User login
Spinal Cord Injury Tied to Greater Risk for Heart Disease
TOPLINE:
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
- The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
- Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.
TAKEAWAY:
- A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
- After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
- Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
- Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.
IN PRACTICE:
“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.
DISCLOSURES:
This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
- The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
- Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.
TAKEAWAY:
- A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
- After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
- Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
- Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.
IN PRACTICE:
“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.
DISCLOSURES:
This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Spinal cord injury (SCI) is associated with a significantly greater risk for heart disease than that of the general non-SCI population, especially among those with severe disability, new observational data suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from Korea’s National Health Insurance Service on 5083 patients with cervical, thoracic, or lumbar SCI (mean age, 58; 75% men) and 1:3 age- and sex-matched non-SCI controls.
- The study endpoint was new-onset myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or atrial fibrillation (AF) during a mean follow-up of 4.3 years.
- Covariates included low income, living in an urban or rural area, alcohol consumption, smoking status, physical activity engagement, body mass index, and blood pressure; comorbidities included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidemia.
TAKEAWAY:
- A total of 169 MI events (7.3 per 1000 person-years), 426 HF events (18.8 per 1000 person-years), and 158 AF events (6.8 per 1000 person-years) occurred among SCI survivors.
- After adjustment, SCI survivors had a higher risk for MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.41), HF (aHR, 2.24), and AF (aHR, 1.84) than that of controls.
- Cervical and lumbar SCI survivors had an increased risk for heart disease compared with controls regardless of disability, and the risk was slightly higher for those with a disability; for cervical SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs for MI, HF, and AF, respectively, were 2.30, 2.05, and 1.73; for lumbar SCI survivors with a disability, aHRs were 2.79, 2.35, and 2.47.
- Thoracic SCI survivors with disability had a higher risk for MI (aHR, 5.62) and HF (aHR, 3.31) than controls.
IN PRACTICE:
“[T]he recognition and treatment of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors must be reinforced in the SCI population, [and] proper rehabilitation and education should be considered to prevent autonomic dysreflexia or orthostatic hypotension,” the authors wrote.
In an accompanying editorial, Christopher R. West, PhD, and Jacquelyn J. Cragg, PhD, both of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, noted that clinical guidelines for cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease after SCI don’t include approaches to help mitigate the risk for cardiac events such as those reported in the study; therefore, they wrote, the findings “should act as ‘call-to-arms’ to researchers and clinicians to shift gears from tradition and begin studying the clinical efficacy of neuraxial therapies that could help restore autonomic balance [in SCI], such as targeted neuromodulation.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jung Eun Yoo, MD, PhD of Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea, and published online on February 12 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
LIMITATIONS:
The database was not designed for the SCI population, so data are incomplete. The incidence of thoracic SCI was particularly low. Because SCI survivors may have impaired perception of chest pain in ischemic heart disease, those with asymptomatic or silent heart disease may not have been captured during follow-up. All study participants were Korean, so the findings may not be generalizable to other ethnicities.
DISCLOSURES:
This research was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea. The study authors and the editorialists had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New Guidelines: Brain Death Is Equal to Heart Death, Says Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?
The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.
First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.
The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.
Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.
You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.
They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.
I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.
In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.
When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.
What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.
If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.
This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.
We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.
We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.
We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.
I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?
The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.
First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.
The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.
Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.
You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.
They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.
I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.
In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.
When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.
What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.
If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.
This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.
We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.
We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.
We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.
I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.
I think we had a breakthrough on a very controversial subject over the past month. Over and over again, debates have been breaking out, cases have been going to court, and fights have been coming to ethics committees about brain death. How do we know what brain death is, how do we diagnose it, and what rights do families have with respect to the diagnosis?
The American Academy of Neurology decided to form a task force, and they just issued guidelines on the definition, tests to use it, and the rights of families. They did a wonderful job, in my view. They›ve achieved clarity.
First, they tried to handle both adults and children. Children are, if you will, more difficult — and that’s been known — to test for brain death. Their brains are smaller. You get more interference and false signals coming from muscle or nerve activity that might be going on elsewhere in their bodies.
The guidelines say we’re going to try to see whether a person can breathe without support. If it’s an adult, one test over a 24-hour period would be sufficient. If you had them off the ventilator and they can’t breathe and show no signs of being able to do that, that’s a very fundamental test for brain death. For children, you’re going to have to do it twice. The guidelines are saying to be cautious.
Second, they say it’s very important to know the cause of the suspected brain death condition. If someone has a massive head injury, that’s different from a situation in which someone overdoses from drugs or drowns. Those conditions can be a little deceptive. In the case of drowning, sometimes the brain has protective mechanisms to protect circulation to the brain naturally for a little bit of time. I’m talking about minutes, not hours.
You want to be careful to make sure that you know the cause of the massive brain injury or insult that makes someone believe that the patient is brain-dead, whether it’s a stroke, an embolism, a bleed, a gunshot wound, or trauma to the head. Those factors really drive the certainty with which brain death should be pronounced. I think that’s very, very important.
They also said that brain death means the permanent loss of brain function. You may get a few cells still firing or you may be in a situation, because the life support is still there, where the body looks pink and perhaps might appear to still be alive to someone. When you know that the damage to the brain is so severe that there’s nothing that can be done to bring back the support of heart function, breathing, and most likely any ability to sense or feel anything, that is death.
I believe it’s very important, when talking to families, to say there are two ways that we pronounce people dead, and they’re equal: One is to say their heart has stopped, their breathing has stopped, and there’s nothing we can do to resuscitate them, which is cardiac death. The other is to say their brain has permanently ceased to function in any kind of integrated way. That means no heartbeat, no breathing, and no mental sensations. That is death.
In approaching families, it is critical that doctors and nurses don’t say, “Your relative is brain-dead.” That gives the family a sense that maybe they’re only “partially dead” or maybe there’s one key organ that has stopped working but maybe you can bring it back. Death is death. The law recognizes both cardiac death and brain death as death.
When you approach a family, if you believe that death has occurred, you say, “I’m very sorry. With regret, I have to tell you, your loved one is dead.” If they ask how you know, you can say, “We’ve determined it through brain death or through cardiac death.” You don’t give them a sense that people could be kind of dead, sort of dead, or nearly dead. Those states are comas or permanent vegetative states; they’re not the same as death.
What if the family says, “I don’t want you to do any testing. I don’t want to find out whether my relative is dead”? The American Academy of Neurology looked at this carefully and said that any test for death can be done without the permission or consent of the family. They said that because doctors need to know what steps to take to treat someone.
If a person is dead, then treatment is going to stop. It may not stop immediately. There may be issues about organ donation. There may be issues about gathering the family to come to the bedside to say goodbye, because many people think that’s more humane than saying goodbye at the morgue or in another setting.
This is all well and good, but patients cannot protect against bad news when it comes to death. We don’t want to be doing things to the dead that cost money or are futile because of death and using resources that might go to others.
We’ve got much more clarity than we have ever had with respect to the issue of brain death and how it works in any hospital. We have certain tests, including being off the ventilator and some other tests, that the guidelines supply. We know we have to be more careful with children. We want to know the etiology of the cause of the brain trauma, the devastating brain injury, to be sure that this is something that really is permanent cessation of integrated brain function.
We know that if you believe the person has died, you don’t need the consent of the family in order to do a brain-death test. You have to do it because there is no point in continuing treatment in expensive ICU settings and denying resources to others who might want to use those resources. The family can’t hold the medical team hostage.
We do know that when we approach someone with the determination, whatever it is, we should lead by saying that the person has died and then explain how that was determined, whether it be by cardiac death pronouncement — where you tried to resuscitate and the heart’s not beating — or brain-death analysis.
I’m Art Caplan at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position); serves as a contributing author and adviser for this news organization.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Even Moderate Exposure to Radon Tied to Increased Stroke Risk
Exposure to even moderate concentrations of radon is associated with a significant increase in stroke risk, new research suggests.
Even moderate concentrations of radon were associated with a 6% higher stroke risk.
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but little was known about how exposure to the gas might affect stroke risk in women.
“Our research found an increased risk of stroke among participants exposed to radon above — and as many as 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) below — concentrations that usually trigger Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to install a home radon mitigation system,” senior author Eric A. Whitsel, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.
The study was published online on January 31, 2024, in Neurology.
Women Particularly Affected
Radon is a naturally occurring odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium or radium break down in rocks and soil. Its presence is increasing as a result of climate change, and it is increasingly being found in people’s homes. When inhaled, this air pollutant releases ionizing radiation in the lungs and is seen as second only to smoking as an established cause of lung cancer.
The National Radon Action Plan of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lays out testing and mitigation guidelines based on the known role of radon in lung carcinogenesis. But radon testing and mitigation are less common than recommended, and the EPA’s action plan doesn’t cover diseases other than lung cancer.
Compared with men, women have a higher rate of stroke and, in the US, typically spend about 11% more hours per day indoors at home, which investigators note highlights a “potential role of the residential environment among other risk factors specific to women.”
Researchers examined longitudinal associations between home radon exposure and incident stroke in 158,910 women at baseline (mean age 63.2 years; 83% White) over a mean follow-up of 13.4 years. During this time, participants experienced a total of 6979 strokes.
Participants’ home addresses were linked to radon concentration data drawn from the US Geological Survey and the EPA, which recommends that average indoor radon concentrations not exceed 4 pCi/L.
The highest radon exposure group resided in areas where average radon concentrations were < 4 pCi/L; the middle exposure group lived in regions with average concentrations of 2-4 pCi/L; and the lowest exposure group lived in areas with average concentrations < 2 pCi/L.
The researchers adjusted for demographic, social, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.
Public Health Implications
The incidence rates of stroke per 100,000 women in the lowest, middle, and highest radon concentration areas were 333, 343, and 349, respectively.
Stroke risk was 6% higher among those in the middle exposure group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13) and 14% higher in the highest exposure group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) compared with the lowest exposure group.
Notably, stroke risk was significant even at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 pCi/L (P = .0004) vs < 2 pCi/L, which is below the EPA›s Radon Action Level for mitigation.
The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses, although the associations were slightly stronger for ischemic stroke (especially cardioembolic, small-vessel occlusive, and very large artery atherosclerotic) compared with hemorrhagic stroke.
“Radon is an indoor air pollutant that can only be detected through testing that measures concentrations of the gas in homes,” Dr. Whitsel said in the release. “More studies are needed to confirm our findings. Confirmation would present an opportunity to improve public health by addressing an emerging risk factor for stroke.”
The study lacked gender and racial/ethnic diversity, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
“Replication studies of individual-level radon exposures are needed to confirm this positive radon-stroke association,” the authors write. “Confirmation would present a potential opportunity to affect public health by addressing a pervasive environmental risk factor for stroke and thereby merit reconsideration of extant radon policy.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Whitsel and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Exposure to even moderate concentrations of radon is associated with a significant increase in stroke risk, new research suggests.
Even moderate concentrations of radon were associated with a 6% higher stroke risk.
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but little was known about how exposure to the gas might affect stroke risk in women.
“Our research found an increased risk of stroke among participants exposed to radon above — and as many as 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) below — concentrations that usually trigger Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to install a home radon mitigation system,” senior author Eric A. Whitsel, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.
The study was published online on January 31, 2024, in Neurology.
Women Particularly Affected
Radon is a naturally occurring odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium or radium break down in rocks and soil. Its presence is increasing as a result of climate change, and it is increasingly being found in people’s homes. When inhaled, this air pollutant releases ionizing radiation in the lungs and is seen as second only to smoking as an established cause of lung cancer.
The National Radon Action Plan of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lays out testing and mitigation guidelines based on the known role of radon in lung carcinogenesis. But radon testing and mitigation are less common than recommended, and the EPA’s action plan doesn’t cover diseases other than lung cancer.
Compared with men, women have a higher rate of stroke and, in the US, typically spend about 11% more hours per day indoors at home, which investigators note highlights a “potential role of the residential environment among other risk factors specific to women.”
Researchers examined longitudinal associations between home radon exposure and incident stroke in 158,910 women at baseline (mean age 63.2 years; 83% White) over a mean follow-up of 13.4 years. During this time, participants experienced a total of 6979 strokes.
Participants’ home addresses were linked to radon concentration data drawn from the US Geological Survey and the EPA, which recommends that average indoor radon concentrations not exceed 4 pCi/L.
The highest radon exposure group resided in areas where average radon concentrations were < 4 pCi/L; the middle exposure group lived in regions with average concentrations of 2-4 pCi/L; and the lowest exposure group lived in areas with average concentrations < 2 pCi/L.
The researchers adjusted for demographic, social, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.
Public Health Implications
The incidence rates of stroke per 100,000 women in the lowest, middle, and highest radon concentration areas were 333, 343, and 349, respectively.
Stroke risk was 6% higher among those in the middle exposure group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13) and 14% higher in the highest exposure group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) compared with the lowest exposure group.
Notably, stroke risk was significant even at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 pCi/L (P = .0004) vs < 2 pCi/L, which is below the EPA›s Radon Action Level for mitigation.
The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses, although the associations were slightly stronger for ischemic stroke (especially cardioembolic, small-vessel occlusive, and very large artery atherosclerotic) compared with hemorrhagic stroke.
“Radon is an indoor air pollutant that can only be detected through testing that measures concentrations of the gas in homes,” Dr. Whitsel said in the release. “More studies are needed to confirm our findings. Confirmation would present an opportunity to improve public health by addressing an emerging risk factor for stroke.”
The study lacked gender and racial/ethnic diversity, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
“Replication studies of individual-level radon exposures are needed to confirm this positive radon-stroke association,” the authors write. “Confirmation would present a potential opportunity to affect public health by addressing a pervasive environmental risk factor for stroke and thereby merit reconsideration of extant radon policy.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Whitsel and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Exposure to even moderate concentrations of radon is associated with a significant increase in stroke risk, new research suggests.
Even moderate concentrations of radon were associated with a 6% higher stroke risk.
Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer, but little was known about how exposure to the gas might affect stroke risk in women.
“Our research found an increased risk of stroke among participants exposed to radon above — and as many as 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) below — concentrations that usually trigger Environmental Protection Agency recommendations to install a home radon mitigation system,” senior author Eric A. Whitsel, MD, MPH, professor of epidemiology and medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.
The study was published online on January 31, 2024, in Neurology.
Women Particularly Affected
Radon is a naturally occurring odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium or radium break down in rocks and soil. Its presence is increasing as a result of climate change, and it is increasingly being found in people’s homes. When inhaled, this air pollutant releases ionizing radiation in the lungs and is seen as second only to smoking as an established cause of lung cancer.
The National Radon Action Plan of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lays out testing and mitigation guidelines based on the known role of radon in lung carcinogenesis. But radon testing and mitigation are less common than recommended, and the EPA’s action plan doesn’t cover diseases other than lung cancer.
Compared with men, women have a higher rate of stroke and, in the US, typically spend about 11% more hours per day indoors at home, which investigators note highlights a “potential role of the residential environment among other risk factors specific to women.”
Researchers examined longitudinal associations between home radon exposure and incident stroke in 158,910 women at baseline (mean age 63.2 years; 83% White) over a mean follow-up of 13.4 years. During this time, participants experienced a total of 6979 strokes.
Participants’ home addresses were linked to radon concentration data drawn from the US Geological Survey and the EPA, which recommends that average indoor radon concentrations not exceed 4 pCi/L.
The highest radon exposure group resided in areas where average radon concentrations were < 4 pCi/L; the middle exposure group lived in regions with average concentrations of 2-4 pCi/L; and the lowest exposure group lived in areas with average concentrations < 2 pCi/L.
The researchers adjusted for demographic, social, behavioral, and clinical characteristics.
Public Health Implications
The incidence rates of stroke per 100,000 women in the lowest, middle, and highest radon concentration areas were 333, 343, and 349, respectively.
Stroke risk was 6% higher among those in the middle exposure group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13) and 14% higher in the highest exposure group (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.22) compared with the lowest exposure group.
Notably, stroke risk was significant even at concentrations ranging from 2 to 4 pCi/L (P = .0004) vs < 2 pCi/L, which is below the EPA›s Radon Action Level for mitigation.
The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses, although the associations were slightly stronger for ischemic stroke (especially cardioembolic, small-vessel occlusive, and very large artery atherosclerotic) compared with hemorrhagic stroke.
“Radon is an indoor air pollutant that can only be detected through testing that measures concentrations of the gas in homes,” Dr. Whitsel said in the release. “More studies are needed to confirm our findings. Confirmation would present an opportunity to improve public health by addressing an emerging risk factor for stroke.”
The study lacked gender and racial/ethnic diversity, so the findings may not be generalizable to other populations.
“Replication studies of individual-level radon exposures are needed to confirm this positive radon-stroke association,” the authors write. “Confirmation would present a potential opportunity to affect public health by addressing a pervasive environmental risk factor for stroke and thereby merit reconsideration of extant radon policy.”
The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Whitsel and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Near-Death Experiences During CPR: An Impetus for Better Care
If someone has been in cardiac arrest for 10 minutes, the brain is permanently damaged and there’s nothing to do, right?
Not so according to emerging evidence that suggests that the brain shows signs of electrical recovery for as long as an hour into ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This time between cardiac arrest and awakening can be a period of vivid experiences for the dying patient before they return to life — a phenomenon known as “recalled death.”
This should be an impetus to increase the use of devices that measure the quality of CPR and to find new treatments to restart the heart or prevent brain injury, experts advised. Cardiologists and critical care clinicians are among those who will need to manage patients in the aftermath.
said Jasmeet Soar, MD, consultant in Anesthetics & Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, and an editor of the journal Resuscitation.
“We know that because if chest compressions are stopped, the person becomes unconscious again,” he said. “This CPR-induced consciousness has become more common when professionals do the CPR because resuscitation guidelines now place a much bigger focus on high-quality CPR — ‘push hard, push fast.’ ”
“People are giving up too soon on trying to revive individuals, and they should be trying more modern strategies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” said Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, New York City.
Brain Activity, Heightened Experiences
Two types of brain activity may occur when CPR works. The first, called CPR-induced consciousness, is when an individual recovers consciousness while in cardiac arrest. Signs of consciousness include combativeness, groaning, and eye-opening, Soar explained.
The second type is a perception of lucidity with recall of events, he said. “Patients who experience this may form memories that they can recall. We’re not sure whether that happens during CPR or while the patient is waking up during intensive care, or how the brain creates these memories, or if they’re real memories or coincidental, but it’s clear the brain does form them during the dying and recovery process.”
This latter phenomenon was explored in detail in a recent study led by Dr. Parnia.
In that study of 567 in-hospital patients with cardiac arrest from 25 centers in the United States and United Kingdom, 53 survived, 28 of those survivors were interviewed, and 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness.
Four types of experiences occurred:
- Recalled experiences of death: “I thought I heard my grandma [who had passed] saying ‘you need to go back.’”
- Emergence from coma during CPR/CPR-induced consciousness: “I remember when I came back and they were putting those two electrodes to my chest, and I remember the shock.”
- Emergence from coma in the post-resuscitation period: “I heard my partner saying [patient’s name] and my son saying ‘mom.’”
- Dreams and dream-like experiences: “[I] felt as though someone was holding my hand. It was very black; I couldn’t see anything.”
In a complementary cross-sectional study, 126 community cardiac arrest survivors reported similar experiences plus a fifth type, “delusions,” or “misattribution of medical events,” for example, “I heard my name, over and over again. All around me were things like demons and monsters. It felt like they were trying to tear off my body parts.”
“Many people label recalled experiences of death as ‘near-death’ experiences, but they’re not,” Dr. Parnia said. “Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it.”
One of the big implications of the study, he said, is that “a lot of physicians are taught that somehow after, say, 3-5 minutes of oxygen deprivation, the brain dies. Our study showed this is not true. It showed that the brain may not be functioning, which is why they flatline. But if you’re able to resuscitate them appropriately, you can restore activity up to an hour later.”
Because some clinicians questioned or dismissed previous work in this area by Dr. Parnia and others, the latest study used EEG monitoring in a subset of 53 patients. Among those with evaluable EEG data, brain activity returned to normal or near-normal after flatlining in about 40% of images; spikes were seen in the delta (22%), theta (12%), alpha (6%), and beta (1%) waves associated with higher mental function.
“The team recorded what was happening in the brain during real-time CPR using various tests of consciousness, including EEG measurements and tests of visual and auditory awareness using a tablet with a special app and a Bluetooth headphone.”
“Incredibly, we found that even though the brain flatlines, which is what we expect when the heart stops, with professionally given CPR even up to about an hour after this, the brainwaves changed into normal to near-normal patterns,” Dr. Parnia said. “We were able to identify these brain waves in patients while they were being resuscitated, which confirms the fact that people can have lucid consciousness even though they appear to be unconscious.”
Asked what implications, if any, his work has for current definitions of brain death and cardiac death, Dr. Parnia said that the problem is that these are based on the concept of “a permanent irreversible loss of function,” but “that’s only relative to what medical treatments are developed at a given time.”
Potential Mechanism
Dr. Parnia and his team proposed a potential mechanism for recalled experiences of death. Essentially, when the brain flatlines, the dying brain removes natural inhibitory (braking) systems that are needed to support daily functioning. This disinhibition may open access to “new dimensions of reality, including lucid recall of stored memories from early childhood to death,” he said.
From a clinical perspective, he noted, “although the brain stops working when it flatlines, it does not die within 5 or 10 minutes of oxygen deprivation.”
This is contrary to what many doctors believe, and because of that, he said, “nobody has tried to find treatments or new ways to restart the heart or prevent brain injury. They think it’s futile. So, with this work, we’ve opened up the window to developing cocktails of drugs that could be given to patients who have technically gone through death to bring them back to life again.”
Probe Patients or Leave Well Enough Alone?
The findings have ramifications for clinicians who may be caring for patients who survive cardiac arrest, said Lance B. Becker, MD, professor and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Queens, New York.
“I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have had some kind of recalled experience around cardiac arrest and some who have had zero recall, as well, like in the paper,” he told this news organization. “The ones who do have an experience are sometimes mystified by it and have questions. And very often, clinicians don’t want to listen, don’t think it’s important, and downplay it.”
“I think it is important, and when people have important things happen to them, it’s really imperative that doctors listen, learn, and respond,” he said. “When I started in this field a long time ago, there were so few survivors that there wasn’t even a concept of survivorship,” he said.
Dr. Becker noted that it’s not uncommon for cardiac arrest survivors to have depression, problems with executive function, or a small brain injury they need to recover from. “Now survivorship organizations are springing up that these people can turn to, but clinicians still need to become more aware and sensitive to this.”
Not all are. “I had a number of patients who said I was the only doctor who ever asked them about what they experienced,” he recalled. “I was a young doctor at the time and didn’t exactly know what to say to them, but they were just happy to have a doctor who would listen to them and not be afraid to hear what they had to say.”
Recognizing that support is an issue, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement in 2020 on sudden cardiac arrest survivorship, which “expands the cardiac arrest resuscitation system of care to include patients, caregivers, and rehabilitative healthcare partnerships, which are central to cardiac survivorship.”
Soar has a more nuanced view of survivorship support, however. “I suspect some people are very glad to be alive, and that trying to dig deep and bring things out may actually be harmful,” he said. “It’s not as clear cut as everybody thinks.”
He noted that follow-up and rehabilitation should be an option for people who specifically need it who would need to be identified. “But human beings are resilient, and while some people will require help, not everybody will,” he said.
Better CPR, New Treatments
Experts in emergency and intensive care medicine studying survival after cardiac arrest hope to find ways to save patients before too much damage is done to the brain and other organs from loss of oxygen, Dr. Parnia said. He is the lead author in a recent multidisciplinary consensus statement on guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death.
“One of my bugbears is that our survival outcomes from cardiac arrest resuscitation have not changed very much for 60 years because we haven’t developed new treatments and innovative methods,” he said. “Unlike the rest of medicine, we’re living in the past.”
Currently, his team is developing cocktails of treatments. These include hypothermic circulatory arrest — cooling the body to stop blood circulation and brain function for up to 40 minutes — and giving magnesium, a brain-protective treatment, to people whose hearts stop.
Dr. Becker would like to see optimal care of patients with cardiac arrest. “The first step is to increase blood flow with good CPR and then measure whether CPR is working,” he said. Adding that despite the availability of devices that provide feedback on the quality of CPR, they’re rarely used. He cited ultrasound devices that measure the blood flow generated during CPR, compression meter devices that go between the patient’s chest and the rescuer’s hands that gauge the rate and depth of compression, and invasive devices that measure blood pressure during CPR.
His group is trying to design even better devices, he said. “An example would be a little probe that you could pop on the neck that would study blood flow to the brain with ultrasound, so that while you were pumping on the person, you could see if you’re making them better or not.”
“We also have some preliminary data showing that the American Heart Association recommended position on the chest for doing CPR is not the perfect place for everybody,” he said. The 2020 AHA guidelines recommended the center of the lower half of the sternum. At the 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians meeting, Dr. Becker›s team at Hofstra/Northwell presented data on 175 video-recorded adult cardiac arrests in their emergency department over more than 2 years, 22 of which involved at least one change of compression location (for a total of 29 location changes). They found that 41% of compression location changes were associated with return of spontaneous circulation.
For about a third of people, the hands need to be repositioned slightly. “This is not anything that is taught to the public because you can only figure it out if you have some kind of sensor that will let you know how you’re doing. That’s very achievable. We could have that in the future on every ambulance and even in people’s homes.”
When the person arrives at the hospital, he said, “we can make it easier and more likely that they can be put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We do that on selected patients in our hospital, even though it’s very difficult to do, because we know that when it’s done properly, it can change survival rates dramatically, from maybe 10%-50%.”
Dr. Dr. Becker, like Dr. Parnia, also favors the development of drug cocktails, and his team has been experimenting with various combinations in animal models. “We think those two things together — ECMO and a drug cocktail — would be a very powerful one to two knock out for cardiac arrest,” he said. “We have a long way to go — 10 or 20 years. But most people around the world working in this area believe that will be the future.”
Dr. Parnia’s study on recalled death was supported by The John Templeton Foundation, Resuscitation Council (UK), and New York University Grossman School of Medicine, with research support staff provided by the UK’s National Institutes for Health Research. Soar is the editor of the journal Resuscitation and receives payment from the publisher Elsevier. Dr. Becker’s institute has received grants from Philips Medical Systems, NIH, Zoll Medical Corp, Nihon Kohden, PCORI, BrainCool, and United Therapeutics. He has received advisory/consultancy honoraria from NIH, Nihon Kohden, HP, and Philips, and he holds several patents in hypothermia induction and reperfusion therapies and several pending patents involving the use of medical slurries as human coolant devices to create reperfusion cocktails and measurement of respiratory quotient.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
If someone has been in cardiac arrest for 10 minutes, the brain is permanently damaged and there’s nothing to do, right?
Not so according to emerging evidence that suggests that the brain shows signs of electrical recovery for as long as an hour into ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This time between cardiac arrest and awakening can be a period of vivid experiences for the dying patient before they return to life — a phenomenon known as “recalled death.”
This should be an impetus to increase the use of devices that measure the quality of CPR and to find new treatments to restart the heart or prevent brain injury, experts advised. Cardiologists and critical care clinicians are among those who will need to manage patients in the aftermath.
said Jasmeet Soar, MD, consultant in Anesthetics & Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, and an editor of the journal Resuscitation.
“We know that because if chest compressions are stopped, the person becomes unconscious again,” he said. “This CPR-induced consciousness has become more common when professionals do the CPR because resuscitation guidelines now place a much bigger focus on high-quality CPR — ‘push hard, push fast.’ ”
“People are giving up too soon on trying to revive individuals, and they should be trying more modern strategies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” said Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, New York City.
Brain Activity, Heightened Experiences
Two types of brain activity may occur when CPR works. The first, called CPR-induced consciousness, is when an individual recovers consciousness while in cardiac arrest. Signs of consciousness include combativeness, groaning, and eye-opening, Soar explained.
The second type is a perception of lucidity with recall of events, he said. “Patients who experience this may form memories that they can recall. We’re not sure whether that happens during CPR or while the patient is waking up during intensive care, or how the brain creates these memories, or if they’re real memories or coincidental, but it’s clear the brain does form them during the dying and recovery process.”
This latter phenomenon was explored in detail in a recent study led by Dr. Parnia.
In that study of 567 in-hospital patients with cardiac arrest from 25 centers in the United States and United Kingdom, 53 survived, 28 of those survivors were interviewed, and 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness.
Four types of experiences occurred:
- Recalled experiences of death: “I thought I heard my grandma [who had passed] saying ‘you need to go back.’”
- Emergence from coma during CPR/CPR-induced consciousness: “I remember when I came back and they were putting those two electrodes to my chest, and I remember the shock.”
- Emergence from coma in the post-resuscitation period: “I heard my partner saying [patient’s name] and my son saying ‘mom.’”
- Dreams and dream-like experiences: “[I] felt as though someone was holding my hand. It was very black; I couldn’t see anything.”
In a complementary cross-sectional study, 126 community cardiac arrest survivors reported similar experiences plus a fifth type, “delusions,” or “misattribution of medical events,” for example, “I heard my name, over and over again. All around me were things like demons and monsters. It felt like they were trying to tear off my body parts.”
“Many people label recalled experiences of death as ‘near-death’ experiences, but they’re not,” Dr. Parnia said. “Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it.”
One of the big implications of the study, he said, is that “a lot of physicians are taught that somehow after, say, 3-5 minutes of oxygen deprivation, the brain dies. Our study showed this is not true. It showed that the brain may not be functioning, which is why they flatline. But if you’re able to resuscitate them appropriately, you can restore activity up to an hour later.”
Because some clinicians questioned or dismissed previous work in this area by Dr. Parnia and others, the latest study used EEG monitoring in a subset of 53 patients. Among those with evaluable EEG data, brain activity returned to normal or near-normal after flatlining in about 40% of images; spikes were seen in the delta (22%), theta (12%), alpha (6%), and beta (1%) waves associated with higher mental function.
“The team recorded what was happening in the brain during real-time CPR using various tests of consciousness, including EEG measurements and tests of visual and auditory awareness using a tablet with a special app and a Bluetooth headphone.”
“Incredibly, we found that even though the brain flatlines, which is what we expect when the heart stops, with professionally given CPR even up to about an hour after this, the brainwaves changed into normal to near-normal patterns,” Dr. Parnia said. “We were able to identify these brain waves in patients while they were being resuscitated, which confirms the fact that people can have lucid consciousness even though they appear to be unconscious.”
Asked what implications, if any, his work has for current definitions of brain death and cardiac death, Dr. Parnia said that the problem is that these are based on the concept of “a permanent irreversible loss of function,” but “that’s only relative to what medical treatments are developed at a given time.”
Potential Mechanism
Dr. Parnia and his team proposed a potential mechanism for recalled experiences of death. Essentially, when the brain flatlines, the dying brain removes natural inhibitory (braking) systems that are needed to support daily functioning. This disinhibition may open access to “new dimensions of reality, including lucid recall of stored memories from early childhood to death,” he said.
From a clinical perspective, he noted, “although the brain stops working when it flatlines, it does not die within 5 or 10 minutes of oxygen deprivation.”
This is contrary to what many doctors believe, and because of that, he said, “nobody has tried to find treatments or new ways to restart the heart or prevent brain injury. They think it’s futile. So, with this work, we’ve opened up the window to developing cocktails of drugs that could be given to patients who have technically gone through death to bring them back to life again.”
Probe Patients or Leave Well Enough Alone?
The findings have ramifications for clinicians who may be caring for patients who survive cardiac arrest, said Lance B. Becker, MD, professor and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Queens, New York.
“I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have had some kind of recalled experience around cardiac arrest and some who have had zero recall, as well, like in the paper,” he told this news organization. “The ones who do have an experience are sometimes mystified by it and have questions. And very often, clinicians don’t want to listen, don’t think it’s important, and downplay it.”
“I think it is important, and when people have important things happen to them, it’s really imperative that doctors listen, learn, and respond,” he said. “When I started in this field a long time ago, there were so few survivors that there wasn’t even a concept of survivorship,” he said.
Dr. Becker noted that it’s not uncommon for cardiac arrest survivors to have depression, problems with executive function, or a small brain injury they need to recover from. “Now survivorship organizations are springing up that these people can turn to, but clinicians still need to become more aware and sensitive to this.”
Not all are. “I had a number of patients who said I was the only doctor who ever asked them about what they experienced,” he recalled. “I was a young doctor at the time and didn’t exactly know what to say to them, but they were just happy to have a doctor who would listen to them and not be afraid to hear what they had to say.”
Recognizing that support is an issue, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement in 2020 on sudden cardiac arrest survivorship, which “expands the cardiac arrest resuscitation system of care to include patients, caregivers, and rehabilitative healthcare partnerships, which are central to cardiac survivorship.”
Soar has a more nuanced view of survivorship support, however. “I suspect some people are very glad to be alive, and that trying to dig deep and bring things out may actually be harmful,” he said. “It’s not as clear cut as everybody thinks.”
He noted that follow-up and rehabilitation should be an option for people who specifically need it who would need to be identified. “But human beings are resilient, and while some people will require help, not everybody will,” he said.
Better CPR, New Treatments
Experts in emergency and intensive care medicine studying survival after cardiac arrest hope to find ways to save patients before too much damage is done to the brain and other organs from loss of oxygen, Dr. Parnia said. He is the lead author in a recent multidisciplinary consensus statement on guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death.
“One of my bugbears is that our survival outcomes from cardiac arrest resuscitation have not changed very much for 60 years because we haven’t developed new treatments and innovative methods,” he said. “Unlike the rest of medicine, we’re living in the past.”
Currently, his team is developing cocktails of treatments. These include hypothermic circulatory arrest — cooling the body to stop blood circulation and brain function for up to 40 minutes — and giving magnesium, a brain-protective treatment, to people whose hearts stop.
Dr. Becker would like to see optimal care of patients with cardiac arrest. “The first step is to increase blood flow with good CPR and then measure whether CPR is working,” he said. Adding that despite the availability of devices that provide feedback on the quality of CPR, they’re rarely used. He cited ultrasound devices that measure the blood flow generated during CPR, compression meter devices that go between the patient’s chest and the rescuer’s hands that gauge the rate and depth of compression, and invasive devices that measure blood pressure during CPR.
His group is trying to design even better devices, he said. “An example would be a little probe that you could pop on the neck that would study blood flow to the brain with ultrasound, so that while you were pumping on the person, you could see if you’re making them better or not.”
“We also have some preliminary data showing that the American Heart Association recommended position on the chest for doing CPR is not the perfect place for everybody,” he said. The 2020 AHA guidelines recommended the center of the lower half of the sternum. At the 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians meeting, Dr. Becker›s team at Hofstra/Northwell presented data on 175 video-recorded adult cardiac arrests in their emergency department over more than 2 years, 22 of which involved at least one change of compression location (for a total of 29 location changes). They found that 41% of compression location changes were associated with return of spontaneous circulation.
For about a third of people, the hands need to be repositioned slightly. “This is not anything that is taught to the public because you can only figure it out if you have some kind of sensor that will let you know how you’re doing. That’s very achievable. We could have that in the future on every ambulance and even in people’s homes.”
When the person arrives at the hospital, he said, “we can make it easier and more likely that they can be put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We do that on selected patients in our hospital, even though it’s very difficult to do, because we know that when it’s done properly, it can change survival rates dramatically, from maybe 10%-50%.”
Dr. Dr. Becker, like Dr. Parnia, also favors the development of drug cocktails, and his team has been experimenting with various combinations in animal models. “We think those two things together — ECMO and a drug cocktail — would be a very powerful one to two knock out for cardiac arrest,” he said. “We have a long way to go — 10 or 20 years. But most people around the world working in this area believe that will be the future.”
Dr. Parnia’s study on recalled death was supported by The John Templeton Foundation, Resuscitation Council (UK), and New York University Grossman School of Medicine, with research support staff provided by the UK’s National Institutes for Health Research. Soar is the editor of the journal Resuscitation and receives payment from the publisher Elsevier. Dr. Becker’s institute has received grants from Philips Medical Systems, NIH, Zoll Medical Corp, Nihon Kohden, PCORI, BrainCool, and United Therapeutics. He has received advisory/consultancy honoraria from NIH, Nihon Kohden, HP, and Philips, and he holds several patents in hypothermia induction and reperfusion therapies and several pending patents involving the use of medical slurries as human coolant devices to create reperfusion cocktails and measurement of respiratory quotient.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
If someone has been in cardiac arrest for 10 minutes, the brain is permanently damaged and there’s nothing to do, right?
Not so according to emerging evidence that suggests that the brain shows signs of electrical recovery for as long as an hour into ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This time between cardiac arrest and awakening can be a period of vivid experiences for the dying patient before they return to life — a phenomenon known as “recalled death.”
This should be an impetus to increase the use of devices that measure the quality of CPR and to find new treatments to restart the heart or prevent brain injury, experts advised. Cardiologists and critical care clinicians are among those who will need to manage patients in the aftermath.
said Jasmeet Soar, MD, consultant in Anesthetics & Intensive Care Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, England, and an editor of the journal Resuscitation.
“We know that because if chest compressions are stopped, the person becomes unconscious again,” he said. “This CPR-induced consciousness has become more common when professionals do the CPR because resuscitation guidelines now place a much bigger focus on high-quality CPR — ‘push hard, push fast.’ ”
“People are giving up too soon on trying to revive individuals, and they should be trying more modern strategies, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” said Sam Parnia, MD, PhD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine at NYU Langone Health and director of critical care and resuscitation research at NYU Langone, New York City.
Brain Activity, Heightened Experiences
Two types of brain activity may occur when CPR works. The first, called CPR-induced consciousness, is when an individual recovers consciousness while in cardiac arrest. Signs of consciousness include combativeness, groaning, and eye-opening, Soar explained.
The second type is a perception of lucidity with recall of events, he said. “Patients who experience this may form memories that they can recall. We’re not sure whether that happens during CPR or while the patient is waking up during intensive care, or how the brain creates these memories, or if they’re real memories or coincidental, but it’s clear the brain does form them during the dying and recovery process.”
This latter phenomenon was explored in detail in a recent study led by Dr. Parnia.
In that study of 567 in-hospital patients with cardiac arrest from 25 centers in the United States and United Kingdom, 53 survived, 28 of those survivors were interviewed, and 11 reported memories or perceptions suggestive of consciousness.
Four types of experiences occurred:
- Recalled experiences of death: “I thought I heard my grandma [who had passed] saying ‘you need to go back.’”
- Emergence from coma during CPR/CPR-induced consciousness: “I remember when I came back and they were putting those two electrodes to my chest, and I remember the shock.”
- Emergence from coma in the post-resuscitation period: “I heard my partner saying [patient’s name] and my son saying ‘mom.’”
- Dreams and dream-like experiences: “[I] felt as though someone was holding my hand. It was very black; I couldn’t see anything.”
In a complementary cross-sectional study, 126 community cardiac arrest survivors reported similar experiences plus a fifth type, “delusions,” or “misattribution of medical events,” for example, “I heard my name, over and over again. All around me were things like demons and monsters. It felt like they were trying to tear off my body parts.”
“Many people label recalled experiences of death as ‘near-death’ experiences, but they’re not,” Dr. Parnia said. “Medically speaking, being near to death means your heart is about to stop. But the whole point is that these people are not near death. They actually died and came back from it.”
One of the big implications of the study, he said, is that “a lot of physicians are taught that somehow after, say, 3-5 minutes of oxygen deprivation, the brain dies. Our study showed this is not true. It showed that the brain may not be functioning, which is why they flatline. But if you’re able to resuscitate them appropriately, you can restore activity up to an hour later.”
Because some clinicians questioned or dismissed previous work in this area by Dr. Parnia and others, the latest study used EEG monitoring in a subset of 53 patients. Among those with evaluable EEG data, brain activity returned to normal or near-normal after flatlining in about 40% of images; spikes were seen in the delta (22%), theta (12%), alpha (6%), and beta (1%) waves associated with higher mental function.
“The team recorded what was happening in the brain during real-time CPR using various tests of consciousness, including EEG measurements and tests of visual and auditory awareness using a tablet with a special app and a Bluetooth headphone.”
“Incredibly, we found that even though the brain flatlines, which is what we expect when the heart stops, with professionally given CPR even up to about an hour after this, the brainwaves changed into normal to near-normal patterns,” Dr. Parnia said. “We were able to identify these brain waves in patients while they were being resuscitated, which confirms the fact that people can have lucid consciousness even though they appear to be unconscious.”
Asked what implications, if any, his work has for current definitions of brain death and cardiac death, Dr. Parnia said that the problem is that these are based on the concept of “a permanent irreversible loss of function,” but “that’s only relative to what medical treatments are developed at a given time.”
Potential Mechanism
Dr. Parnia and his team proposed a potential mechanism for recalled experiences of death. Essentially, when the brain flatlines, the dying brain removes natural inhibitory (braking) systems that are needed to support daily functioning. This disinhibition may open access to “new dimensions of reality, including lucid recall of stored memories from early childhood to death,” he said.
From a clinical perspective, he noted, “although the brain stops working when it flatlines, it does not die within 5 or 10 minutes of oxygen deprivation.”
This is contrary to what many doctors believe, and because of that, he said, “nobody has tried to find treatments or new ways to restart the heart or prevent brain injury. They think it’s futile. So, with this work, we’ve opened up the window to developing cocktails of drugs that could be given to patients who have technically gone through death to bring them back to life again.”
Probe Patients or Leave Well Enough Alone?
The findings have ramifications for clinicians who may be caring for patients who survive cardiac arrest, said Lance B. Becker, MD, professor and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Donald & Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, and chair, Department of Emergency Medicine at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, and Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Queens, New York.
“I’ve talked with a lot of patients who have had some kind of recalled experience around cardiac arrest and some who have had zero recall, as well, like in the paper,” he told this news organization. “The ones who do have an experience are sometimes mystified by it and have questions. And very often, clinicians don’t want to listen, don’t think it’s important, and downplay it.”
“I think it is important, and when people have important things happen to them, it’s really imperative that doctors listen, learn, and respond,” he said. “When I started in this field a long time ago, there were so few survivors that there wasn’t even a concept of survivorship,” he said.
Dr. Becker noted that it’s not uncommon for cardiac arrest survivors to have depression, problems with executive function, or a small brain injury they need to recover from. “Now survivorship organizations are springing up that these people can turn to, but clinicians still need to become more aware and sensitive to this.”
Not all are. “I had a number of patients who said I was the only doctor who ever asked them about what they experienced,” he recalled. “I was a young doctor at the time and didn’t exactly know what to say to them, but they were just happy to have a doctor who would listen to them and not be afraid to hear what they had to say.”
Recognizing that support is an issue, the American Heart Association released a scientific statement in 2020 on sudden cardiac arrest survivorship, which “expands the cardiac arrest resuscitation system of care to include patients, caregivers, and rehabilitative healthcare partnerships, which are central to cardiac survivorship.”
Soar has a more nuanced view of survivorship support, however. “I suspect some people are very glad to be alive, and that trying to dig deep and bring things out may actually be harmful,” he said. “It’s not as clear cut as everybody thinks.”
He noted that follow-up and rehabilitation should be an option for people who specifically need it who would need to be identified. “But human beings are resilient, and while some people will require help, not everybody will,” he said.
Better CPR, New Treatments
Experts in emergency and intensive care medicine studying survival after cardiac arrest hope to find ways to save patients before too much damage is done to the brain and other organs from loss of oxygen, Dr. Parnia said. He is the lead author in a recent multidisciplinary consensus statement on guidelines and standards for the study of death and recalled experiences of death.
“One of my bugbears is that our survival outcomes from cardiac arrest resuscitation have not changed very much for 60 years because we haven’t developed new treatments and innovative methods,” he said. “Unlike the rest of medicine, we’re living in the past.”
Currently, his team is developing cocktails of treatments. These include hypothermic circulatory arrest — cooling the body to stop blood circulation and brain function for up to 40 minutes — and giving magnesium, a brain-protective treatment, to people whose hearts stop.
Dr. Becker would like to see optimal care of patients with cardiac arrest. “The first step is to increase blood flow with good CPR and then measure whether CPR is working,” he said. Adding that despite the availability of devices that provide feedback on the quality of CPR, they’re rarely used. He cited ultrasound devices that measure the blood flow generated during CPR, compression meter devices that go between the patient’s chest and the rescuer’s hands that gauge the rate and depth of compression, and invasive devices that measure blood pressure during CPR.
His group is trying to design even better devices, he said. “An example would be a little probe that you could pop on the neck that would study blood flow to the brain with ultrasound, so that while you were pumping on the person, you could see if you’re making them better or not.”
“We also have some preliminary data showing that the American Heart Association recommended position on the chest for doing CPR is not the perfect place for everybody,” he said. The 2020 AHA guidelines recommended the center of the lower half of the sternum. At the 2023 American College of Emergency Physicians meeting, Dr. Becker›s team at Hofstra/Northwell presented data on 175 video-recorded adult cardiac arrests in their emergency department over more than 2 years, 22 of which involved at least one change of compression location (for a total of 29 location changes). They found that 41% of compression location changes were associated with return of spontaneous circulation.
For about a third of people, the hands need to be repositioned slightly. “This is not anything that is taught to the public because you can only figure it out if you have some kind of sensor that will let you know how you’re doing. That’s very achievable. We could have that in the future on every ambulance and even in people’s homes.”
When the person arrives at the hospital, he said, “we can make it easier and more likely that they can be put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We do that on selected patients in our hospital, even though it’s very difficult to do, because we know that when it’s done properly, it can change survival rates dramatically, from maybe 10%-50%.”
Dr. Dr. Becker, like Dr. Parnia, also favors the development of drug cocktails, and his team has been experimenting with various combinations in animal models. “We think those two things together — ECMO and a drug cocktail — would be a very powerful one to two knock out for cardiac arrest,” he said. “We have a long way to go — 10 or 20 years. But most people around the world working in this area believe that will be the future.”
Dr. Parnia’s study on recalled death was supported by The John Templeton Foundation, Resuscitation Council (UK), and New York University Grossman School of Medicine, with research support staff provided by the UK’s National Institutes for Health Research. Soar is the editor of the journal Resuscitation and receives payment from the publisher Elsevier. Dr. Becker’s institute has received grants from Philips Medical Systems, NIH, Zoll Medical Corp, Nihon Kohden, PCORI, BrainCool, and United Therapeutics. He has received advisory/consultancy honoraria from NIH, Nihon Kohden, HP, and Philips, and he holds several patents in hypothermia induction and reperfusion therapies and several pending patents involving the use of medical slurries as human coolant devices to create reperfusion cocktails and measurement of respiratory quotient.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Weight Loss Surgery Yields Long-Term BP Control in Obesity
For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.
In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.
The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization.
“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.
The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A Gateway to Lasting BP Control
GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m2; mean, 37 kg/m2) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.
Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group.
After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m2 for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m2 for those on medication alone (P < .001).
Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.
After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target.
Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone.
The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).
In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling.
The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years.
Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.
“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote.
“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added.
Important Data, Lingering Questions
The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”
Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.
“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”
As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome.
The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.
In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.
The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization.
“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.
The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A Gateway to Lasting BP Control
GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m2; mean, 37 kg/m2) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.
Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group.
After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m2 for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m2 for those on medication alone (P < .001).
Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.
After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target.
Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone.
The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).
In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling.
The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years.
Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.
“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote.
“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added.
Important Data, Lingering Questions
The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”
Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.
“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”
As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome.
The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For adults with obesity and uncontrolled hypertension, bariatric surgery is an effective and durable strategy to control high blood pressure (BP), final, 5-year follow-up data from the GATEWAY trial suggested.
In the trial, those who underwent bariatric surgery had lower body mass index (BMI) and were on fewer antihypertensive medications after 5 years while maintaining normal BP than those who only used antihypertensive medications.
The results show that “bariatric and metabolic surgery can be very effective in the treatment of patients with obesity and hypertension in the long term,” chief investigator Carlos Aurelio Schiavon, MD, with the Research Institute, Heart Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil, told this news organization.
“The most important clinical implication of this trial is that we must treat obesity to accomplish success when treating patients with cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension and obesity,” Dr. Schiavon said.
The study was published online on February 5, 2024, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A Gateway to Lasting BP Control
GATEWAY enrolled 100 adults (76% women) with grade 1/2 obesity (BMI, 30 to < 40 kg/m2; mean, 37 kg/m2) who were on at least two antihypertensive medications at maximum doses at baseline.
Half were randomly allocated to laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric-bypass surgery (RYGB) plus medications and half to medication alone. The primary outcome was at least a 30% reduction of antihypertensive medications while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg. Five-year results were based on 37 patients in the surgery group and 32 in the medication only group.
After 5 years, BMI was 28.01 kg/m2 for those who had surgery vs 36.40 kg/m2 for those on medication alone (P < .001).
Patients who underwent RYGB had an 80.7% reduction in the number of antihypertensive medications they were taking while maintaining BP < 140/90 mm Hg compared with a 13.7% reduction in those on medication alone.
After 5 years, surgery patients were taking a mean of 0.80 antihypertensive medications vs 2.97 in the medication only group to control BP at or below the target.
Despite using less antihypertensive medications in the RYGB, ambulatory BP monitoring data revealed similar 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime BP profiles compared with medication alone.
The rate of hypertension remission (controlled BP without medication) was nearly 20-fold higher in the surgery group than in the medication only group (46.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001).
In addition, the rate of apparent resistant hypertension was lower with than without surgery (0% vs 15.2%). The surgery group also showed evidence of less atrial remodeling.
The 5-year results were consistent with the 1-year GATEWAY results Dr. Schiavon presented at the American Heart Association 2017 scientific sessions, as reported by this news organization. They also mirrored the results reported at 3 years.
Limitations of the study include its single-center, open-label design with a small sample size and loss of follow-up in some patients.
“Taken together, these results support the long-term effective role of bariatric surgery in reducing the burden of hypertension and related polypharmacy, which is frequently observed in patients with obesity and is a cause of concern for them,” the authors wrote.
“In clinical practice, obesity is an overlooked condition. As a consequence, there is a frequent failure in approaching obesity as a crucial step for mitigating the risk of important cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension. Our results underscore the importance of approaching obesity in reducing hypertension rates,” they added.
Important Data, Lingering Questions
The coauthors of an accompanying editorial said this study provides “important long-term data on the benefits of gastric bypass on weight loss and blood pressure control, but questions remain.”
Yet, Michael Hall, MD, MSc, with University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and coauthors noted that the study only included patients undergoing RYGB; it remains unclear if other bariatric surgery procedures would have the same long-term results.
“Sleeve gastrectomy has become more common than RYGB because it is less complex and has earlier recovery and similar effectiveness for treating obesity and type 2 diabetes,” they pointed out. “Further comparative randomized controlled trials are needed to determine whether sleeve gastrectomy is as effective as RYGB for long-term BP control.”
As reported previously by this news organization, in SLEEVEPASS, there was greater weight loss and higher likelihood of hypertension remission with RYGB than with sleeve gastrectomy (24% vs 8%; P = .04), although BP control was not the primary outcome.
The GATEWAY study was supported by a grant from Ethicon. Dr. Schiavon received a research grant from Ethicon and has received lecture fees from Ethicon and Medtronic. The editorial writers had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Two-Step Screening Uncovers Heart Failure Risk in Diabetes
TOPLINE:
A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
- They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
- Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
- —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
- —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
- —Echocardiography
- They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
- The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
- Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
- The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
- Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.
IN PRACTICE:
“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.
LIMITATIONS:
The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.
DISCLOSURES:
Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
- They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
- Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
- —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
- —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
- —Echocardiography
- They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
- The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
- Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
- The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
- Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.
IN PRACTICE:
“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.
LIMITATIONS:
The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.
DISCLOSURES:
Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
- They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
- Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
- —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
- —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
- —Echocardiography
- They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
- The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
- Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
- The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
- Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.
IN PRACTICE:
“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.
LIMITATIONS:
The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.
DISCLOSURES:
Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Review Finds No Short-term MACE, VTE risk with JAK Inhibitors For Dermatoses
, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.
Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.
The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.
Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.
These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.
However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
Class-Wide Boxed Warning
“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.
ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.
“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions
The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.
Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.
Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.
The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.
No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
Reassuring Results?
Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.
This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.
“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?
“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.
With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”
The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.
, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.
Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.
The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.
Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.
These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.
However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
Class-Wide Boxed Warning
“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.
ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.
“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions
The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.
Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.
Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.
The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.
No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
Reassuring Results?
Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.
This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.
“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?
“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.
With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”
The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.
, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.
Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.
The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.
Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.
These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.
However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
Class-Wide Boxed Warning
“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.
ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.
“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions
The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.
Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.
Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.
The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.
No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
Reassuring Results?
Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.
This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.
“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.
“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.
“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?
“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.
With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”
The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Guidelines Aren’t For Everybody
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
An 88-year-old man comes for clinic follow up. He has a medical history of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and chronic kidney disease. He recently had laboratory tests done: BUN, 32 mg/dL; creatinine, 2.3 mg/dL; potassium, 4.5 mmol/L; bicarbonate, 22 Eq/L; and A1c, 8.2%.
He checks his blood glucose daily (alternating between fasting blood glucose and before dinner) and his fasting blood glucose levels are around 130 mg/dL. His highest glucose reading was 240 mg/dL. He does not have polyuria or visual changes. Current medications: atorvastatin, irbesartan, empagliflozin, and amlodipine. On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/70 mm Hg, pulse is 80, and his BMI 20.
What medication adjustments would you recommend?
A. Begin insulin glargine at bedtime
B. Begin mealtime insulin aspart
C. Begin semaglutide
D. Begin metformin
E. No changes
I think the correct approach here would be no changes. Most physicians know guideline recommendations for A1c of less than 7% are used for patients with diabetes with few comorbid conditions, normal cognition, and functional status. Many of our elderly patients do not meet these criteria and the goal of intense medical treatment of diabetes is different in those patients. The American Diabetes Association has issued a thoughtful paper on treatment of diabetes in elderly people, stressing that patients should have very individualized goals, and that there is no one-size-fits all A1c goal.1
In this patient I would avoid adding insulin, given hypoglycemia risk. A GLP-1 agonist might appear attractive given his multiple cardiovascular risk factors, but his low BMI is a major concern for frailty that may well be worsened with reduced nutrient intake. Diabetes is the chronic condition that probably has the most guidance for management in elderly patients.
I recently saw a 92-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation who had been losing weight and becoming weaker. He had suffered several falls in the previous 2 weeks. His medication list included amiodarone, apixaban, sacubitril/valsartan, carvedilol, empagliflozin, spironolactone, and furosemide. He was extremely frail and had stopped eating. He was receiving all guideline-directed therapies, yet he was miserable and dying. Falls in this population are potentially as fatal as decompensated heart disease.
I stopped his amiodarone, furosemide, and spironolactone, and reduced his doses of sacubitril/valsartan and carvedilol. His appetite returned and his will to live returned. Heart failure guidelines do not include robust studies of very elderly patients because few studies exist in this population. Frailty assessment is crucial in decision making in your elderly patients.2,3 and frequent check-ins to make sure that they are not suffering from the effects of polypharmacy are crucial. Our goal in our very elderly patients is quality life-years. Polypharmacy has the potential to decrease the quality of life, as well as potentially shorten life.
The very elderly are at risk of the negative consequences of polypharmacy, especially if they have several diseases like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and hypertension that may require multiple medications. Gutierrez-Valencia and colleagues performed a systematic review of 25 articles on frailty and polypharmacy.4 Their findings demonstrated a significant association between an increased number of medications and frailty. They postulated that polypharmacy could actually be a contributor to frailty. There just isn’t enough evidence for the benefit of guidelines in the very aged and the risks of polypharmacy are real. We should use the lowest possible doses of medications in this population, frequently reassess goals, and monitor closely for side effects.
Pearl: Always consider the risks of polypharmacy when considering therapies for your elderly patients.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.
References
1. Older Adults: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2021. Diabetes Care 2021;44(Suppl 1):S168–S179.
2. Gaur A et al. Cardiogeriatrics: The current state of the art. Heart. 2024 Jan 11:heartjnl-2022-322117.
3. Denfeld QE et al. Assessing and managing frailty in advanced heart failure: An International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2023 Nov 29:S1053-2498(23)02028-4.
4. Gutiérrez-Valencia M et al. The relationship between frailty and polypharmacy in older people: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jul;84(7):1432-44.
Hypertension Before 35 Tied to Triple Stroke Risk in Midlife
The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since the 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.
“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, told this news organization. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers and looking after family.”
Dr. Aparicio will present the data in full at the International Stroke Conference 2024 to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, Feb. 7-9.
He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.
“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study, a prospective study of 59,000 Black women from across the United States. The baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.
History of hypertension, defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication, and of stroke occurrence was determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.
At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.
Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.
The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).
“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”
He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.
“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.
“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
The Role of Psychosocial Stressors
Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.
She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.
This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.
“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.
“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.
The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since the 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.
“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, told this news organization. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers and looking after family.”
Dr. Aparicio will present the data in full at the International Stroke Conference 2024 to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, Feb. 7-9.
He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.
“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study, a prospective study of 59,000 Black women from across the United States. The baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.
History of hypertension, defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication, and of stroke occurrence was determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.
At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.
Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.
The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).
“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”
He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.
“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.
“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
The Role of Psychosocial Stressors
Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.
She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.
This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.
“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.
“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.
The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The Black Women’s Health Study, which has followed 59,000 participants in the United States since the 1990s, also showed that those who develop hypertension before age 45 have twice the risk of suffering a stroke.
“The really concerning thing about this data is the high proportion of young Black women who had high blood pressure and are suffering strokes relatively early in life,” the study’s lead author, Hugo J. Aparicio, MD, associate professor of neurology at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, told this news organization. “This can lead to a burden of disability in relatively young women who may be at the prime of their life, pursuing careers and looking after family.”
Dr. Aparicio will present the data in full at the International Stroke Conference 2024 to be held in Phoenix, Arizona, Feb. 7-9.
He explained that while there has been good progress in reducing stroke rates in older people over the past decades, there is a concerning observation from multiple datasets showing that stroke rates in midlife have been plateauing or even increasing in recent years.
“For Black women specifically, there is a concern, as we know this group has higher rates of raised blood pressure and stroke overall,” said Dr. Aparicio. “We were interested in looking at whether the onset of hypertension at an earlier age in this group is one of the reasons for the increased stroke risk in midlife.”
The researchers analyzed data from the Black Women’s Health Study, a prospective study of 59,000 Black women from across the United States. The baseline year for this analysis, which included 46,754 stroke-free participants younger than age 65 (mean age, 42 years), was the 1999 questionnaire.
History of hypertension, defined as physician-diagnosed hypertension with the use of an antihypertensive medication, and of stroke occurrence was determined by self-report. It has been shown in previous studies that these self-reported data on incidence of hypertension in this dataset are highly reliable, Dr. Aparicio noted.
At baseline, 10.5% of participants aged 45-64 years had hypertension. Stroke occurred in 3.2% of individuals over a mean follow-up of 17 years.
Black women with hypertension before age 45 had a higher risk for midlife stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.79-2.78), after adjustment for age, neighborhood socioeconomic status, residence in Stroke Belt, smoking, body mass index, and diabetes than women with no history of hypertension.
The risk was also increased with hypertension at midlife ages 45-64 years (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.47-1.95) and was highest among those with hypertension at ages 24-34 years (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.92-5.16).
“Our results show that among young Black women, those with hypertension have a much higher stroke risk than those without hypertension, even if they are taking antihypertensive medication,” Dr. Aparicio said. “This underscores how potent hypertension is as a risk factor for stroke.”
He concluded that both individuals and doctors need to realize that hypertension and stroke are not problems of the elderly exclusively.
“These are conditions that need to be addressed very early in life. This is even more important for Black women, as they are a high-risk group. They need to pay attention to blood pressure numbers early in life — ideally from adolescence — to catch levels before they become too elevated,” Dr. Aparicio said.
“We also need to address lifestyle changes including diet, physical activity, sleep habits, and address other cardiovascular risk factors such as cholesterol and body mass index, so we can prevent strokes from occurring,” he added. “At the policy level, we need to advocate, provide and fund primary prevention measures, and enable earlier screening and better treatment.”
The Role of Psychosocial Stressors
Commenting on the study, the American Heart Association immediate past president, Michelle A. Albert, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the importance of regular primary care appointments to screen for high blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors.
She pointed out that one of the contributing factors that may increase the risk for Black women is their disproportionate experience of psychosocial stressors and chronic cumulative stress.
This could include stress related to financial issues, racism and other forms of bias, the neighborhood environment, and having to take care of multiple generations of family with limited resources.
“These are some of the things that are less talked about as going into the heightened risk for many cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension, very early in life for Black women that we need to bring to the forefront of conversations,” Dr. Albert said.
“These stressors not only impact hypertension onset but also they impact one’s ability to be able to seek help, and once the help is sought, to be able to sustain the therapies recommended and the interventions recommended,” she added.
The authors reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiorespiratory Fitness May Cut Prostate Cancer Risk
Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.
The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.
“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.
Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.
The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.
There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
Study details
The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.
An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.
According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.
This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.
Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.
The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.
“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.
Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.
The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.
There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
Study details
The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.
An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.
According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.
This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.
Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.
The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.
“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.
Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.
The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.
There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
Study details
The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.
An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.
According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.
This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.
FROM BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE