were placed on 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo and 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form or placebo in a 2 x 2 factorial design and followed prospectively for a mean of 7.4 years.

The study was undertaken because, even though the value of low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention is supported by strong evidence, the medication’s value for primary prevention in patients with diabetes has long been uncertain. American Diabetes Association guidelines give a Grade C recommendation to consideration of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in patients with diabetes having a 10-year cardiovascular risk estimated at 10% or greater.

The primary efficacy endpoint in ASCEND was the occurrence of a first serious vascular event, defined as MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause other than intracranial hemorrhage. The rate was 8.5% in the aspirin group and 9.6% with placebo, for a statistically significant 12% relative risk reduction. However, the rate of the primary composite safety endpoint, comprising intracranial hemorrhage, GI bleeding, sight-threatening bleeding in the eye, or other bleeding serious enough to entail a trip to the hospital, was 4.1% in the aspirin group and 3.2% with placebo, a 29% increase in risk.

Aspirin reduced the absolute risk of a serious vascular event by 1.1%, compared with placebo, while boosting the risk of major bleeding by an absolute 0.9% – essentially a wash. The number needed to treat to avoid a serious vascular event was 91 patients, with 112 being the number needed to cause a major bleeding event. The risk of major bleeding rose with increasing baseline 5-year vascular event risk.

ASCEND provided no support for a recent report suggesting the benefit of low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection is largely confined to individuals weighing less than 70 kg (Lancet. 2018; 392:387-99); in fact, the opposite appeared to be true, according to Dr. Armitage.

The incidence of cancer of the GI tract was 2.0% in both study arms. The overall cancer rate was 11.6% in the aspirin arm and 11.5% with placebo. Additional follow-up focused on cancer is planned for 5 and 10 years after the end of ASCEND in order to examine the possibility of a delayed anticancer effect, she added.

Dr. Armitage said one reason aspirin may have failed to show a significant net benefit was the high rate of background cardioprotective medication usage, especially statins and antihypertensive drugs.

“I think if your diabetes is well managed and you’ve got your other risk factors under control, you have to consider very carefully whether or not, for you, the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks,” she concluded.

Cardiologists respond

ASCEND’s two designated discussants, both cardiologists, took a more positive view of the results than Dr. Armitage, who isn’t a cardiologist.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Oslo, noted that most ASCEND participants were at relatively low cardiovascular risk, with an event rate of about 1.3% per year. She indicated that she’d like to see more data on higher-risk individuals before excluding any role for aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes.

“Serious vascular events and bleeding are not necessarily equally weighted,” she added. “Most major bleeds in ASCEND were GI bleeds, and these can be largely prevented by PPIs [proton pump inhibitors], in contrast to death and stroke, which are irreversible events.”

“I think this study could be interpreted more favorably,” agreed Christopher P. Cannon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Bleeds are reversible, but MIs and whatnot are not.”

Fish oil flounders in ASCEND

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Louise Bowman, MD, also at the University of Oxford, presented the ASCEND fish oil findings. Over an average of 7.4 years, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation had no effect on the rate of serious vascular events, no effect on cancer, no impact on all-cause or cause-specific mortality, and raised no safety issues in patients with diabetes. She argued that current guidelines recommending fish oil supplements for cardiovascular prevention should be reconsidered.

“Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the use of this dose of omega-3 fatty acids – 1 g/day – for the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Bowman said.

However, Dr. Cannon saw a sliver of hope within the ASCEND findings. One component of the serious vascular event composite endpoint – vascular death – occurred in 2.4% of the fish oil group and 2.9% of placebo-treated controls, for a statistically significant 19% relative risk reduction. It could be a fluke, given that none of the other vascular endpoints followed suit. But physicians and patients won’t have to wait long to find out. Another randomized trial of low-dose fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention – the nearly 26,000-patient VITAL trial – is due to report later in 2018.

In addition, two major, randomized trials of higher-dose fish oil supplementation for secondary prevention are ongoing. The roughly 8,000-patient REDUCE-IT trial is expected to report results later this year, and the STRENGTH trial, featuring more than 13,000 patients, should be completed in 2020. Both studies are heavily loaded with diabetes patients, Dr. Cannon noted.

Simultaneous with presentation of the ASCEND results at the ESC congress, the study was published online at the New England Journal of Medicine website (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804988 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989).

The ASCEND study was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council with support provided by Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage and Dr. Bowman reported receiving research grants from the Medicines Company, Bayer, and Mylan. Dr. Halvorsen reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Cannon reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including the Amarin Corporation, which markets a fish oil supplement and sponsored the REDUCE-IT trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – In a double blow to the current, widespread routine use of low-dose aspirin and fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes, neither treatment provided any net clinical benefit in the massive, long-term ASCEND study, investigators reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

And, in yet another bitter pill to swallow, low-dose aspirin failed to reduce the incidence of GI cancer or any other type of cancer, compared with placebo in the study. Earlier, nondefinitive meta-analyses of much smaller randomized trials had raised the possibility of a roughly 30% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer in long-time users, said Jane Armitage, MD, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).

“We saw no suggestion of an anticancer effect emerging over time,” Dr. Armitage said. “We did see a significant reduction in the risk of vascular events but also an increase in major bleeding such that the absolute benefits from avoiding a serious vascular event were largely counterbalanced by increased risk of bleeding. And there was no subgroup in which we could clearly define that the benefit outweighs the risk,” she added in a video interview.

ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) was a randomized, blinded trial in which 15,480 U.K. patients with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease were placed on 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo and 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form or placebo in a 2 x 2 factorial design and followed prospectively for a mean of 7.4 years.

The study was undertaken because, even though the value of low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention is supported by strong evidence, the medication’s value for primary prevention in patients with diabetes has long been uncertain. American Diabetes Association guidelines give a Grade C recommendation to consideration of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in patients with diabetes having a 10-year cardiovascular risk estimated at 10% or greater.

The primary efficacy endpoint in ASCEND was the occurrence of a first serious vascular event, defined as MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause other than intracranial hemorrhage. The rate was 8.5% in the aspirin group and 9.6% with placebo, for a statistically significant 12% relative risk reduction. However, the rate of the primary composite safety endpoint, comprising intracranial hemorrhage, GI bleeding, sight-threatening bleeding in the eye, or other bleeding serious enough to entail a trip to the hospital, was 4.1% in the aspirin group and 3.2% with placebo, a 29% increase in risk.

Aspirin reduced the absolute risk of a serious vascular event by 1.1%, compared with placebo, while boosting the risk of major bleeding by an absolute 0.9% – essentially a wash. The number needed to treat to avoid a serious vascular event was 91 patients, with 112 being the number needed to cause a major bleeding event. The risk of major bleeding rose with increasing baseline 5-year vascular event risk.

ASCEND provided no support for a recent report suggesting the benefit of low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection is largely confined to individuals weighing less than 70 kg (Lancet. 2018; 392:387-99); in fact, the opposite appeared to be true, according to Dr. Armitage.

The incidence of cancer of the GI tract was 2.0% in both study arms. The overall cancer rate was 11.6% in the aspirin arm and 11.5% with placebo. Additional follow-up focused on cancer is planned for 5 and 10 years after the end of ASCEND in order to examine the possibility of a delayed anticancer effect, she added.

Dr. Armitage said one reason aspirin may have failed to show a significant net benefit was the high rate of background cardioprotective medication usage, especially statins and antihypertensive drugs.

“I think if your diabetes is well managed and you’ve got your other risk factors under control, you have to consider very carefully whether or not, for you, the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks,” she concluded.

Cardiologists respond

ASCEND’s two designated discussants, both cardiologists, took a more positive view of the results than Dr. Armitage, who isn’t a cardiologist.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Oslo, noted that most ASCEND participants were at relatively low cardiovascular risk, with an event rate of about 1.3% per year. She indicated that she’d like to see more data on higher-risk individuals before excluding any role for aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes.

“Serious vascular events and bleeding are not necessarily equally weighted,” she added. “Most major bleeds in ASCEND were GI bleeds, and these can be largely prevented by PPIs [proton pump inhibitors], in contrast to death and stroke, which are irreversible events.”

“I think this study could be interpreted more favorably,” agreed Christopher P. Cannon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Bleeds are reversible, but MIs and whatnot are not.”

Fish oil flounders in ASCEND

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Louise Bowman, MD, also at the University of Oxford, presented the ASCEND fish oil findings. Over an average of 7.4 years, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation had no effect on the rate of serious vascular events, no effect on cancer, no impact on all-cause or cause-specific mortality, and raised no safety issues in patients with diabetes. She argued that current guidelines recommending fish oil supplements for cardiovascular prevention should be reconsidered.

“Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the use of this dose of omega-3 fatty acids – 1 g/day – for the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Bowman said.

However, Dr. Cannon saw a sliver of hope within the ASCEND findings. One component of the serious vascular event composite endpoint – vascular death – occurred in 2.4% of the fish oil group and 2.9% of placebo-treated controls, for a statistically significant 19% relative risk reduction. It could be a fluke, given that none of the other vascular endpoints followed suit. But physicians and patients won’t have to wait long to find out. Another randomized trial of low-dose fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention – the nearly 26,000-patient VITAL trial – is due to report later in 2018.

In addition, two major, randomized trials of higher-dose fish oil supplementation for secondary prevention are ongoing. The roughly 8,000-patient REDUCE-IT trial is expected to report results later this year, and the STRENGTH trial, featuring more than 13,000 patients, should be completed in 2020. Both studies are heavily loaded with diabetes patients, Dr. Cannon noted.

Simultaneous with presentation of the ASCEND results at the ESC congress, the study was published online at the New England Journal of Medicine website (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804988 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989).

The ASCEND study was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council with support provided by Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage and Dr. Bowman reported receiving research grants from the Medicines Company, Bayer, and Mylan. Dr. Halvorsen reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Cannon reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including the Amarin Corporation, which markets a fish oil supplement and sponsored the REDUCE-IT trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – In a double blow to the current, widespread routine use of low-dose aspirin and fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes, neither treatment provided any net clinical benefit in the massive, long-term ASCEND study, investigators reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

And, in yet another bitter pill to swallow, low-dose aspirin failed to reduce the incidence of GI cancer or any other type of cancer, compared with placebo in the study. Earlier, nondefinitive meta-analyses of much smaller randomized trials had raised the possibility of a roughly 30% reduction in the incidence of colorectal cancer in long-time users, said Jane Armitage, MD, professor of clinical trials and epidemiology at the University of Oxford (England).

“We saw no suggestion of an anticancer effect emerging over time,” Dr. Armitage said. “We did see a significant reduction in the risk of vascular events but also an increase in major bleeding such that the absolute benefits from avoiding a serious vascular event were largely counterbalanced by increased risk of bleeding. And there was no subgroup in which we could clearly define that the benefit outweighs the risk,” she added in a video interview.

ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes) was a randomized, blinded trial in which 15,480 U.K. patients with diabetes and no known cardiovascular disease were placed on 100 mg/day of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo and 1 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids in capsule form or placebo in a 2 x 2 factorial design and followed prospectively for a mean of 7.4 years.

The study was undertaken because, even though the value of low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention is supported by strong evidence, the medication’s value for primary prevention in patients with diabetes has long been uncertain. American Diabetes Association guidelines give a Grade C recommendation to consideration of low-dose aspirin as a primary prevention strategy in patients with diabetes having a 10-year cardiovascular risk estimated at 10% or greater.

The primary efficacy endpoint in ASCEND was the occurrence of a first serious vascular event, defined as MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause other than intracranial hemorrhage. The rate was 8.5% in the aspirin group and 9.6% with placebo, for a statistically significant 12% relative risk reduction. However, the rate of the primary composite safety endpoint, comprising intracranial hemorrhage, GI bleeding, sight-threatening bleeding in the eye, or other bleeding serious enough to entail a trip to the hospital, was 4.1% in the aspirin group and 3.2% with placebo, a 29% increase in risk.

Aspirin reduced the absolute risk of a serious vascular event by 1.1%, compared with placebo, while boosting the risk of major bleeding by an absolute 0.9% – essentially a wash. The number needed to treat to avoid a serious vascular event was 91 patients, with 112 being the number needed to cause a major bleeding event. The risk of major bleeding rose with increasing baseline 5-year vascular event risk.

ASCEND provided no support for a recent report suggesting the benefit of low-dose aspirin for cardioprotection is largely confined to individuals weighing less than 70 kg (Lancet. 2018; 392:387-99); in fact, the opposite appeared to be true, according to Dr. Armitage.

The incidence of cancer of the GI tract was 2.0% in both study arms. The overall cancer rate was 11.6% in the aspirin arm and 11.5% with placebo. Additional follow-up focused on cancer is planned for 5 and 10 years after the end of ASCEND in order to examine the possibility of a delayed anticancer effect, she added.

Dr. Armitage said one reason aspirin may have failed to show a significant net benefit was the high rate of background cardioprotective medication usage, especially statins and antihypertensive drugs.

“I think if your diabetes is well managed and you’ve got your other risk factors under control, you have to consider very carefully whether or not, for you, the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks,” she concluded.

Cardiologists respond

ASCEND’s two designated discussants, both cardiologists, took a more positive view of the results than Dr. Armitage, who isn’t a cardiologist.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, professor of cardiology at the University of Oslo, noted that most ASCEND participants were at relatively low cardiovascular risk, with an event rate of about 1.3% per year. She indicated that she’d like to see more data on higher-risk individuals before excluding any role for aspirin in primary cardiovascular prevention in patients with diabetes.

“Serious vascular events and bleeding are not necessarily equally weighted,” she added. “Most major bleeds in ASCEND were GI bleeds, and these can be largely prevented by PPIs [proton pump inhibitors], in contrast to death and stroke, which are irreversible events.”

“I think this study could be interpreted more favorably,” agreed Christopher P. Cannon, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “Bleeds are reversible, but MIs and whatnot are not.”

Fish oil flounders in ASCEND

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Louise Bowman, MD, also at the University of Oxford, presented the ASCEND fish oil findings. Over an average of 7.4 years, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation had no effect on the rate of serious vascular events, no effect on cancer, no impact on all-cause or cause-specific mortality, and raised no safety issues in patients with diabetes. She argued that current guidelines recommending fish oil supplements for cardiovascular prevention should be reconsidered.

“Certainly there doesn’t seem to be any justification for the use of this dose of omega-3 fatty acids – 1 g/day – for the prevention of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Bowman said.

However, Dr. Cannon saw a sliver of hope within the ASCEND findings. One component of the serious vascular event composite endpoint – vascular death – occurred in 2.4% of the fish oil group and 2.9% of placebo-treated controls, for a statistically significant 19% relative risk reduction. It could be a fluke, given that none of the other vascular endpoints followed suit. But physicians and patients won’t have to wait long to find out. Another randomized trial of low-dose fish oil supplements for primary cardiovascular prevention – the nearly 26,000-patient VITAL trial – is due to report later in 2018.

In addition, two major, randomized trials of higher-dose fish oil supplementation for secondary prevention are ongoing. The roughly 8,000-patient REDUCE-IT trial is expected to report results later this year, and the STRENGTH trial, featuring more than 13,000 patients, should be completed in 2020. Both studies are heavily loaded with diabetes patients, Dr. Cannon noted.

Simultaneous with presentation of the ASCEND results at the ESC congress, the study was published online at the New England Journal of Medicine website (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804988 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804989).

The ASCEND study was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council with support provided by Abbott Laboratories, Bayer, Mylan, and Solvay. Dr. Armitage and Dr. Bowman reported receiving research grants from the Medicines Company, Bayer, and Mylan. Dr. Halvorsen reported no financial conflicts. Dr. Cannon reported serving as a consultant to roughly a dozen pharmaceutical companies, including the Amarin Corporation, which markets a fish oil supplement and sponsored the REDUCE-IT trial.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MUNICH – For patients with heart disease, coronary artery disease, and normal sinus rhythm, giving rivaroxaban does not significantly reduce risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, investigators in the COMMANDER trial said.

Rivaroxaban did not improve rehospitalization rates either, reported lead author Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from the University of Henri Poincaré in Nancy, France, and his co-investigators.

“After an episode of worsening chronic heart failure, rates of readmission to the hospital and of death are high, especially in the first few months,” they said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The report of the research was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Findings from previous research have suggested that, for patients with coronary artery disease, a combination of antiplatelet agents and low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) reduced incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors designed the COMMANDER trial to test a similar regimen in patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease without an arrhythmia. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The COMMANDER trial involved 5,022 patients with coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (less than or equal to 40%), worsening chronic heart failure (index event within past 21 days), and normal splasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of at least 200 ng per liter or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of at least 800 ng per liter.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 2,507) or placebo (n = 2,515). Treatment was given in addition to standard care for coronary disease or heart failure (single or dual antiplatelet therapy was allowed). Patients were assessed at week 4 and week 12, then every 12 weeks.

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization for heart failure, a composite of either, or rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of bleeding into a critical space with potential for permanent disability or fatal bleeding.

Death, myocardial failure, or stroke occurred in 626 patients (25%) in the rivaroxaban group compared with 658 patients (26.2%) in the placebo group (P = .27). Secondary efficacy outcomes were also highly similar between groups, differing at most by 0.9%. The principal safety outcome (fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space) occurred in 18 patients (0.7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 23 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group (P = .25). Again, no significant difference was found between groups.

These results suggest that while low-dose rivaroxaban may be safe, it also offers no treatment benefit. “The most likely reason for the failure … is that thrombin-mediated events are not the major driver of heart failure-related events in patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure,” the authors wrote.

“Whether a higher dose of rivaroxaban could have led to a more favorable outcome remains unknown,” they concluded.

The COMMANDER trial was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Authors reported compensation from Bayer, Servier, Novartis, Impulse Dynamics, and others.

cardnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zannad F et al. NEJM/ESC.

.

MUNICH – For patients with heart disease, coronary artery disease, and normal sinus rhythm, giving rivaroxaban does not significantly reduce risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, investigators in the COMMANDER trial said.

Rivaroxaban did not improve rehospitalization rates either, reported lead author Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from the University of Henri Poincaré in Nancy, France, and his co-investigators.

“After an episode of worsening chronic heart failure, rates of readmission to the hospital and of death are high, especially in the first few months,” they said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The report of the research was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Findings from previous research have suggested that, for patients with coronary artery disease, a combination of antiplatelet agents and low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) reduced incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors designed the COMMANDER trial to test a similar regimen in patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease without an arrhythmia. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The COMMANDER trial involved 5,022 patients with coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (less than or equal to 40%), worsening chronic heart failure (index event within past 21 days), and normal splasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of at least 200 ng per liter or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of at least 800 ng per liter.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 2,507) or placebo (n = 2,515). Treatment was given in addition to standard care for coronary disease or heart failure (single or dual antiplatelet therapy was allowed). Patients were assessed at week 4 and week 12, then every 12 weeks.

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization for heart failure, a composite of either, or rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of bleeding into a critical space with potential for permanent disability or fatal bleeding.

Death, myocardial failure, or stroke occurred in 626 patients (25%) in the rivaroxaban group compared with 658 patients (26.2%) in the placebo group (P = .27). Secondary efficacy outcomes were also highly similar between groups, differing at most by 0.9%. The principal safety outcome (fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space) occurred in 18 patients (0.7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 23 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group (P = .25). Again, no significant difference was found between groups.

These results suggest that while low-dose rivaroxaban may be safe, it also offers no treatment benefit. “The most likely reason for the failure … is that thrombin-mediated events are not the major driver of heart failure-related events in patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure,” the authors wrote.

“Whether a higher dose of rivaroxaban could have led to a more favorable outcome remains unknown,” they concluded.

The COMMANDER trial was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Authors reported compensation from Bayer, Servier, Novartis, Impulse Dynamics, and others.

cardnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zannad F et al. NEJM/ESC.

.

MUNICH – For patients with heart disease, coronary artery disease, and normal sinus rhythm, giving rivaroxaban does not significantly reduce risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, investigators in the COMMANDER trial said.

Rivaroxaban did not improve rehospitalization rates either, reported lead author Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from the University of Henri Poincaré in Nancy, France, and his co-investigators.

“After an episode of worsening chronic heart failure, rates of readmission to the hospital and of death are high, especially in the first few months,” they said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The report of the research was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Findings from previous research have suggested that, for patients with coronary artery disease, a combination of antiplatelet agents and low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) reduced incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors designed the COMMANDER trial to test a similar regimen in patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease without an arrhythmia. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The COMMANDER trial involved 5,022 patients with coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (less than or equal to 40%), worsening chronic heart failure (index event within past 21 days), and normal splasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of at least 200 ng per liter or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of at least 800 ng per liter.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 2,507) or placebo (n = 2,515). Treatment was given in addition to standard care for coronary disease or heart failure (single or dual antiplatelet therapy was allowed). Patients were assessed at week 4 and week 12, then every 12 weeks.

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization for heart failure, a composite of either, or rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of bleeding into a critical space with potential for permanent disability or fatal bleeding.

Death, myocardial failure, or stroke occurred in 626 patients (25%) in the rivaroxaban group compared with 658 patients (26.2%) in the placebo group (P = .27). Secondary efficacy outcomes were also highly similar between groups, differing at most by 0.9%. The principal safety outcome (fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space) occurred in 18 patients (0.7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 23 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group (P = .25). Again, no significant difference was found between groups.

These results suggest that while low-dose rivaroxaban may be safe, it also offers no treatment benefit. “The most likely reason for the failure … is that thrombin-mediated events are not the major driver of heart failure-related events in patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure,” the authors wrote.

“Whether a higher dose of rivaroxaban could have led to a more favorable outcome remains unknown,” they concluded.

The COMMANDER trial was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Authors reported compensation from Bayer, Servier, Novartis, Impulse Dynamics, and others.

cardnews@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zannad F et al. NEJM/ESC.

.