Acute Coronary Syndromes

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

You may have been warned that ultra-processed foods can wreak havoc on your health. But not all of them are created equal. 

A new study out of The Lancet Regional Health – Americas looked at different types of ultra-processed foods and found that some were even linked with lower risks of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and stroke, 

“Avoiding all ultra-processed foods is not practical for most people,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, a cardiologist, public health scientist, and director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts. “So, it is helpful to start to understand, within the category of all processing, what food might be more or less harmful.”

Researchers analyzed food questionnaires from three large groups of US adults, with most people in their review being White and female. The study found that sugary and artificially sweetened drinks, along with processed meats, were linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. But cereals, savory snacks, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts were linked to a lower risk of these diseases. Ultra-processed cereals and breads were also linked to a lower stroke risk. 
 

The Truth About Processed Meat

Studies show that cured, salted, or smoked meats are linked to certain cancers.

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with metabolic derangement for things like higher glucose levels, insulin resistance, visceral obesity, prediabetes, diabetes, and higher triglycerides,” said Ashish Sarraju, MD, a cardiologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “Added sugars associated with all of those things are in turn risk factors for heart disease.” Sugar-sweetened beverages are often very high in sugar, artificial colors, and other additives, and almost “nothing beneficial” in terms of ingredients, Dr. Mozaffarian said. “They’re also consumed in very high doses, very quickly.”

Processed meats have 400% higher levels of salt, compared with unprocessed meats, said Dr. Mozaffarian. They also contain high levels of added nitrates, which are a carcinogen that could also affect the heart and blood vessels. Certain ultra-processed foods, such as bacon, are often fried at sky-high temperatures, which can trigger inflammatory compounds. 

“If you put together the inflammatory effects, the salt, and the nitrates, this is a package of food that can really build to cause harm,” said Dr. Mozaffarian. The World Health Organization has also classified processed meats (bacon, ham, salami) as a group one carcinogen, he noted.

“Processed meats are typically high in saturated fats, sodium, and preservatives, which can increase blood pressure, promote inflammation, and negatively affect cholesterol levels, leading to a higher risk of coronary heart disease, said Joseph A. Daibes, DO, an interventional cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. “The study underscores the importance of limiting these types of foods to reduce cardiovascular risk.”

But considering that breakfast cereals – albeit highly processed – are a top source of whole grains for Americans, it makes sense that they are linked with lower risk of heart disease, said Dr. Mozaffarian. 

“They have fiber, bran, whole grains, and they also have sugar, and additives,” he said. “But on average, putting all those things together, this study suggested that the net effect is beneficial. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be more beneficial if we made them less processed, but they don’t seem to have harm.”

The active probiotics and fermentation in yogurt can make it a healthy snack of choice, as there has been more and more research showing that fermented foods with probiotics are good for heart health and work against metabolic disease, or a cluster of conditions that can increase the risk of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Savory snacks, cereals, and yogurt and dairy-based desserts may also be less calorie dense than sugary beverages and processed meats, said Dr. Daibes. 

“Additionally, the type of fat used in savory snacks and the presence of probiotics in yogurt may have neutral or even positive effects on heart health, as opposed to the harmful fats and additives found in many ultra-processed foods,” he said.
 

How Ultra-Processed Foods Can Harm Your Health 

There are “clear and concerning links” between eating ultra-processed foods and getting heart disease, according to Dr. Daibes. “In real-life clinical practice, it’s a rather clear and straightforward relationship – the patients who tend to have poorer diets, with more ultra-processed and nutrient-barren foods, tend to have worse health outcomes, both cardiovascular and otherwise.”

Processing foods is centered on breaking down the natural structures of foods, as well as the loss of their natural nutrients, Dr. Mozaffarian explained. When you include the word “ultra,” this refers to putting in industrial additives.

“I think refined starches (such as wheat, corn, and rice) and sugars are some of the biggest harms because it leads to a big spike in blood glucose,” Dr. Mozaffarian said. “But also, those refined starches and sugars are digested so quickly in the stomach and small intestine that you starve your gut bacteria in your large intestines.” 

Many “good-for-you ingredients,” such as fermentable fibers and bio-active compounds, are found in unprocessed, whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, and seeds, noted Dr. Mozaffarian. High levels of salt in ultra-processed foods are another cause for concern, as are other additives such as artificial flavorings, sweeteners, and thickeners. 
 

Opting for Whole Foods

There may be people looking to eat cleaner, unprocessed foods, but high cost and a lack of access to them could create challenges. Dr. Sarraju advises his patients to simply do their best to eat foods in their whole-ingredient form and avoid prepackaged foods as much as possible.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

For older adults with obesity, bariatric surgery does not appear to significantly reduce the risk for obesity-related cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD), as it does in younger adults.

METHODOLOGY:

• Bariatric surgery has been shown to decrease the risk for obesity-related cancer and CVD but is typically reserved for patients aged < 60 years. Whether the same holds for patients who undergo surgery at older ages is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed nationwide data from three countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) to compare patients with no history of cancer or CVD and age ≥ 60 years who underwent bariatric surgery against matched controls who received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• The main outcome was obesity-related cancer, defined as a composite outcome of breast, endometrial, esophageal, colorectal, and kidney cancer. The secondary outcome was CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage.
• Analyses were adjusted for diabetes, hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, kidney disease, and frailty.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 15,300 patients (66.4% women) included, 2550 underwent bariatric surgery (including gastric bypass in 1930) and 12,750 matched controls received nonoperative treatment for obesity.
• During a median 5.8 years of follow-up, 658 (4.3%) people developed obesity-related cancer and 1436 (9.4%) developed CVD.
• Bariatric surgery in adults aged ≥ 60 years was not associated with a reduced risk for obesity-related cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81) or CVD (HR, 0.86) compared with matched nonoperative controls.
• Bariatric surgery appeared to be associated with a decreased risk for obesity-related cancer in women (HR, 0.76).
• There was a decreased risk for both obesity-related cancer (HR, 0.74) and CVD (HR, 0.82) in patients who underwent gastric bypass.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings from this study suggest a limited role of bariatric surgery in older patients for the prevention of obesity-related cancer or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote, noting that this “may be explained by the poorer weight loss and resolution of comorbidities observed in patients who underwent surgery at an older age.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Peter Gerber, MD, PhD, Department of Surgery, Capio St Göran’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Data on smoking status and body mass index were not available. The observational design limited the ability to draw causal inferences. The null association between bariatric surgery and outcomes may be due to limited power.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ability to save cardiac muscle during an acute coronary syndrome with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) made cardiology one of the most popular fields in medicine.

But acute coronary syndromes come in different categories. While rapid PCI clearly benefits patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the best use of angiography and PCI for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is more complex.

The evidence for early invasive vs conservative strategies in patients with NSTEMI is mixed. There have been many trials and meta-analyses, and generally, outcomes are similar with either approach. Perhaps if one looks with enough optimism, there is a benefit for the more aggressive approach in higher-risk patients.

Despite the similar outcomes with the two strategies, most patients are treated with the early invasive approach. Early and invasive fit the spirit of modern cardiology.

Yet, older patients with acute coronary syndromes present a different challenge. NSTEMI trials, like most trials, enrolled mostly younger adults. 

Whether evidence obtained in young people applies to older patients is one of the most common and important questions in all of medical practice. Older patients may be at higher risk for a primary outcome, but they also have greater risks for harm from therapy as well as more competing causes of morbidity and mortality. 

Only a handful of smaller trials have enrolled older patients with NSTEMI. These trials have produced little evidence that an early invasive approach should be preferred.
 

The SENIOR-RITA Trial

At ESC, Vijay Kunadian, MD, from Newcastle, England, presented results of SENIOR-RITA, a large trial comparing an invasive vs conservative strategy in NSTEMI patients 75 years of age or older. 

In the conservative arm, coronary angiography was allowed if the patient deteriorated and the procedure was clinically indicated in the judgment of the treating physicians.

Slightly more than 1500 patients with NSTEMI were randomly assigned to either strategy in 48 centers in the United Kingdom. Their mean age was 82 years, nearly half were women, and about a third were frail. 

Over 4 years of follow-up, the primary outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or MI occurred at a similar rate in both arms: 25.6% vs 26.3% for invasive vs conservative, respectively (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P =.53). 

Rates of CV death were also not significantly different (15.8% vs 14.2%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.44). 

The rate of nonfatal MI was slightly lower in the invasive arm (11.7% vs 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.99).

Some other notable findings: Fewer than half of patients in the invasive arm underwent revascularization. Coronary angiography was done in about a quarter of patients in the conservative arm, and revascularization in only 14%. 

Comments

Because medicine has improved and patients live longer, cardiologists increasingly see older adults with frailty. It’s important to study these patients. 

The authors tell us that 1 in 5 patients screened were enrolled, and those not enrolled were similar in age and were treated nearly equally with either strategy. Not all trials offer this information; it’s important because knowing that patients in a trial are representative helps us translate evidence to our actual patients. 

Another positive was the investigators’ smart choice of cardiovascular death and MI as their primary outcome. Strategy trials are usually open label. If they had included an outcome that requires a decision from a clinician, such as unplanned revascularization, then bias becomes a possibility when patients and clinicians are aware of the treatment assignment. (I wrote about poor endpoint choice in the ABYSS trial.) 

The most notable finding in SENIOR-RITA was that approximately 76% of patients in the conservative arm did not have a coronary angiogram and 86% were not revascularized. 

Yet, the rate of CV death and MI were similar during 4 years of follow-up. This observation is nearly identical to the findings in chronic stable disease, seen in the ISCHEMIA trial. (See Figure 6a in the paper’s supplement.) 

I take two messages from this consistent observation: One is that medical therapy is quite good at treating coronary artery disease not associated with acute vessel closure in STEMI. 

The other is that using coronary angiography and revascularization as a bailout, in only a fraction of cases, achieves the same result, so the conservative strategy should be preferred.

I am not sure that the SENIOR-RITA researchers see it this way. They write in their discussion that “clinicians are often reluctant to offer an invasive strategy to frail older adults.” They then remind readers that modern PCI techniques (radial approach) have low rates of adverse events. 

Perhaps I misread their message, but that paragraph seemed like it was reinforcing our tendency to offer invasive approaches to patients with NSTEMI. 

I feel differently. When a trial reports similar outcomes with two strategies, I think we should favor the one with less intervention. I feel even more strongly about this philosophy in older patients with frailty.

Are we not in the business of helping people with the least amount of intervention?

The greatest challenge for the cardiologist of today is not a lack of treatment options, but whether we should use all options in older, frailer adults. 

Good on the SENIOR-RITA investigators, for they have shown that we can avoid intervention in the vast majority of older adults presenting with NSTEMI. 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Kentucky, and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Current use of hydroxychloroquine is associated with a lower risk for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and other thromboembolic events in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This protective effect diminishes after discontinuation of hydroxychloroquine treatment.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used a nested case-control design to evaluate the association between exposure to hydroxychloroquine and the risk for cardiovascular events in patients with SLE.
• They included 52,883 adults with SLE (mean age, 44.23 years; 86.6% women) identified from the National System of Health Databases, which includes 99% of the French population.
• Among these, 1981 individuals with composite cardiovascular conditions were matched with 16,892 control individuals without cardiovascular conditions.
• Patients were categorized on the basis of hydroxychloroquine exposure into current users (last exposure within 90 days before a cardiovascular event), remote users (91-365 days before), and nonusers (no exposure within 365 days).
• The study outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular events, including MI, stroke (including transient ischemic attack), and other thromboembolic events such as phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, venous thrombosis, venous thromboembolism, and pulmonary embolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• Current hydroxychloroquine users had lower odds of experiencing a composite cardiovascular outcome than nonusers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.70).
• The odds of MI (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.87), stroke (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.83), and other thromboembolic events (aOR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69) were also lower among current users than among nonusers.
• No significant association was found for remote hydroxychloroquine exposure and the risk for composite cardiovascular events, MI, stroke, and other thromboembolic events.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings support the protective association of hydroxychloroquine against CV [cardiovascular] events and underscore the importance of continuous hydroxychloroquine therapy for patients diagnosed with SLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lamiae Grimaldi-Bensouda, PharmD, PhD, Department of Pharmacology, Hospital Group Paris-Saclay, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, France. It was published online on August 30, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of the study may have introduced confounding. Current hydroxychloroquine users were younger than nonusers, with an average age difference of almost 5 years. Current hydroxychloroquine users had a twofold longer duration of onset of SLE and had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease compared with nonusers.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Banque pour l’Investissement, Deeptech. Some authors declared having financial ties with various institutions and companies outside of the current study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher resting heart rate, even within the normal range, is linked to an increased risk for mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with non–dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODOLOGY:

• An elevated resting heart rate is an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population; however, the correlation between heart rate and mortality in patients with CKD is unclear.
• Researchers analyzed the longitudinal data of patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD enrolled in the Fukushima CKD Cohort Study to investigate the association between resting heart rate and adverse clinical outcomes.
• The patient cohort was stratified into four groups on the basis of resting heart rates: < 70, 70-79, 80-89, and ≥ 90 beats/min.
• The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, respectively, the latter category including myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers enrolled 1353 patients with non–dialysis-dependent CKD (median age, 65 years; 56.7% men; median estimated glomerular filtration rate, 52.2 mL/min/1.73 m²) who had a median heart rate of 76 beats/min.
• During the median observation period of 4.9 years, 123 patients died and 163 developed cardiovascular events.
• Compared with patients with a resting heart rate < 70 beats/min, those with a resting heart rate of 80-89 and ≥ 90 beats/min had an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.74 and 2.61 for all-cause mortality, respectively.
• Similarly, the risk for cardiovascular events was higher in patients with a heart rate of 80-89 beats/min than in those with a heart rate < 70 beats/min (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study supported the idea that reducing heart rate might be effective for CKD patients with a heart rate ≥ 70/min, since the lowest risk of mortality was seen in patients with heart rate < 70/min,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hirotaka Saito, Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima City, Japan. It was published online in Scientific Reports.

LIMITATIONS:

Heart rate was measured using a standard sphygmomanometer or an automated device, rather than an electrocardiograph, which may have introduced measurement variability. The observational nature of the study precluded the establishment of cause-and-effect relationships between heart rate and clinical outcomes. Additionally, variables such as lifestyle factors, underlying health conditions, and socioeconomic factors were not measured, which could have affected the results. 

DISCLOSURES:

Some authors received research funding from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Kowa Pharmaceutical, Ono Pharmaceutical, and other sources. They declared having no competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Xanthelasma palpebrarum, characterized by yellowish plaques on the eyelids, is not associated with increased rates of dyslipidemia or cardiovascular disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case-control study at a single tertiary care center in Israel and analyzed data from 35,452 individuals (mean age, 52.2 years; 69% men) who underwent medical screening from 2001 to 2020.
• They compared 203 patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum with 2030 individuals without the disease (control).
• Primary outcomes were prevalence of dyslipidemia and cardiovascular disease between the two groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Lipid profiles were similar between the two groups, with no difference in total cholesterol, high- and low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels (all P > .05).
• The prevalence of dyslipidemia was similar for patients with xanthelasma palpebrarum and controls (46% vs 42%, respectively; P = .29), as was the incidence of cardiovascular disease (8.9% vs 10%, respectively; P = .56).
• The incidence of diabetes (P = .13), cerebrovascular accidents (P > .99), ischemic heart disease (P = .73), and hypertension (P = .56) were not significantly different between the two groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study conducted on a large population of individuals undergoing comprehensive ophthalmic and systemic screening tests did not find a significant association between xanthelasma palpebrarum and an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities or cardiovascular disease,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yael Lustig, MD, of the Goldschleger Eye Institute at Sheba Medical Center, in Ramat Gan, Israel. It was published online on August 5, 2024, in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The study population was self-selected, potentially introducing selection bias. Lack of histopathologic examination could have affected the accuracy of the diagnosis.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding sources were disclosed for this study. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The new American Heart Association Predicting Risk of cardiovascular disease EVENTs (PREVENT) equation outperforms the standard pooled cohort equation (PCE). But there is a problem. A big one, actually. 

The new score incorporates kidney function and social situation, and it eliminates race from the estimate. It was derived from larger, more modern datasets and can be applied to younger adults. 

Two luminaries in preventive cardiology recently called the PREVENT calculator a “substantial improvement over the PCE in terms of accuracy and precision of risk estimates over the entire population and within demographic subgroups.”
 

Now to the Problem of PREVENT vs PCE

A recent study comparing PREVENT and PCE found that the PREVENT equation would assign lower 10-year risks to millions of US adults. 

The authors estimated that the more accurate calculator would result in an estimated 14 million adults no longer reaching the statin eligibility risk threshold of 7.5% over 10 years. Nearly 3 million adults would also not reach the threshold for blood pressure therapy. 

Because statins and blood pressure drugs reduce cardiac events, the authors further estimated that more than 100,000 excess myocardial infarctions (MIs) would occur if the PREVENT equation was used along with the current risk thresholds for statin eligibility.

The change in eligibility induced by PREVENT would affect more men than women and a greater proportion of Black adults than White adults. 
 

The Tension of Arbitrary Thresholds

Modern cardiac therapeutics are amazing, but it’s still better to prevent an event than to treat it. 

Statin drugs reduce cardiac risk by about 20%-25% at all absolute risks. American experts chose a 10-year risk of 7.5% as the threshold where statin benefit exceed risk. The USPSTF chose 10%. But the thresholds are arbitrary and derived only by opinion. 

If your frame is population health, the more patients who take statins, the fewer cardiac events there will be. Anything that reduces statin use increases cardiac events. 

The tension occurs because a more accurate equation decreases the number of people who meet eligibility for primary prevention therapy and therefore increases the number of cardiac events. 

I write from the perspective of both a clinician and a possible patient. As a clinician, patients often ask me whether they should take a statin. (Sadly, most have not had a risk-based discussion with their clinician. But that is another column.) 

The incidence of MI or stroke in a population has no effect on either of these scenarios. I see three broad categories of patients: minimizers, maximizers, and those in between. 

I am a minimizer. I don’t worry much about heart disease. First, I won’t ignore symptoms, and I know that we have great treatments. Second, my wife, Staci, practiced hospice and palliative care medicine, and this taught me that worrying about one specific disease is folly. In the next decade, I, like anyone my age, could have many other bad things happen: cancer, trauma, infection, etc. Given these competing risks for serious disease, a PREVENT-calculated risk of 4% or a PCE-calculated risk of 8% makes no difference. I don’t like pills, and, with risks in this range, I decline statin drugs. 

Then there are the maximizers. This person wants to avoid heart disease. Maybe they have family or friends who had terrible cardiac events. This person will maximize everything to avoid heart disease. The calculated 10-year risk makes little difference to a maximizer. Whether it is 4% or 8% matters not. They will take a statin or blood pressure drugs to reduce risk to as low as possible. 

There are people between minimizers and maximizers. I am not sure that there are that many truly undecided people, but I challenge you to translate a difference of a few percent over a decade to them. I feel comfortable with numbers but struggle to sort out these small absolute differences over such a long time frame. 
 

Other Issues With Risk-Based Decisions 

Venk Murthy, MD, PhD, from the University of Michigan, wrote on X about two other issues with a risk-based decision. One is that it does not consider life-years lost. If a 50-year-old person has a fatal MI, that counts as one event. But in life-years lost, that one event is much worse than a fatal MI in a 79-year-old. Cardiac prevention, therefore, may have a greater effect in lower-risk younger people. 

Another point Dr. Murthy made is that risk and benefit are driven by many different preferences and rare events. Minimizers and maximizers come to the decision with widely disparate preferences. Risk-based decisions treat patients as if they were automatons who make decisions based simply on calculated probabilities. Clinicians know how untrue that is. 
 

Conclusion

If you carry forward the logic of being disturbed by the estimate of more MIs using the PREVENT score, then you could justify putting statins in the water — because that would reduce population estimates of MIs. 

I am not disturbed by the PREVENT score. Clinicians treat individuals, not populations. Individuals want a more accurate score. They don’t need expert-based thresholds. Clinician and patient can discuss the evidence and come up with an agreeable decision, one that is concordant with a person’s goals. The next patient may have a different decision despite seeing the same evidence. 

The tension created by this comparative study exposes the gap between population health and basic clinical care. I don’t think clinicians need to worry about populations. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.