User login
Risk assessment first urged for fragility fracture screening
A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.
To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.
The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.
Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.
The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.
“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.
“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
New evidence
“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”
To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:
- Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
- Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
- If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.
Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.
“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”
“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”
To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
Other at-risk groups?
Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.
“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.
For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”
A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.
Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”
Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.
To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.
The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.
Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.
The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.
“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.
“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
New evidence
“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”
To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:
- Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
- Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
- If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.
Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.
“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”
“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”
To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
Other at-risk groups?
Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.
“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.
For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”
A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.
Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”
Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new Canadian guideline on screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures recommends risk assessment first, before bone mineral density (BMD) testing, for women aged 65 and older. For younger women and men aged 40 and older, screening is not recommended.
To develop the guideline, a writing group from Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care commissioned systematic reviews of studies on the benefits and harms of fragility fracture screenings; the predictive accuracy of current risk-assessment tools; patient acceptability; and benefits of treatment. Treatment harms were analyzed via a rapid overview of reviews.
The guideline, published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, is aimed at primary care practitioners for their community-dwelling patients aged 40 and older. The recommendations do not apply to people already taking preventive drugs.
Nondrug treatments were beyond the scope of the current guideline, but guidelines on the prevention of falls and other strategies are planned, Roland Grad, MD, a guideline author and associate professor at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization.
The new guideline says that women aged 65 and older may be able to avoid fracture through screening and preventive medication. An individual’s fracture risk can be estimated with a new Fragility Fractures Decision Aid, which uses the Canadian FRAX risk-assessment tool.
“A risk assessment–first approach promotes shared decision-making with the patient, based on best medical evidence,” Dr. Grad said.
“To help clinicians, we have created an infographic with visuals to communicate the time spent on BMD vs risk assessment first.”
New evidence
“At least three things motivated this new guideline,” Dr. Grad said. “When we started work on this prior to the pandemic, we saw a need for updated guidance on screening to prevent fragility fractures. We were also aware of new evidence from the publication of screening trials in females older than 65.”
To conduct the risk assessment in older women, clinicians are advised to do the following:
- Use the decision aid (which patients can also use on their own).
- Use the 10-year absolute risk of major osteoporotic fracture to facilitate shared decision-making about possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy.
- If pharmacotherapy is being considered, request a BMD using DXA of the femoral neck, then reestimate the fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into the FRAX.
Potential harms associated with various treatments, with varying levels of evidence, include the following: with alendronate and denosumab, nonserious gastrointestinal adverse events; with denosumab, rash, eczema, and infections; with zoledronic acid, nonserious events, such as headache and flulike symptoms; and with alendronate and bisphosphonates, rare but serious harms of atypical femoral fracture and osteonecrosis of the jaw.
“These recommendations emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in physical health and patient well-being,” the authors wrote. “Clinicians should also be aware of the importance of secondary prevention (i.e., after fracture) and manage patients accordingly.”
“This is an important topic,” Dr. Grad said. “Fragility fractures are consequential for individuals and for our publicly funded health care system. We anticipate questions from clinicians about the time needed to screen with the risk assessment–first strategy. Our modeling work suggests time savings with [this] strategy compared to a strategy of BMD testing first. Following our recommendations may lead to a reduction in BMD testing.”
To promote the guideline, the CMAJ has recorded a podcast and will use other strategies to increase awareness, Dr. Grad said. “The Canadian Task Force has a communications strategy that includes outreach to primary care, stakeholder webinars, social media, partnerships, and other tactics. The College of Family Physicians of Canada has endorsed the guideline and will help promote to its members.”
Other at-risk groups?
Aliya Khan, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, professor in the divisions of endocrinology and metabolism and geriatrics and director of the fellowship in metabolic bone diseases at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization she agrees with the strategy of evaluating women aged 65 and older for fracture risk.
“The decision aid is useful, but I would like to see it expanded to other circumstances and situations,” she said.
For example, Dr. Khan would like to see recommendations for younger women and for men of all ages regarding secondary causes of osteoporosis or medications known to have a detrimental effect on bone health. By not addressing these patients, she said, “we may miss patients who would benefit from a fracture risk assessment and potentially treatment to prevent low-trauma fractures.”
A recommendation for younger postmenopausal women was included in the most recent Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Canada guideline, she noted.
Overall, she said, “I believe these recommendations will reduce the excess or inappropriate use of BMD testing and that is welcome.”
Funding for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care is provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The task force members report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AHA flags differing CVD risk in Asian American subgroups
Asian Americans have significant differences in genetics, socioeconomic factors, culture, diet, lifestyle, and acculturation levels based on the Asian region of their ancestry that likely have unique effects on their risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the statement noted.
“Examining Asian subgroups separately is crucial to better understand the distinctions among them, how these differences translate into their risk of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic disease, and how health care professionals may provide care and support in a culturally appropriate manner,” writing group chair Tak W. Kwan, MD, chief of cardiology, Lenox Health Greenwich Village, and clinical professor of medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, said in a news release.
The statement was published online in the journal Circulation.
Impact on health outcomes
Asian American subgroups are broadly categorized by the geographic region of Asian descent and include South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Bhutan); East Asia (Japan, China, or Korea); Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hmong); and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands).
Asian Americans make up the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. Together, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are the leading causes of illness and death among Asian American adults.
Yet, there is significant variability in prevalence and risk factors within the different subgroups, the writing group pointed out.
For example, based on available data, rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) among Asian Americans indicate an overall prevalence of 8% in men and about 3% in women.
However, available data for subgroups suggest higher CAD rates among Asian Indian Americans (13% for men and 4.4% for women) and Filipino Americans (about 9% and 4%, respectively).
Available data on T2D among Asian American subgroups also show varied prevalence and risk.
A study from California found overall, Asian American adults had higher rates of T2D (range of 15.6%-34.5%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (12.8%). Among Chinese Americans, the rate was 15.8%. Among Korean and Japanese Americans, rates were about 18% and among Americans with Filipino ancestry, the rate was nearly 32%.
Yet most studies to date aggregate Asian Americans in a single group and do not examine the subgroups individually, which is a challenge to providing evidence-based recommendations, the writing group said.
“Particular attention should focus on the T2D and ASCVD risk differences among the different Asian American subgroups because they may affect the precision in clinical and health outcomes,” the group suggested.
“Culturally specific recommendations and interventions across the different Asian American subgroups related to T2D and ASCVD will help improve primary and secondary prevention and health outcomes in this population,” they added.
The writing group noted that existing CVD risk calculators, which are based on data validated in non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults and less extensively studied in Asian Americans, may underestimate the risk of T2D and heart disease in South Asian adults, those of lower socioeconomic status, or those with chronic inflammatory diseases.
On the other hand, these tools may overestimate CVD risk among East Asians, those with higher socioeconomic status or those who are already participating in preventive healthcare services.
Advances in epidemiology and data analysis and the availability of larger, representative cohorts will allow for refinement of pooled cohort equations to better gauge ASCVD risk in Asian American subgroups, the group said.
Filling in the gaps
The writing group outlined several key areas to consider for strengthening the data about Asian American adults. Chief among them is the need to include disaggregated data on Asian American subgroups in clinical trials and government-sponsored studies.
Another is to standardize ways of collecting ethnic and subgroup data for Asian Americans for national health systems, surveys, and registries. National surveillance surveys should consider oversampling Asian Americans to increase representation for the various subgroups, the writing group suggested.
“All of us – health care professionals, policymakers, community leaders and patients – must advocate for more health research funding for Asian Americans and demand inclusion of Asian American subgroup information in clinical trials and government-sponsored research,” Dr. Kwan said.
“Having a platform to share and disseminate data on Asian Americans for the scientific and research community would also be an asset for the health care professionals who care for this population,” Dr. Kwan added.
The new scientific statement is a follow-up to a 2010 AHA “call to action” to seek data on health disparities among Asian American subgroups and a 2018 scientific statement addressing CVD risk in South Asians (Asian Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Bhutanese).
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Asian Americans have significant differences in genetics, socioeconomic factors, culture, diet, lifestyle, and acculturation levels based on the Asian region of their ancestry that likely have unique effects on their risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the statement noted.
“Examining Asian subgroups separately is crucial to better understand the distinctions among them, how these differences translate into their risk of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic disease, and how health care professionals may provide care and support in a culturally appropriate manner,” writing group chair Tak W. Kwan, MD, chief of cardiology, Lenox Health Greenwich Village, and clinical professor of medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, said in a news release.
The statement was published online in the journal Circulation.
Impact on health outcomes
Asian American subgroups are broadly categorized by the geographic region of Asian descent and include South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Bhutan); East Asia (Japan, China, or Korea); Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hmong); and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands).
Asian Americans make up the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. Together, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are the leading causes of illness and death among Asian American adults.
Yet, there is significant variability in prevalence and risk factors within the different subgroups, the writing group pointed out.
For example, based on available data, rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) among Asian Americans indicate an overall prevalence of 8% in men and about 3% in women.
However, available data for subgroups suggest higher CAD rates among Asian Indian Americans (13% for men and 4.4% for women) and Filipino Americans (about 9% and 4%, respectively).
Available data on T2D among Asian American subgroups also show varied prevalence and risk.
A study from California found overall, Asian American adults had higher rates of T2D (range of 15.6%-34.5%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (12.8%). Among Chinese Americans, the rate was 15.8%. Among Korean and Japanese Americans, rates were about 18% and among Americans with Filipino ancestry, the rate was nearly 32%.
Yet most studies to date aggregate Asian Americans in a single group and do not examine the subgroups individually, which is a challenge to providing evidence-based recommendations, the writing group said.
“Particular attention should focus on the T2D and ASCVD risk differences among the different Asian American subgroups because they may affect the precision in clinical and health outcomes,” the group suggested.
“Culturally specific recommendations and interventions across the different Asian American subgroups related to T2D and ASCVD will help improve primary and secondary prevention and health outcomes in this population,” they added.
The writing group noted that existing CVD risk calculators, which are based on data validated in non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults and less extensively studied in Asian Americans, may underestimate the risk of T2D and heart disease in South Asian adults, those of lower socioeconomic status, or those with chronic inflammatory diseases.
On the other hand, these tools may overestimate CVD risk among East Asians, those with higher socioeconomic status or those who are already participating in preventive healthcare services.
Advances in epidemiology and data analysis and the availability of larger, representative cohorts will allow for refinement of pooled cohort equations to better gauge ASCVD risk in Asian American subgroups, the group said.
Filling in the gaps
The writing group outlined several key areas to consider for strengthening the data about Asian American adults. Chief among them is the need to include disaggregated data on Asian American subgroups in clinical trials and government-sponsored studies.
Another is to standardize ways of collecting ethnic and subgroup data for Asian Americans for national health systems, surveys, and registries. National surveillance surveys should consider oversampling Asian Americans to increase representation for the various subgroups, the writing group suggested.
“All of us – health care professionals, policymakers, community leaders and patients – must advocate for more health research funding for Asian Americans and demand inclusion of Asian American subgroup information in clinical trials and government-sponsored research,” Dr. Kwan said.
“Having a platform to share and disseminate data on Asian Americans for the scientific and research community would also be an asset for the health care professionals who care for this population,” Dr. Kwan added.
The new scientific statement is a follow-up to a 2010 AHA “call to action” to seek data on health disparities among Asian American subgroups and a 2018 scientific statement addressing CVD risk in South Asians (Asian Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Bhutanese).
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Asian Americans have significant differences in genetics, socioeconomic factors, culture, diet, lifestyle, and acculturation levels based on the Asian region of their ancestry that likely have unique effects on their risk for type 2 diabetes and heart disease, the statement noted.
“Examining Asian subgroups separately is crucial to better understand the distinctions among them, how these differences translate into their risk of type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic disease, and how health care professionals may provide care and support in a culturally appropriate manner,” writing group chair Tak W. Kwan, MD, chief of cardiology, Lenox Health Greenwich Village, and clinical professor of medicine, Northwell Health, New York City, said in a news release.
The statement was published online in the journal Circulation.
Impact on health outcomes
Asian American subgroups are broadly categorized by the geographic region of Asian descent and include South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Bhutan); East Asia (Japan, China, or Korea); Southeast Asia (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hmong); and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific islands).
Asian Americans make up the fastest growing racial and ethnic group in the United States. Together, type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are the leading causes of illness and death among Asian American adults.
Yet, there is significant variability in prevalence and risk factors within the different subgroups, the writing group pointed out.
For example, based on available data, rates of coronary artery disease (CAD) among Asian Americans indicate an overall prevalence of 8% in men and about 3% in women.
However, available data for subgroups suggest higher CAD rates among Asian Indian Americans (13% for men and 4.4% for women) and Filipino Americans (about 9% and 4%, respectively).
Available data on T2D among Asian American subgroups also show varied prevalence and risk.
A study from California found overall, Asian American adults had higher rates of T2D (range of 15.6%-34.5%) compared with non-Hispanic White adults (12.8%). Among Chinese Americans, the rate was 15.8%. Among Korean and Japanese Americans, rates were about 18% and among Americans with Filipino ancestry, the rate was nearly 32%.
Yet most studies to date aggregate Asian Americans in a single group and do not examine the subgroups individually, which is a challenge to providing evidence-based recommendations, the writing group said.
“Particular attention should focus on the T2D and ASCVD risk differences among the different Asian American subgroups because they may affect the precision in clinical and health outcomes,” the group suggested.
“Culturally specific recommendations and interventions across the different Asian American subgroups related to T2D and ASCVD will help improve primary and secondary prevention and health outcomes in this population,” they added.
The writing group noted that existing CVD risk calculators, which are based on data validated in non-Hispanic Black adults and non-Hispanic White adults and less extensively studied in Asian Americans, may underestimate the risk of T2D and heart disease in South Asian adults, those of lower socioeconomic status, or those with chronic inflammatory diseases.
On the other hand, these tools may overestimate CVD risk among East Asians, those with higher socioeconomic status or those who are already participating in preventive healthcare services.
Advances in epidemiology and data analysis and the availability of larger, representative cohorts will allow for refinement of pooled cohort equations to better gauge ASCVD risk in Asian American subgroups, the group said.
Filling in the gaps
The writing group outlined several key areas to consider for strengthening the data about Asian American adults. Chief among them is the need to include disaggregated data on Asian American subgroups in clinical trials and government-sponsored studies.
Another is to standardize ways of collecting ethnic and subgroup data for Asian Americans for national health systems, surveys, and registries. National surveillance surveys should consider oversampling Asian Americans to increase representation for the various subgroups, the writing group suggested.
“All of us – health care professionals, policymakers, community leaders and patients – must advocate for more health research funding for Asian Americans and demand inclusion of Asian American subgroup information in clinical trials and government-sponsored research,” Dr. Kwan said.
“Having a platform to share and disseminate data on Asian Americans for the scientific and research community would also be an asset for the health care professionals who care for this population,” Dr. Kwan added.
The new scientific statement is a follow-up to a 2010 AHA “call to action” to seek data on health disparities among Asian American subgroups and a 2018 scientific statement addressing CVD risk in South Asians (Asian Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Nepali, or Bhutanese).
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health; the Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
10 popular diets for heart health ranked
An evidence-based analysis of 10 popular dietary patterns shows that some promote heart health better than others.
A new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes that the Mediterranean, Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH), pescatarian, and vegetarian eating patterns most strongly align with heart-healthy eating guidelines issued by the AHA in 2021, whereas the popular paleolithic (paleo) and ketogenic (keto) diets fall short.
“The good news for the public and their clinicians is that there are several dietary patterns that allow for substantial flexibility for following a heart healthy diet – DASH, Mediterranean, vegetarian,” writing-group chair Christopher Gardner, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.
“However, some of the popular diets – particularly paleo and keto – are so strictly restrictive of specific food groups that when these diets are followed as intended by their proponents, they are not aligned with the scientific evidence for a heart-healthy diet,” Dr. Gardner said.
The statement was published online in Circulation.
A tool for clinicians
“The number of different, popular dietary patterns has proliferated in recent years, and the amount of misinformation about them on social media has reached critical levels,” Dr. Gardner said in a news release.
“The public – and even many health care professionals – may rightfully be confused about heart-healthy eating, and they may feel that they don’t have the time or the training to evaluate the different diets. We hope this statement serves as a tool for clinicians and the public to understand which diets promote good cardiometabolic health,” he noted.
The writing group rated on a scale of 1-100 how well 10 popular diets or eating patterns align with AHA dietary advice for heart-healthy eating.
That advice includes consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; choosing mostly whole grains instead of refined grains; using liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils; eating healthy sources of protein, such as from plants, seafood, or lean meats; minimizing added sugars and salt; limiting alcohol; choosing minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods; and following this guidance wherever food is prepared or consumed.
The 10 diets/dietary patterns were DASH, Mediterranean-style, pescatarian, ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, very low–fat, low-carbohydrate, paleo, and very low–carbohydrate/keto patterns.
The diets were divided into four tiers on the basis of their scores, which ranged from a low of 31 to a high of 100.
Only the DASH eating plan got a perfect score of 100. This eating pattern is low in salt, added sugar, tropical oil, alcohol, and processed foods and high in nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Proteins are mostly plant-based, such as legumes, beans, or nuts, along with fish or seafood, lean poultry and meats, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.
The Mediterranean eating pattern achieved a slightly lower score of 89 because unlike DASH, it allows for moderate alcohol consumption and does not address added salt.
The other two top tier eating patterns were pescatarian, with a score of 92, and vegetarian, with a score of 86.
“If implemented as intended, the top-tier dietary patterns align best with the American Heart Association’s guidance and may be adapted to respect cultural practices, food preferences and budgets to enable people to always eat this way, for the long term,” Dr. Gardner said in the release.
Vegan and low-fat diets (each with a score of 78) fell into the second tier.
Though these diets emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts while limiting alcohol and added sugars, the vegan diet is so restrictive that it could be challenging to follow long-term or when eating out and may increase the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, which can lead to anemia, the writing group notes.
There also are concerns that low-fat diets treat all fats equally, whereas the AHA guidance calls for replacing saturated fats with healthier fats, they point out.
The third tier includes the very low–fat diet (score 72) and low-carb diet (score 64), whereas the paleo and very low–carb/keto diets fall into the fourth tier, with the lowest scores of 53 and 31, respectively.
Dr. Gardner said that it’s important to note that all 10 diet patterns “share four positive characteristics: more veggies, more whole foods, less added sugars, less refined grains.”
“These are all areas for which Americans have substantial room for improvement, and these are all things that we could work on together. Progress across these aspects would make a large difference in the heart-healthiness of the U.S. diet,” he told this news organization.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An evidence-based analysis of 10 popular dietary patterns shows that some promote heart health better than others.
A new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes that the Mediterranean, Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH), pescatarian, and vegetarian eating patterns most strongly align with heart-healthy eating guidelines issued by the AHA in 2021, whereas the popular paleolithic (paleo) and ketogenic (keto) diets fall short.
“The good news for the public and their clinicians is that there are several dietary patterns that allow for substantial flexibility for following a heart healthy diet – DASH, Mediterranean, vegetarian,” writing-group chair Christopher Gardner, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.
“However, some of the popular diets – particularly paleo and keto – are so strictly restrictive of specific food groups that when these diets are followed as intended by their proponents, they are not aligned with the scientific evidence for a heart-healthy diet,” Dr. Gardner said.
The statement was published online in Circulation.
A tool for clinicians
“The number of different, popular dietary patterns has proliferated in recent years, and the amount of misinformation about them on social media has reached critical levels,” Dr. Gardner said in a news release.
“The public – and even many health care professionals – may rightfully be confused about heart-healthy eating, and they may feel that they don’t have the time or the training to evaluate the different diets. We hope this statement serves as a tool for clinicians and the public to understand which diets promote good cardiometabolic health,” he noted.
The writing group rated on a scale of 1-100 how well 10 popular diets or eating patterns align with AHA dietary advice for heart-healthy eating.
That advice includes consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; choosing mostly whole grains instead of refined grains; using liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils; eating healthy sources of protein, such as from plants, seafood, or lean meats; minimizing added sugars and salt; limiting alcohol; choosing minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods; and following this guidance wherever food is prepared or consumed.
The 10 diets/dietary patterns were DASH, Mediterranean-style, pescatarian, ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, very low–fat, low-carbohydrate, paleo, and very low–carbohydrate/keto patterns.
The diets were divided into four tiers on the basis of their scores, which ranged from a low of 31 to a high of 100.
Only the DASH eating plan got a perfect score of 100. This eating pattern is low in salt, added sugar, tropical oil, alcohol, and processed foods and high in nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Proteins are mostly plant-based, such as legumes, beans, or nuts, along with fish or seafood, lean poultry and meats, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.
The Mediterranean eating pattern achieved a slightly lower score of 89 because unlike DASH, it allows for moderate alcohol consumption and does not address added salt.
The other two top tier eating patterns were pescatarian, with a score of 92, and vegetarian, with a score of 86.
“If implemented as intended, the top-tier dietary patterns align best with the American Heart Association’s guidance and may be adapted to respect cultural practices, food preferences and budgets to enable people to always eat this way, for the long term,” Dr. Gardner said in the release.
Vegan and low-fat diets (each with a score of 78) fell into the second tier.
Though these diets emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts while limiting alcohol and added sugars, the vegan diet is so restrictive that it could be challenging to follow long-term or when eating out and may increase the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, which can lead to anemia, the writing group notes.
There also are concerns that low-fat diets treat all fats equally, whereas the AHA guidance calls for replacing saturated fats with healthier fats, they point out.
The third tier includes the very low–fat diet (score 72) and low-carb diet (score 64), whereas the paleo and very low–carb/keto diets fall into the fourth tier, with the lowest scores of 53 and 31, respectively.
Dr. Gardner said that it’s important to note that all 10 diet patterns “share four positive characteristics: more veggies, more whole foods, less added sugars, less refined grains.”
“These are all areas for which Americans have substantial room for improvement, and these are all things that we could work on together. Progress across these aspects would make a large difference in the heart-healthiness of the U.S. diet,” he told this news organization.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An evidence-based analysis of 10 popular dietary patterns shows that some promote heart health better than others.
A new American Heart Association scientific statement concludes that the Mediterranean, Dietary Approach to Stop Hypertension (DASH), pescatarian, and vegetarian eating patterns most strongly align with heart-healthy eating guidelines issued by the AHA in 2021, whereas the popular paleolithic (paleo) and ketogenic (keto) diets fall short.
“The good news for the public and their clinicians is that there are several dietary patterns that allow for substantial flexibility for following a heart healthy diet – DASH, Mediterranean, vegetarian,” writing-group chair Christopher Gardner, PhD, with Stanford (Calif.) University, told this news organization.
“However, some of the popular diets – particularly paleo and keto – are so strictly restrictive of specific food groups that when these diets are followed as intended by their proponents, they are not aligned with the scientific evidence for a heart-healthy diet,” Dr. Gardner said.
The statement was published online in Circulation.
A tool for clinicians
“The number of different, popular dietary patterns has proliferated in recent years, and the amount of misinformation about them on social media has reached critical levels,” Dr. Gardner said in a news release.
“The public – and even many health care professionals – may rightfully be confused about heart-healthy eating, and they may feel that they don’t have the time or the training to evaluate the different diets. We hope this statement serves as a tool for clinicians and the public to understand which diets promote good cardiometabolic health,” he noted.
The writing group rated on a scale of 1-100 how well 10 popular diets or eating patterns align with AHA dietary advice for heart-healthy eating.
That advice includes consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables; choosing mostly whole grains instead of refined grains; using liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils; eating healthy sources of protein, such as from plants, seafood, or lean meats; minimizing added sugars and salt; limiting alcohol; choosing minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods; and following this guidance wherever food is prepared or consumed.
The 10 diets/dietary patterns were DASH, Mediterranean-style, pescatarian, ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegan, low-fat, very low–fat, low-carbohydrate, paleo, and very low–carbohydrate/keto patterns.
The diets were divided into four tiers on the basis of their scores, which ranged from a low of 31 to a high of 100.
Only the DASH eating plan got a perfect score of 100. This eating pattern is low in salt, added sugar, tropical oil, alcohol, and processed foods and high in nonstarchy vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes. Proteins are mostly plant-based, such as legumes, beans, or nuts, along with fish or seafood, lean poultry and meats, and low-fat or fat-free dairy products.
The Mediterranean eating pattern achieved a slightly lower score of 89 because unlike DASH, it allows for moderate alcohol consumption and does not address added salt.
The other two top tier eating patterns were pescatarian, with a score of 92, and vegetarian, with a score of 86.
“If implemented as intended, the top-tier dietary patterns align best with the American Heart Association’s guidance and may be adapted to respect cultural practices, food preferences and budgets to enable people to always eat this way, for the long term,” Dr. Gardner said in the release.
Vegan and low-fat diets (each with a score of 78) fell into the second tier.
Though these diets emphasize fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and nuts while limiting alcohol and added sugars, the vegan diet is so restrictive that it could be challenging to follow long-term or when eating out and may increase the risk for vitamin B12 deficiency, which can lead to anemia, the writing group notes.
There also are concerns that low-fat diets treat all fats equally, whereas the AHA guidance calls for replacing saturated fats with healthier fats, they point out.
The third tier includes the very low–fat diet (score 72) and low-carb diet (score 64), whereas the paleo and very low–carb/keto diets fall into the fourth tier, with the lowest scores of 53 and 31, respectively.
Dr. Gardner said that it’s important to note that all 10 diet patterns “share four positive characteristics: more veggies, more whole foods, less added sugars, less refined grains.”
“These are all areas for which Americans have substantial room for improvement, and these are all things that we could work on together. Progress across these aspects would make a large difference in the heart-healthiness of the U.S. diet,” he told this news organization.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AHA backs screening for cognitive impairment after stroke
Screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“Cognitive impairment after stroke is very common, is associated with other post-stroke outcomes, and often has significant impact on the quality of life,” Nada El Husseini, MD, MHSc, chair of the scientific statement writing group, told this news organization.
“It is important to screen stroke survivors for cognitive impairment as well as for associated comorbidities such as mood and sleep disorders,” said Dr. El Husseini, associate professor of neurology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
The scientific statement was published online in Stroke. It’s the first to specifically focus on the cognitive impairment resulting from an overt stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic).
‘Actionable’ considerations for care
The writing group performed a “scoping” review of the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) to provide a framework for “actionable considerations” for clinical practice as well as to highlight gaps needing additional studies, Dr. El Husseini explained.
PSCI, ranging from mild to severe, occurs in up to 60% of stroke survivors in the first year after stroke; yet, it is often underreported and underdiagnosed, the writing group notes.
Up to 20% of stroke survivors who experience mild cognitive impairment fully recover cognitive function, and cognitive recovery is most likely within the first 6 months after a stroke.
However, improvement in cognitive impairment without return to prestroke levels is more frequent than is complete recovery. As many as one in three stroke survivors may develop dementia within 5 years of stroke.
The writing group also notes that PSCI is often associated with other conditions, including physical disability, sleep disorders, behavioral and personality changes, depression, and other neuropsychological changes – each of which may contribute to lower quality of life.
Currently, there is no “gold standard” for cognitive screening following stroke, but several brief cognitive screening tests, including the Mini–Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used to identify cognitive impairment after stroke.
The statement also highlights the importance of assessing cognitive changes over time after stroke. Stroke survivors who experience unexplained difficulties with cognitive-related activities of daily living, following care instructions, or providing a reliable health history may be candidates for additional cognitive screening.
Manage risk factors to prevent repeat stroke
“Anticipatory guidance regarding home and driving safety and, return to work (if applicable) along with interdisciplinary collaboration among different medical and ancillary specialists in the diagnosis and management of cognitive impairment is key for the holistic care of stroke survivors,” Dr. El Husseini told this news organization.
The multidisciplinary poststroke health care team could include neurologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, neuropsychologists, gerontologists, and primary care providers.
“Because recurrent stroke is strongly associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia, prevention of recurrent strokes should be sought to decrease that risk,” Dr. El Husseini said. This includes addressing stroke risk factors, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation.
The writing group says research is needed in the future to determine how cognitive impairment develops after stroke and the impact of nonbrain factors, including infection, frailty, and social factors.
Further research is also needed to determine best practices for cognitive screening after stroke, including the development and use of screening instruments that consider demographic, cultural, and linguistic factors in determining “normal” function.
“Perhaps the most pressing need, however, is the development of effective and culturally relevant treatments for poststroke cognitive impairment,” Dr. El Husseini said in a news release.
“We hope to see big enough clinical trials that assess various techniques, medications, and lifestyle changes in diverse groups of patients that may help improve cognitive function,” she added.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.
Screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“Cognitive impairment after stroke is very common, is associated with other post-stroke outcomes, and often has significant impact on the quality of life,” Nada El Husseini, MD, MHSc, chair of the scientific statement writing group, told this news organization.
“It is important to screen stroke survivors for cognitive impairment as well as for associated comorbidities such as mood and sleep disorders,” said Dr. El Husseini, associate professor of neurology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
The scientific statement was published online in Stroke. It’s the first to specifically focus on the cognitive impairment resulting from an overt stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic).
‘Actionable’ considerations for care
The writing group performed a “scoping” review of the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) to provide a framework for “actionable considerations” for clinical practice as well as to highlight gaps needing additional studies, Dr. El Husseini explained.
PSCI, ranging from mild to severe, occurs in up to 60% of stroke survivors in the first year after stroke; yet, it is often underreported and underdiagnosed, the writing group notes.
Up to 20% of stroke survivors who experience mild cognitive impairment fully recover cognitive function, and cognitive recovery is most likely within the first 6 months after a stroke.
However, improvement in cognitive impairment without return to prestroke levels is more frequent than is complete recovery. As many as one in three stroke survivors may develop dementia within 5 years of stroke.
The writing group also notes that PSCI is often associated with other conditions, including physical disability, sleep disorders, behavioral and personality changes, depression, and other neuropsychological changes – each of which may contribute to lower quality of life.
Currently, there is no “gold standard” for cognitive screening following stroke, but several brief cognitive screening tests, including the Mini–Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used to identify cognitive impairment after stroke.
The statement also highlights the importance of assessing cognitive changes over time after stroke. Stroke survivors who experience unexplained difficulties with cognitive-related activities of daily living, following care instructions, or providing a reliable health history may be candidates for additional cognitive screening.
Manage risk factors to prevent repeat stroke
“Anticipatory guidance regarding home and driving safety and, return to work (if applicable) along with interdisciplinary collaboration among different medical and ancillary specialists in the diagnosis and management of cognitive impairment is key for the holistic care of stroke survivors,” Dr. El Husseini told this news organization.
The multidisciplinary poststroke health care team could include neurologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, neuropsychologists, gerontologists, and primary care providers.
“Because recurrent stroke is strongly associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia, prevention of recurrent strokes should be sought to decrease that risk,” Dr. El Husseini said. This includes addressing stroke risk factors, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation.
The writing group says research is needed in the future to determine how cognitive impairment develops after stroke and the impact of nonbrain factors, including infection, frailty, and social factors.
Further research is also needed to determine best practices for cognitive screening after stroke, including the development and use of screening instruments that consider demographic, cultural, and linguistic factors in determining “normal” function.
“Perhaps the most pressing need, however, is the development of effective and culturally relevant treatments for poststroke cognitive impairment,” Dr. El Husseini said in a news release.
“We hope to see big enough clinical trials that assess various techniques, medications, and lifestyle changes in diverse groups of patients that may help improve cognitive function,” she added.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.
Screening for cognitive impairment should be part of multidisciplinary care for stroke survivors, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.
“Cognitive impairment after stroke is very common, is associated with other post-stroke outcomes, and often has significant impact on the quality of life,” Nada El Husseini, MD, MHSc, chair of the scientific statement writing group, told this news organization.
“It is important to screen stroke survivors for cognitive impairment as well as for associated comorbidities such as mood and sleep disorders,” said Dr. El Husseini, associate professor of neurology at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C.
The scientific statement was published online in Stroke. It’s the first to specifically focus on the cognitive impairment resulting from an overt stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic).
‘Actionable’ considerations for care
The writing group performed a “scoping” review of the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management of poststroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) to provide a framework for “actionable considerations” for clinical practice as well as to highlight gaps needing additional studies, Dr. El Husseini explained.
PSCI, ranging from mild to severe, occurs in up to 60% of stroke survivors in the first year after stroke; yet, it is often underreported and underdiagnosed, the writing group notes.
Up to 20% of stroke survivors who experience mild cognitive impairment fully recover cognitive function, and cognitive recovery is most likely within the first 6 months after a stroke.
However, improvement in cognitive impairment without return to prestroke levels is more frequent than is complete recovery. As many as one in three stroke survivors may develop dementia within 5 years of stroke.
The writing group also notes that PSCI is often associated with other conditions, including physical disability, sleep disorders, behavioral and personality changes, depression, and other neuropsychological changes – each of which may contribute to lower quality of life.
Currently, there is no “gold standard” for cognitive screening following stroke, but several brief cognitive screening tests, including the Mini–Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, are widely used to identify cognitive impairment after stroke.
The statement also highlights the importance of assessing cognitive changes over time after stroke. Stroke survivors who experience unexplained difficulties with cognitive-related activities of daily living, following care instructions, or providing a reliable health history may be candidates for additional cognitive screening.
Manage risk factors to prevent repeat stroke
“Anticipatory guidance regarding home and driving safety and, return to work (if applicable) along with interdisciplinary collaboration among different medical and ancillary specialists in the diagnosis and management of cognitive impairment is key for the holistic care of stroke survivors,” Dr. El Husseini told this news organization.
The multidisciplinary poststroke health care team could include neurologists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, nurses, neuropsychologists, gerontologists, and primary care providers.
“Because recurrent stroke is strongly associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia, prevention of recurrent strokes should be sought to decrease that risk,” Dr. El Husseini said. This includes addressing stroke risk factors, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and atrial fibrillation.
The writing group says research is needed in the future to determine how cognitive impairment develops after stroke and the impact of nonbrain factors, including infection, frailty, and social factors.
Further research is also needed to determine best practices for cognitive screening after stroke, including the development and use of screening instruments that consider demographic, cultural, and linguistic factors in determining “normal” function.
“Perhaps the most pressing need, however, is the development of effective and culturally relevant treatments for poststroke cognitive impairment,” Dr. El Husseini said in a news release.
“We hope to see big enough clinical trials that assess various techniques, medications, and lifestyle changes in diverse groups of patients that may help improve cognitive function,” she added.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Hypertension, and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.
New ACC guidance on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The 44-page document highlights the “critical need” to accurately diagnose HFpEF to permit timely implementation of evidence- and guideline-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.
Although the incidence of overall HF in the United States appears to be stable or declining, the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise in tandem with increasing age and burdens of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and cardiometabolic disorders.
HFpEF now accounts for more than one half of HF cases but remains “underrecognized” in everyday clinical practice, said the writing group, led by Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
HFpEF is a complex condition, often with multiple overlapping comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea; optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, the writing group said.
The ECDP on HFpEF lays out a structure for diagnosis, clinical decision-making, management of comorbidities, implementation of the latest guideline-directed medical therapy (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), and equitable delivery of care.
The document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
It aligns with and builds on recommendations from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
“HFpEF is one of the most pressing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical medicine today given its increasing prevalence, under diagnosis, poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and substantial burden on the health care system worldwide,” wrote the authors of a companion scientific statement on HFpEF.
Despite these challenges, the success of recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials has shown that HFpEF is treatable, Barry Borlaug, MD, department of cardiovascular medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors pointed out.
They noted that “ongoing large-scale studies of HFpEF pathobiology, an increasing number of translational studies spanning the gap between the bedside and the bench, and numerous clinical trials of novel therapeutics in HFpEF offer a glimpse of hope toward a future of reduced prevalence, morbidity, and mortality associated with HFpEF, which would be a major advance for population health.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The 44-page document highlights the “critical need” to accurately diagnose HFpEF to permit timely implementation of evidence- and guideline-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.
Although the incidence of overall HF in the United States appears to be stable or declining, the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise in tandem with increasing age and burdens of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and cardiometabolic disorders.
HFpEF now accounts for more than one half of HF cases but remains “underrecognized” in everyday clinical practice, said the writing group, led by Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
HFpEF is a complex condition, often with multiple overlapping comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea; optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, the writing group said.
The ECDP on HFpEF lays out a structure for diagnosis, clinical decision-making, management of comorbidities, implementation of the latest guideline-directed medical therapy (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), and equitable delivery of care.
The document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
It aligns with and builds on recommendations from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
“HFpEF is one of the most pressing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical medicine today given its increasing prevalence, under diagnosis, poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and substantial burden on the health care system worldwide,” wrote the authors of a companion scientific statement on HFpEF.
Despite these challenges, the success of recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials has shown that HFpEF is treatable, Barry Borlaug, MD, department of cardiovascular medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors pointed out.
They noted that “ongoing large-scale studies of HFpEF pathobiology, an increasing number of translational studies spanning the gap between the bedside and the bench, and numerous clinical trials of novel therapeutics in HFpEF offer a glimpse of hope toward a future of reduced prevalence, morbidity, and mortality associated with HFpEF, which would be a major advance for population health.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
The 44-page document highlights the “critical need” to accurately diagnose HFpEF to permit timely implementation of evidence- and guideline-based therapies to improve patient outcomes.
Although the incidence of overall HF in the United States appears to be stable or declining, the incidence of HFpEF continues to rise in tandem with increasing age and burdens of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and cardiometabolic disorders.
HFpEF now accounts for more than one half of HF cases but remains “underrecognized” in everyday clinical practice, said the writing group, led by Michelle Kittleson, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles.
HFpEF is a complex condition, often with multiple overlapping comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea; optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, the writing group said.
The ECDP on HFpEF lays out a structure for diagnosis, clinical decision-making, management of comorbidities, implementation of the latest guideline-directed medical therapy (pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic), and equitable delivery of care.
The document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
It aligns with and builds on recommendations from the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.
“HFpEF is one of the most pressing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in clinical medicine today given its increasing prevalence, under diagnosis, poor prognosis, limited therapeutic options, and substantial burden on the health care system worldwide,” wrote the authors of a companion scientific statement on HFpEF.
Despite these challenges, the success of recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials has shown that HFpEF is treatable, Barry Borlaug, MD, department of cardiovascular medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and coauthors pointed out.
They noted that “ongoing large-scale studies of HFpEF pathobiology, an increasing number of translational studies spanning the gap between the bedside and the bench, and numerous clinical trials of novel therapeutics in HFpEF offer a glimpse of hope toward a future of reduced prevalence, morbidity, and mortality associated with HFpEF, which would be a major advance for population health.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
AHA statement targets nuance in CVD risk assessment of women
In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.
They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.
The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
Look beyond traditional risk factors
“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release.
“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.
Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.
Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.
The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.
“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.
“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
No one-size-fits-all approach
The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.
It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.
“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.
“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.
Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.
They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.
They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.
The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
Look beyond traditional risk factors
“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release.
“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.
Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.
Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.
The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.
“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.
“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
No one-size-fits-all approach
The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.
It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.
“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.
“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.
Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.
They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new scientific statement, the American Heart Association highlighted the importance of incorporating nonbiological risk factors and social determinants of health in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment for women, particularly women from different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
CVD risk assessment in women is multifaceted and goes well beyond traditional risk factors to include sex-specific biological risk factors, as well as social, behavioral, and environmental factors, the writing group noted.
They said a greater focus on addressing all CVD risk factors among women from underrepresented races and ethnicities is warranted to avert future CVD.
The scientific statement was published online in Circulation.
Look beyond traditional risk factors
“Risk assessment is the first step in preventing heart disease, yet there are many limitations to traditional risk factors and their ability to comprehensively estimate a woman’s risk for cardiovascular disease,” Jennifer H. Mieres, MD, vice chair of the writing group and professor of cardiology at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said in a news release.
“The delivery of equitable cardiovascular health care for women depends on improving the knowledge and awareness of all members of the healthcare team about the full spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors for women, including female-specific and female-predominant risk factors,” Dr. Mieres added.
Female-specific factors that should be included in CVD risk assessment include pregnancy-related conditions such as preeclampsia, preterm delivery, and gestational diabetes, the writing group said.
Other factors include menstrual cycle history; types of birth control and/or hormone replacement therapy used; polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), which affects 10% of women of reproductive age and is associated with increased CVD risk; and autoimmune disorders, depression, and PTSD, all of which are more common in women and are also associated with higher risk for CVD.
The statement also highlights the key role that social determinants of health (SDOH) play in the development of CVD in women, particularly women from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. SDOH include education level, economic stability, neighborhood safety, working conditions, environmental hazards, and access to quality health care.
“It is critical that risk assessment be expanded to include [SDOH] as risk factors if we are to improve health outcomes in all women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, chair of the writing group and director of preventative cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in the news release.
“It is also important for the health care team to consider [SDOH] when working with women on shared decisions about cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Mehta noted.
No one-size-fits-all approach
The statement highlighted significant differences in CVD risk among women of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and provides detailed CV risk factor profiles for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian and American Indian/Alaska Native women.
It noted that language barriers, discrimination, acculturation, and health care access disproportionately affect women of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. These factors result in a higher prevalence of CVD and significant challenges in CVD diagnosis and treatment.
“When customizing CVD prevention and treatment strategies to improve cardiovascular health for women, a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to be successful,” Dr. Mieres said.
“We must be cognizant of the complex interplay of sex, race and ethnicity, as well as social determinants of health, and how they impact the risk of cardiovascular disease and adverse outcomes in order to avert future CVD morbidity and mortality,” Dr. Mieres added.
Looking ahead, the writing group said future CVD prevention guidelines could be strengthened by including culturally-specific lifestyle recommendations.
They also said community-based approaches, faith-based community partnerships, and peer support to encourage a healthy lifestyle could play a key role in preventing CVD among all women.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Underrepresented Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and the Stroke Council.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
New ASE guideline on interventional echocardiography training
The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).
The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.
The 16-page guideline was published online in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
Specific skill set
IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.
They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.
“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.
“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.
The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.
It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.
A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.
“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.
“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.
In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.
Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.
The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.
Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).
The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.
The 16-page guideline was published online in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
Specific skill set
IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.
They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.
“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.
“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.
The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.
It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.
A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.
“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.
“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.
In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.
Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.
The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.
Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).
The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.
The 16-page guideline was published online in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
Specific skill set
IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.
They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.
“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.
“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.
The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.
It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.
A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.
“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.
“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.
In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.
Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.
The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.
Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management released
New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.
Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.
“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“But I would strongly argue that I would use cannabis-based medicine over opioids every time. Why would you use a high potency-high toxicity agent when there’s a low potency-low toxicity alternative?” he said.
The guidelines were published online in the journal Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.
Examining the evidence
A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.
Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.
Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.
When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.
In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.
The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.
Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.
An effective alternative
Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.
“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”
Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.
“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”
While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.
Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.
“When we have an opportunity to use cannabinoids in place of opioids for our patients, I think that that’s a positive thing ... and a wise choice in terms of risk benefit,” Dr. Gilligan said.
On the other hand, he cautioned that “freely prescribing” cannabinoids for chronic pain in patients who aren’t on opioids is not good practice.
“We have to take seriously the potential adverse effects of [cannabis], including marijuana use disorder, interference with learning, memory impairment, and psychotic breakthroughs,” said Dr. Gilligan.
Given the current climate, it would appear that CBM is a long way from being endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration, but for clinicians interested in trying CBM for chronic pain patients, the guidelines may offer a roadmap for initiation and an alternative to prescribing opioids.
Dr. Bell, Dr. Gilligan, and Dr. Wallace report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.
Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.
“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“But I would strongly argue that I would use cannabis-based medicine over opioids every time. Why would you use a high potency-high toxicity agent when there’s a low potency-low toxicity alternative?” he said.
The guidelines were published online in the journal Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.
Examining the evidence
A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.
Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.
Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.
When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.
In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.
The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.
Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.
An effective alternative
Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.
“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”
Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.
“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”
While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.
Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.
“When we have an opportunity to use cannabinoids in place of opioids for our patients, I think that that’s a positive thing ... and a wise choice in terms of risk benefit,” Dr. Gilligan said.
On the other hand, he cautioned that “freely prescribing” cannabinoids for chronic pain in patients who aren’t on opioids is not good practice.
“We have to take seriously the potential adverse effects of [cannabis], including marijuana use disorder, interference with learning, memory impairment, and psychotic breakthroughs,” said Dr. Gilligan.
Given the current climate, it would appear that CBM is a long way from being endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration, but for clinicians interested in trying CBM for chronic pain patients, the guidelines may offer a roadmap for initiation and an alternative to prescribing opioids.
Dr. Bell, Dr. Gilligan, and Dr. Wallace report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New clinical practice guidelines for cannabis in chronic pain management have been released.
Developed by a group of Canadian researchers, clinicians, and patients, the guidelines note that cannabinoid-based medicines (CBM) may help clinicians offer an effective, less addictive, alternative to opioids in patients with chronic noncancer pain and comorbid conditions.
“We don’t recommend using CBM first line for anything pretty much because there are other alternatives that may be more effective and also offer fewer side effects,” lead guideline author Alan Bell, MD, assistant professor of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto, told this news organization.
“But I would strongly argue that I would use cannabis-based medicine over opioids every time. Why would you use a high potency-high toxicity agent when there’s a low potency-low toxicity alternative?” he said.
The guidelines were published online in the journal Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research.
Examining the evidence
A consistent criticism of CBM has been the lack of quality research supporting its therapeutic utility. To develop the current recommendations, the task force reviewed 47 pain management studies enrolling more than 11,000 patients. Almost half of the studies (n = 22) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 of the 19 included systematic reviews focused solely on RCTs.
Overall, 38 of the 47 included studies demonstrated that CBM provided at least moderate benefits for chronic pain, resulting in a “strong” recommendation – mostly as an adjunct or replacement treatment in individuals living with chronic pain.
Overall, the guidelines place a high value on improving chronic pain and functionality, and addressing co-occurring conditions such as insomnia, anxiety and depression, mobility, and inflammation. They also provide practical dosing and formulation tips to support the use of CBM in the clinical setting.
When it comes to chronic pain, CBM is not a panacea. However, prior research suggests cannabinoids and opioids share several pharmacologic properties, including independent but possibly related mechanisms for antinociception, making them an intriguing combination.
In the current guidelines, all of the four studies specifically addressing combined opioids and vaporized cannabis flower demonstrated further pain reduction, reinforcing the conclusion that the benefits of CBM for improving pain control in patients taking opioids outweigh the risk of nonserious adverse events (AEs), such as dry mouth, dizziness, increased appetite, sedation, and concentration difficulties.
The recommendations also highlighted evidence demonstrating that a majority of participants were able to reduce use of routine pain medications with concomitant CBM/opioid administration, while simultaneously offering secondary benefits such as improved sleep, anxiety, and mood, as well as prevention of opioid tolerance and dose escalation.
Importantly, the guidelines offer an evidence-based algorithm with a clear framework for tapering patients off opioids, especially those who are on > 50 mg MED, which places them with a twofold greater risk for fatal overdose.
An effective alternative
Commenting on the new guidelines, Mark Wallace, MD, who has extensive experience researching and treating pain patients with medical cannabis, said the genesis of his interest in medical cannabis mirrors the guidelines’ focus.
“What got me interested in medical cannabis was trying to get patients off of opioids,” said Dr. Wallace, professor of anesthesiology and chief of the division of pain medicine in the department of anesthesiology at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Wallace, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development study, said that he’s “titrated hundreds of patients off of opioids using cannabis.”
Dr. Wallace said he found the guidelines’ dosing recommendations helpful.
“If you stay within the 1- to 5-mg dosing range, the risks are so incredibly low, you’re not going to harm the patient.”
While there are patients who abuse cannabis and CBMs, Dr. Wallace noted that he has seen only one patient in the past 20 years who was overusing the medical cannabis. He added that his patient population does not use medical cannabis to get high and, in fact, wants to avoid doses that produce that effect at all costs.
Also commenting on the guidelines, Christopher Gilligan, MD, MBA, associate chief medical officer and a pain medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who was not involved in the guidelines’ development, points to the risks.
“When we have an opportunity to use cannabinoids in place of opioids for our patients, I think that that’s a positive thing ... and a wise choice in terms of risk benefit,” Dr. Gilligan said.
On the other hand, he cautioned that “freely prescribing” cannabinoids for chronic pain in patients who aren’t on opioids is not good practice.
“We have to take seriously the potential adverse effects of [cannabis], including marijuana use disorder, interference with learning, memory impairment, and psychotic breakthroughs,” said Dr. Gilligan.
Given the current climate, it would appear that CBM is a long way from being endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration, but for clinicians interested in trying CBM for chronic pain patients, the guidelines may offer a roadmap for initiation and an alternative to prescribing opioids.
Dr. Bell, Dr. Gilligan, and Dr. Wallace report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANNABIS AND CANNABINOID RESEARCH
New update on left atrial appendage closure recommendations
An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.
The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.
The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”
Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”
“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”
13 recommendations
In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:
- Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
- Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
- To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
- On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
- Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
- Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
- Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
- Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
- Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
- Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
- Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
- Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
- TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.
The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.
“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.
Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”
The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.
But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”
Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”
Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”
Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.
Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.
An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.
The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.
The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”
Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”
“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”
13 recommendations
In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:
- Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
- Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
- To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
- On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
- Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
- Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
- Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
- Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
- Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
- Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
- Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
- Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
- TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.
The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.
“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.
Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”
The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.
But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”
Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”
Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”
Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.
Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.
An updated consensus statement on transcatheter left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has put a newfound focus on patient selection for the procedure, specifically recommending that the procedure is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who have risk for thromboembolism, aren’t well suited for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have a good chance of living for at least another year.
The statement, published online in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, also makes recommendations for how much experience operators should have, how many procedures they should perform to keep their skills up, and when and how to use imaging and prescribe DOACs, among other suggestions.
The statement represents the first updated guidance for LAAC since 2015. “Since then this field has really expanded and evolved,” writing group chair Jacqueline Saw, MD, said in an interview. “For instance, the indications are more matured and specific, and the procedural technical steps have matured. Imaging has also advanced, there’s more understanding about postprocedural care and there are also new devices that have been approved.”
Dr. Saw, an interventional cardiologist at Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital, and a professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, called the statement “a piece that puts everything together.”
“This document really summarizes the whole practice for doing transcatheter procedures,” she added, “so it’s all-in-one document in terms of recommendation of who we do the procedure for, how we should do it, how we should image and guide the procedure, and what complications to look out for and how to manage patients post procedure, be it with antithrombotic therapy and/or device surveillance.”
13 recommendations
In all, the statement carries 13 recommendations for LAAC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions and the Heart Rhythm Society commissioned the writing group. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography have endorsed the statement. The following are among the recommendations:
- Transcatheter LAAC is appropriate for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with high thromboembolic risk but for whom long-term oral anticoagulation may be contraindicated and who have at least 1 year’s life expectancy.
- Operators should have performed at least 50 prior left-sided ablations or structural procedures and at least 25 transseptal punctures (TSPs). Interventional-imaging physicians should have experience in guiding 25 or more TSPs before supporting LAAC procedures independently.
- To maintain skills, operators should do 25 or more TSPs and at least 12 LAACs over each 2-year period.
- On-site cardiovascular surgery backup should be available for new programs and for operators early in their learning curve.
- Baseline imaging with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography should be performed before LAAC.
- Intraprocedural imaging guidance with TEE or intracardiac echocardiography.
- Follow labeling of each specific LAAC device for technical aspects of the procedure.
- Familiarity with avoiding, recognizing, and managing LAAC complications.
- Predischarge 2-dimensional TEE to rule out pericardial effusion and device embolization.
- Anticoagulation for device-related thrombus.
- Make all efforts to minimize peridevice leaks during implantation because their clinical impact and management isn’t well understood.
- Antithrombotic therapy with warfarin, DOAC, or dual-antiplatelet therapy after LAAC based on the studied regimen and instructions for each specific device, tailored to the bleeding risks for each patient.
- TEE or cardiac computed tomography at 45-90 days after LAAC for device surveillance to assess for peridevice leak and device-related thrombus.
The statement also includes precautionary recommendations. It advises against using routine closure of LAAC-associated iatrogenic atrial septal defects and states that combined procedures with LAAC, such as structural interventions and pulmonary vein isolation, should be avoided because randomized controlled trial data are pending.
“These recommendations are based upon data from updated publications and randomized trial data as well as large registries, including the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, so I think this is a very practical statement that puts all these pieces together for any budding interventionalist doing this procedure and even experienced operations,” Dr. Saw said.
Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed that the “rigorous standards” set out in the statement will help maintain “a high level of procedural safety in the setting of rapid expansion.”
The editorialists, Faisal M. Merchant, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., point out that the incidence of pericardial effusion has decreased from more than 5% in the pivotal Watchman trials to less than 1.5% in the most recent report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, which shows that more than 100,000 procedures have been performed in the United States.
But most important as the field moves forward, they stress, is patient selection. The recommendation of limiting patients to those with a life expectancy of 1 year “is a tacit recognition of the fact that the benefits of LAAC take time to accrue, and many older and frail patients are unlikely to derive meaningful benefit.”
Dr. Merchant and Dr. Alkhouli also note that there remains a conundrum in patient selection that remains from the original LAAC trials, which enrolled patients who were eligible for anticoagulation. “Somewhat paradoxically, after its approval, LAAC is mostly prescribed to patients who are not felt to be good anticoagulation candidates.” This leaves physicians “in the precarious position of extrapolating data to patients who were excluded from the original clinical trials.”
Therefore, the consensus statement “is right to put patient selection front and center in its recommendations, but as the field of LAAC comes of age, better evidence to support patient selection will be the real sign of maturity.”
Dr. Saw said she envisions another update over the next 2 years or so as ongoing clinical trials comparing DOAC and LAAC, namely the CHAMPION-AF and OPTION trials, report results.
Dr. Saw and Dr. Merchant, reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Alkhouli has financial ties to Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Philips.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CARDIOVASCULAR ANGIOGRAPHY & INTERVENTIONS
New AHA statement on pediatric primary hypertension issued
the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.
“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted.
The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.
Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.
The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.
Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.
They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.
When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.
Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).
“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.
“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.
The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.
Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.
A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.
Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.
“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted.
The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.
Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.
The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.
Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.
They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.
When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.
Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).
“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.
“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.
The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.
Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.
A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.
Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
the American Heart Association said in a new scientific statement.
“Children can have secondary hypertension that is caused by an underlying condition such as chronic kidney disease, endocrine disorders, cardiac anomalies, and some syndromes. However, primary hypertension is now recognized as the most common type of hypertension in childhood,” Bonita Falkner, MD, chair of the writing group and emeritus professor of medicine and pediatrics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.
And hypertensive children are “highly likely” to become hypertensive adults and to have measurable target organ injury, particularly left ventricular hypertrophy and vascular stiffening, the writing group noted.
The AHA statement on primary pediatric hypertension was published online in Hypertension.
Primary or essential hypertension occurs in up to 5% of children and adolescents in the United States and other countries.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), European Society of Hypertension and Hypertension Canada all define hypertension as repeated BP readings at or above the 95th percentile for children, but the thresholds differ by age.
The AAP adopts 130/80 mm Hg starting at age 13 years; the European Society of Hypertension adopts 140/90 mm Hg starting at age 16 years; and Hypertension Canada adopts 120/80 mm Hg for those aged 6-11 years and 130/85 mm Hg for those aged 12-17 years.
Adolescents entering adulthood with a BP < 120/80 mm Hg is an optimal goal, the writing group advised.
They recommend that health care professionals be trained on evidence-based methods to obtain accurate and reliable BP values with either auscultatory or oscillometric methods.
When the initial BP measurement is abnormal, repeat measurement by auscultation is recommended, within the same visit if possible, and then within weeks if the screening BP is hypertensive, or months if the screening BP is elevated.
Because BP levels are variable, even within a single visit, “best practice” is to obtain up to three BP measurements and to record the average of the latter two measurements unless the first measurement is normal, the writing group said. Further confirmation of diagnosis of hypertension can be obtained with 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).
“Primary hypertension in youth is difficult to recognize in asymptomatic, otherwise healthy youth. There is now evidence that children and adolescents with primary hypertension may also have cardiac and vascular injury due to the hypertension,” Dr. Falkner told this news organization.
“If not identified and treated, the condition can progress to hypertension in young adulthood with heightened risk of premature cardiovascular events,” Dr. Falkner said.
The writing group said “primordial prevention” is an important public health goal because a population with lower BP will have fewer comorbidities related to hypertension and CVD.
Modifiable risk factors for primary hypertension in childhood include obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet/nutrition, disturbed sleep patterns, and environmental stress.
A healthy lifestyle in childhood – including eating healthy food, encouraging physical activity that leads to improved physical fitness and healthy sleep, and avoiding the development of obesity – may help mitigate the risk of hypertension in childhood, the writing group noted.
Looking ahead, they said efforts to improve recognition and diagnosis of high BP in children, as well as clinical trials to evaluate medical treatment and recommend public health initiatives, are all vital to combat rising rates of primary hypertension in children.
This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Council on Hypertension, the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young, the Council on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM HYPERTENSION