User login
CV deaths jumped in 2020, reflecting pandemic toll
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.
During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.
“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.
Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.
“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”
The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
Data on deaths
Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.
Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.
In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.
“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”
The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.
“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.
Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
Additional considerations
In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.
“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”
For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.
“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”
The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CIRCULATION
Angioedema risk jumps when switching HF meds
New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.
Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.
The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.
A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.
The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A rare complication, but ...
Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.
But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.
The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”
Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.
But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”
Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.
Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’
Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.
But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).
Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).
Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).
But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).
The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.
For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”
Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.
Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.
The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.
A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.
The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A rare complication, but ...
Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.
But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.
The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”
Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.
But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”
Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.
Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’
Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.
But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).
Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).
Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).
But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).
The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.
For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”
Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor therapy using sacubitril-valsartan (Entresto) is no more likely to cause angioedema than starting out with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).
But the risk climbs when such patients start on an ACE inhibitor or ARB and then switch to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those prescribed the newer drug, the only available angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), in the first place.
Those findings and others from a large database analysis, by researchers at the Food and Drug Administration and Harvard Medical School, may clarify and help alleviate a residual safety concern about the ARNI – that it might promote angioedema – that persists after the drug’s major HF trials.
The angioedema risk increased the most right after the switch to the ARNI from one of the older RAS inhibitors. For example, the overall risk doubled for patients who started with an ARB then switched to sacubitril-valsartan, compared with those who started on the newer drug. But it went up about 2.5 times during the first 14 days after the switch.
A similar pattern emerged for ACE inhibitors, but the increased angioedema risk reached significance only within 2 weeks of the switch from an ACE inhibitor to sacubitril-valsartan compared to starting on the latter.
The analysis, based on data from the FDA’s Sentinel adverse event reporting system, was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
A rare complication, but ...
Angioedema was rare overall in the study, with an unadjusted rate of about 6.75 per 1,000 person-years for users of ACE inhibitors, less than half that rate for ARB users, and only one-fifth that rate for sacubitril-valsartan recipients.
But even a rare complication can be a worry for drugs as widely used as RAS inhibitors. And it’s not unusual for patients cautiously started on an ACE inhibitor or ARB to be switched to sacubitril-valsartan, which is only recently a core guideline–recommended therapy for HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Such patients transitioning to the ARNI, the current study suggests, should probably be watched closely for signs of angioedema for 2 weeks but especially during the first few days. Indeed, the study’s event curves show most of the extra risk “popping up” right after the switch to sacubitril-valsartan, lead author Efe Eworuke, PhD, told this news organization.
The ARNI’s labeling, which states the drug should follow ACE inhibitors only after 36-hour washout period, “has done justice to this issue,” she said. But “whether clinicians are adhering to that, we can’t tell.”
Potentially, patients who miss the 36-hour washout between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and sacubitril-valsartan may account for the excess angioedema risk seen in the analysis, said Dr. Eworuke, with the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Silver Spring, Md.
But the analysis doesn’t nail down the window of excess risk to only 36 hours. It suggests that patients switching to the ARNI – even those pausing for 36 hours in between drugs – should probably be monitored “2 weeks or longer,” she said. “They could still have angioedema after the washout period.”
Indeed, the “timing of the switch may be critical,” according to an editorial accompanying the report. “Perhaps a longer initial exposure period of ACE inhibitor or ARB,” beyond 2 weeks, “should be considered before switching to an ARNI,” contended Robert L. Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora.
Moreover, he wrote, the study suggests that “initiation of an ARNI de novo may be safer compared with trialing an ACE inhibitor or ARB then switching to an ARNI,” and “should be a consideration when beginning guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF.”
New RAS inhibition with ARNI ‘protective’
Compared with ARNI “new users” who had not received any RAS inhibitor in the prior 6 months, patients in the study who switched from an ACE inhibitor to ARNI (41,548 matched pairs) showed a hazard ratio (HR) for angioedema of 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-2.89), that is, only a “trend,” the report states.
But that trend became significant when the analysis considered only angioedema cases in the first 14 days after the drug switch: HR, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.11-3.53).
Those switching from an ARB to ARNI, compared with ARNI new users (37,893 matched pairs), showed a significant HR for angioedema of 2.03 (95% CI, 1.16-3.54). The effect was more pronounced when considering only angioedema arising in the first 2 weeks: HR, 2.45 (95% CI, 1.36-4.43).
Compared with new use of ACE inhibitors, new ARNI use (41,998 matched pairs) was “protective,” the report states, with an HR for angioedema of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). So was a switch from ACE inhibitors to the ARNI (69,639 matched pairs), with an HR of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.23-0.43).
But compared with starting with an ARB, ARNI new use (43,755 matched pairs) had a null effect on angioedema risk, HR, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.35-1.01); as did switching from an ARB to ARNI (49,137 matched pairs), HR, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.58-1.26).
The analysis has limitations, Dr. Eworuke acknowledged. The comparator groups probably differed in unknown ways given the limits of propensity matching, for example, and because the FDA’s Sentinel system data can reflect only cases that are reported, the study probably underestimates the true prevalence of angioedema.
For example, a patient may see a clinician for a milder case that resolves without a significant intervention, she noted. But “those types of angioedema would not have been captured by our study.”
Dr. Eworuke disclosed that her comments reflect her views and are not those of the Food and Drug Administration; she and the other authors, as well as editorialist Dr. Page, report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Noninvasive liver test may help select asymptomatic candidates for heart failure tests
A noninvasive test for liver disease may be a useful, low-cost screening tool to select asymptomatic candidates for a detailed examination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), say authors of a report published in Gastro Hep Advances.
The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk, wrote Chisato Okamoto, MD, of the department of medical biochemistry at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan, and colleagues.
“Recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at an early stage in mass screening is desirable, but difficult to achieve,” the authors wrote. “The FIB-4 index is calculated using only four parameters that are routinely evaluated in general health check-up programs.”
HFpEF is an emerging disease in recent years with a poor prognosis, they wrote. Early diagnosis can be challenging for several reasons, particularly because HFpEF patients are often asymptomatic until late in the disease process and have normal left ventricular filling pressures at rest. By using a tool to select probable cases from subclinical participants in a health check-up program, clinicians can refer patients for a diastolic stress test, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing HFpEF.
Previous studies have found that the FIB-4 index, a noninvasive tool to estimate liver stiffness and fibrosis, is associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with HFpEF. In addition, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have a twofold higher prevalence of HFpEF than the general population.
Dr. Okamoto and colleagues examined the association between the FIB-4 index and HFpEF risk based on the Heart Failure Association’s diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF in patients with breathlessness (HFA-PEFF). The researchers looked at the prognostic impact of the FIB-4 index in 710 patients who participated in a health check-up program in the rural community of Arita-cho, Japan, between 2006 and 2007. They excluded participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF < 50%). Researchers calculated the FIB-4 index and HFA-PEFF score for all participants.
First, using the HFA-PEFF scores, the researchers sorted participants into five groups by HFpEF risk: 215 (30%) with zero points, 100 (14%) with 1 point, 171 (24%) with 2 points, 163 (23%) with 3 points, and 61 (9%) with 4-6 points. Participants in the high-risk group (scores 4-6) were older, mostly men, and had higher blood pressure, alcohol intake, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease. The higher the HFpEF risk group, the higher the rates of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and MACE.
Overall, the FIB-4 index was correlated with the HFpEF risk groups and showed a stepwise increase across the groups, with .94 for the low-risk group, 1.45 for the intermediate-risk group, and 1.99 for the high-risk group, the authors wrote. The FIB-4 index also correlated with markers associated with components of the HFA-PEFF scoring system.
Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the FIB-4 index was associated with a high HFpEF risk, and an increase in FIB-4 was associated with increased odds of high HFpEF risk. The association remained significant across four separate models that accounted for risk factors associated with lifestyle-related diseases, blood parameters associated with liver disease, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and liver disease.
In additional area under the curve (AUC) analyses, the FIB-4 index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk. At cutoff values typically used for advanced liver fibrosis in NAFLD, a FIB-4 cutoff of 1.3 or less had a sensitivity of 85.2%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of 2.67 or higher had a specificity of 94.8%. At alternate cutoff values typically used for patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus infection, a FIB-4 cutoff of less than 1.45 had a sensitivity of 75.4%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of greater than 3.25 had a specificity of 98%.
Using cutoffs of 1.3 and 2.67, a higher FIB-4 was associated with higher rates of clinical events and MACE, as well as a higher HFpEF risk. Using the alternate cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25, prognostic stratification of clinical events and MACE was also possible.
When all variables were included in the multivariate model, the FIB-4 index remained a significant prognostic predictor. The FIB-4 index stratified clinical prognosis was also an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure.
Although additional studies are needed to reveal the interaction between liver and heart function, the study authors wrote, the findings provide valuable insights that can help discover the cardiohepatic interaction to reduce the development of HFpEF.
“Since it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively measured, routine or repeated measurements of the FIB-4 index could help in selecting preferred candidates for detailed examination of HFpEF risk, which may improve clinical outcomes by diagnosing HFpEF at an early stage,” they wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Disease, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Japan Heart Foundation. The authors disclosed no conflicts.
The 2021 NAFLD clinical care pathway is a shining example of how a simple score like the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index – paired sequentially with a second noninvasive test like vibration-controlled elastography – can provide an accurate, cost-effective screening tool and risk stratification and further limit invasive testing such as liver biopsy.
Broader use of FIB-4 by cardiovascular and hepatology providers may increase earlier identification of NAFLD or HFpEF or both.
Anand S. Shah, MD, is director of hepatology at Atlanta VA Healthcare and assistant professor of medicine, division of digestive disease, department of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. He has no financial conflicts.
The 2021 NAFLD clinical care pathway is a shining example of how a simple score like the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index – paired sequentially with a second noninvasive test like vibration-controlled elastography – can provide an accurate, cost-effective screening tool and risk stratification and further limit invasive testing such as liver biopsy.
Broader use of FIB-4 by cardiovascular and hepatology providers may increase earlier identification of NAFLD or HFpEF or both.
Anand S. Shah, MD, is director of hepatology at Atlanta VA Healthcare and assistant professor of medicine, division of digestive disease, department of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. He has no financial conflicts.
The 2021 NAFLD clinical care pathway is a shining example of how a simple score like the fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index – paired sequentially with a second noninvasive test like vibration-controlled elastography – can provide an accurate, cost-effective screening tool and risk stratification and further limit invasive testing such as liver biopsy.
Broader use of FIB-4 by cardiovascular and hepatology providers may increase earlier identification of NAFLD or HFpEF or both.
Anand S. Shah, MD, is director of hepatology at Atlanta VA Healthcare and assistant professor of medicine, division of digestive disease, department of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. He has no financial conflicts.
A noninvasive test for liver disease may be a useful, low-cost screening tool to select asymptomatic candidates for a detailed examination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), say authors of a report published in Gastro Hep Advances.
The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk, wrote Chisato Okamoto, MD, of the department of medical biochemistry at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan, and colleagues.
“Recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at an early stage in mass screening is desirable, but difficult to achieve,” the authors wrote. “The FIB-4 index is calculated using only four parameters that are routinely evaluated in general health check-up programs.”
HFpEF is an emerging disease in recent years with a poor prognosis, they wrote. Early diagnosis can be challenging for several reasons, particularly because HFpEF patients are often asymptomatic until late in the disease process and have normal left ventricular filling pressures at rest. By using a tool to select probable cases from subclinical participants in a health check-up program, clinicians can refer patients for a diastolic stress test, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing HFpEF.
Previous studies have found that the FIB-4 index, a noninvasive tool to estimate liver stiffness and fibrosis, is associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with HFpEF. In addition, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have a twofold higher prevalence of HFpEF than the general population.
Dr. Okamoto and colleagues examined the association between the FIB-4 index and HFpEF risk based on the Heart Failure Association’s diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF in patients with breathlessness (HFA-PEFF). The researchers looked at the prognostic impact of the FIB-4 index in 710 patients who participated in a health check-up program in the rural community of Arita-cho, Japan, between 2006 and 2007. They excluded participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF < 50%). Researchers calculated the FIB-4 index and HFA-PEFF score for all participants.
First, using the HFA-PEFF scores, the researchers sorted participants into five groups by HFpEF risk: 215 (30%) with zero points, 100 (14%) with 1 point, 171 (24%) with 2 points, 163 (23%) with 3 points, and 61 (9%) with 4-6 points. Participants in the high-risk group (scores 4-6) were older, mostly men, and had higher blood pressure, alcohol intake, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease. The higher the HFpEF risk group, the higher the rates of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and MACE.
Overall, the FIB-4 index was correlated with the HFpEF risk groups and showed a stepwise increase across the groups, with .94 for the low-risk group, 1.45 for the intermediate-risk group, and 1.99 for the high-risk group, the authors wrote. The FIB-4 index also correlated with markers associated with components of the HFA-PEFF scoring system.
Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the FIB-4 index was associated with a high HFpEF risk, and an increase in FIB-4 was associated with increased odds of high HFpEF risk. The association remained significant across four separate models that accounted for risk factors associated with lifestyle-related diseases, blood parameters associated with liver disease, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and liver disease.
In additional area under the curve (AUC) analyses, the FIB-4 index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk. At cutoff values typically used for advanced liver fibrosis in NAFLD, a FIB-4 cutoff of 1.3 or less had a sensitivity of 85.2%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of 2.67 or higher had a specificity of 94.8%. At alternate cutoff values typically used for patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus infection, a FIB-4 cutoff of less than 1.45 had a sensitivity of 75.4%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of greater than 3.25 had a specificity of 98%.
Using cutoffs of 1.3 and 2.67, a higher FIB-4 was associated with higher rates of clinical events and MACE, as well as a higher HFpEF risk. Using the alternate cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25, prognostic stratification of clinical events and MACE was also possible.
When all variables were included in the multivariate model, the FIB-4 index remained a significant prognostic predictor. The FIB-4 index stratified clinical prognosis was also an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure.
Although additional studies are needed to reveal the interaction between liver and heart function, the study authors wrote, the findings provide valuable insights that can help discover the cardiohepatic interaction to reduce the development of HFpEF.
“Since it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively measured, routine or repeated measurements of the FIB-4 index could help in selecting preferred candidates for detailed examination of HFpEF risk, which may improve clinical outcomes by diagnosing HFpEF at an early stage,” they wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Disease, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Japan Heart Foundation. The authors disclosed no conflicts.
A noninvasive test for liver disease may be a useful, low-cost screening tool to select asymptomatic candidates for a detailed examination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), say authors of a report published in Gastro Hep Advances.
The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk, wrote Chisato Okamoto, MD, of the department of medical biochemistry at Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Japan, and colleagues.
“Recognition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction at an early stage in mass screening is desirable, but difficult to achieve,” the authors wrote. “The FIB-4 index is calculated using only four parameters that are routinely evaluated in general health check-up programs.”
HFpEF is an emerging disease in recent years with a poor prognosis, they wrote. Early diagnosis can be challenging for several reasons, particularly because HFpEF patients are often asymptomatic until late in the disease process and have normal left ventricular filling pressures at rest. By using a tool to select probable cases from subclinical participants in a health check-up program, clinicians can refer patients for a diastolic stress test, which is considered the gold standard for diagnosing HFpEF.
Previous studies have found that the FIB-4 index, a noninvasive tool to estimate liver stiffness and fibrosis, is associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with HFpEF. In addition, patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) have a twofold higher prevalence of HFpEF than the general population.
Dr. Okamoto and colleagues examined the association between the FIB-4 index and HFpEF risk based on the Heart Failure Association’s diagnostic algorithm for HFpEF in patients with breathlessness (HFA-PEFF). The researchers looked at the prognostic impact of the FIB-4 index in 710 patients who participated in a health check-up program in the rural community of Arita-cho, Japan, between 2006 and 2007. They excluded participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or reduced left ventricular systolic function (LVEF < 50%). Researchers calculated the FIB-4 index and HFA-PEFF score for all participants.
First, using the HFA-PEFF scores, the researchers sorted participants into five groups by HFpEF risk: 215 (30%) with zero points, 100 (14%) with 1 point, 171 (24%) with 2 points, 163 (23%) with 3 points, and 61 (9%) with 4-6 points. Participants in the high-risk group (scores 4-6) were older, mostly men, and had higher blood pressure, alcohol intake, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and liver disease. The higher the HFpEF risk group, the higher the rates of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and MACE.
Overall, the FIB-4 index was correlated with the HFpEF risk groups and showed a stepwise increase across the groups, with .94 for the low-risk group, 1.45 for the intermediate-risk group, and 1.99 for the high-risk group, the authors wrote. The FIB-4 index also correlated with markers associated with components of the HFA-PEFF scoring system.
Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the FIB-4 index was associated with a high HFpEF risk, and an increase in FIB-4 was associated with increased odds of high HFpEF risk. The association remained significant across four separate models that accounted for risk factors associated with lifestyle-related diseases, blood parameters associated with liver disease, and chronic conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and liver disease.
In additional area under the curve (AUC) analyses, the FIB-4 index was a significant predictor of high HFpEF risk. At cutoff values typically used for advanced liver fibrosis in NAFLD, a FIB-4 cutoff of 1.3 or less had a sensitivity of 85.2%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of 2.67 or higher had a specificity of 94.8%. At alternate cutoff values typically used for patients with HIV/hepatitis C virus infection, a FIB-4 cutoff of less than 1.45 had a sensitivity of 75.4%, while a FIB-4 cutoff of greater than 3.25 had a specificity of 98%.
Using cutoffs of 1.3 and 2.67, a higher FIB-4 was associated with higher rates of clinical events and MACE, as well as a higher HFpEF risk. Using the alternate cutoffs of 1.45 and 3.25, prognostic stratification of clinical events and MACE was also possible.
When all variables were included in the multivariate model, the FIB-4 index remained a significant prognostic predictor. The FIB-4 index stratified clinical prognosis was also an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure.
Although additional studies are needed to reveal the interaction between liver and heart function, the study authors wrote, the findings provide valuable insights that can help discover the cardiohepatic interaction to reduce the development of HFpEF.
“Since it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively measured, routine or repeated measurements of the FIB-4 index could help in selecting preferred candidates for detailed examination of HFpEF risk, which may improve clinical outcomes by diagnosing HFpEF at an early stage,” they wrote.
The study was supported by grants from the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Disease, the Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, and the Japan Heart Foundation. The authors disclosed no conflicts.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
More type 2 diabetes deaths from cancer than heart disease
Cancer appears to have overtaken cardiovascular disease (CVD) as a leading cause of death in adults with type 2 diabetes, a 20-year population study in England suggests.
The researchers found that, from 1998 to 2018, in more than 130,000 adults aged 35 and older with type 2 diabetes, all-cause mortality declined for all ages, but cancer mortality increased for those aged 75 and older; people with type 2 diabetes who were smokers had higher and steadily increasing cancer mortality rates; and people with type 2 diabetes had more than twice the rate of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, and endometrial cancer mortality than age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population.
The findings suggest that “cancer prevention strategies therefore deserve at least a similar level of attention as cardiovascular disease prevention, particularly in older people and for some cancers such as liver, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer,” the researchers wrote.
Tailored cancer prevention and early-detection strategies are needed to address persistent inequalities in the older population, the most deprived, and smokers, they added.
Breast cancer rates in younger women with type 2 diabetes rising
According to the researchers, “early cancer detection through changes to existing screening [programs], or more in-depth investigations for suspected/nonspecific symptoms, may reduce the number of avoidable cancer deaths in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Moreover, breast cancer rates in younger women with type 2 diabetes are rising by 4.1% per year, they wrote, which suggests such women are high risk and should be screened at a younger age, but screening age would need to be determined in cost-effectiveness analyses.
The study by Suping Ling, PhD, and colleagues was published online in Diabetologia.
Results challenge belief that preventing CVD is priority in type 2 diabetes
“The prevention of cardiovascular disease has been, and is still considered, a priority in people with diabetes,” the researchers wrote.
“Our results challenge this view by showing that cancer may have overtaken cardiovascular disease as a leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.”
“The proportion of cancer deaths out of all-cause deaths remains high (> 30%) in young ages, and it was steadily increasing in older ages,” Dr. Ling, from the department of noncommunicable disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said in a comment.
“Combined with previous studies reporting decreasing CVD mortality rates,” she said, “we concluded that cancer might have overtaken CVD as the leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Many evidence-based cancer-prevention strategies related to lifestyle (such as being physically active, being a healthy weight, eating a better diet, stopping smoking, as summarized by the World Cancer Research Fund), are helpful for preventing both cancer and CVD, Ling observed.
However, in the medical community, many additional efforts were made for monitoring, early detection, and innovating medications for CVD, she noted. “Therefore, we would like to propose a similar level of attention and effort for cancer in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Deaths from cancer vs. all causes in patients with diabetes
The researchers identified 137,804 patients aged 35 and older who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from 1998 to 2018 in general practices in the UK that were part of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
Patients were a median age of 64 years and 45% were women. Most (83%) were White, followed by South Asian (3.5%), Black (2.0%), and other (3%); 8.4% had missing information for race. Patients had a median body mass index (BMI) of 30.6 kg/m2.
Researchers divided patients into socioeconomic quintiles of most to least deprived based on income, employment, education, and other factors. During a median follow-up of 8.4 years, there were 39,212 deaths (28.5%).
Cancer mortality in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes
Researchers analyzed annual deaths from cancer and from all causes over 20 years in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes.
In adults with type 2 diabetes, the average percentage change in cancer mortality per year, from 1998 to 2018 decreased in people aged 55 and 65 (–1.4% and –0.2%, respectively), but increased in people aged 75 and 85 (1.2% and 1.6%, respectively); increased more in women than in men (1.5% vs 1.0%), although women had lower cancer mortality than men; and increased more in the least deprived (wealthiest) individuals than in the most deprived (1.5% vs 1.0%). Cancer mortality rates were consistently higher in the most deprived individuals, Dr. Ling noted.
Cancer mortality also increased more in people with class III obesity (BMI ≥ 35) versus normal weight (5.8% vs 0.7%) and versus other weights. In addition, there was an upward trend in cancer mortality in people who were White or former/current smokers.
Deaths from specific cancers in diabetes vs. general population
Next, researchers determined cancer mortality ratios – the cancer mortality of the patients with diabetes divided by the cancer mortality of the general population.
They determined this for all cancers, the four most common cancers in the United Kingdom (lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate), and cancers caused by type 2 diabetes (pancreatic, liver, gallbladder, and endometrial cancer), standardized by sex and age.
Mortality from all cancer was 18% higher in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with the general population.
Overall, mortality from colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer was 2.4 times, 2.12 times, and 2.13 times higher, respectively, in patients with type 2 diabetes than in the general population.
Mortality from breast cancer was 9% higher and mortality from endometrial cancer was 2.08 times higher in women with type 2 diabetes than in women in the general population.
There was a constant upward trend for mortality rates for pancreatic, liver, and lung cancer at all ages, colorectal cancer at most ages, breast cancer at younger ages, and prostate and endometrial cancer at older ages.
The study was funded by Hope Against Cancer. Dr. Ling reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer appears to have overtaken cardiovascular disease (CVD) as a leading cause of death in adults with type 2 diabetes, a 20-year population study in England suggests.
The researchers found that, from 1998 to 2018, in more than 130,000 adults aged 35 and older with type 2 diabetes, all-cause mortality declined for all ages, but cancer mortality increased for those aged 75 and older; people with type 2 diabetes who were smokers had higher and steadily increasing cancer mortality rates; and people with type 2 diabetes had more than twice the rate of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, and endometrial cancer mortality than age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population.
The findings suggest that “cancer prevention strategies therefore deserve at least a similar level of attention as cardiovascular disease prevention, particularly in older people and for some cancers such as liver, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer,” the researchers wrote.
Tailored cancer prevention and early-detection strategies are needed to address persistent inequalities in the older population, the most deprived, and smokers, they added.
Breast cancer rates in younger women with type 2 diabetes rising
According to the researchers, “early cancer detection through changes to existing screening [programs], or more in-depth investigations for suspected/nonspecific symptoms, may reduce the number of avoidable cancer deaths in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Moreover, breast cancer rates in younger women with type 2 diabetes are rising by 4.1% per year, they wrote, which suggests such women are high risk and should be screened at a younger age, but screening age would need to be determined in cost-effectiveness analyses.
The study by Suping Ling, PhD, and colleagues was published online in Diabetologia.
Results challenge belief that preventing CVD is priority in type 2 diabetes
“The prevention of cardiovascular disease has been, and is still considered, a priority in people with diabetes,” the researchers wrote.
“Our results challenge this view by showing that cancer may have overtaken cardiovascular disease as a leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.”
“The proportion of cancer deaths out of all-cause deaths remains high (> 30%) in young ages, and it was steadily increasing in older ages,” Dr. Ling, from the department of noncommunicable disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said in a comment.
“Combined with previous studies reporting decreasing CVD mortality rates,” she said, “we concluded that cancer might have overtaken CVD as the leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Many evidence-based cancer-prevention strategies related to lifestyle (such as being physically active, being a healthy weight, eating a better diet, stopping smoking, as summarized by the World Cancer Research Fund), are helpful for preventing both cancer and CVD, Ling observed.
However, in the medical community, many additional efforts were made for monitoring, early detection, and innovating medications for CVD, she noted. “Therefore, we would like to propose a similar level of attention and effort for cancer in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Deaths from cancer vs. all causes in patients with diabetes
The researchers identified 137,804 patients aged 35 and older who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from 1998 to 2018 in general practices in the UK that were part of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
Patients were a median age of 64 years and 45% were women. Most (83%) were White, followed by South Asian (3.5%), Black (2.0%), and other (3%); 8.4% had missing information for race. Patients had a median body mass index (BMI) of 30.6 kg/m2.
Researchers divided patients into socioeconomic quintiles of most to least deprived based on income, employment, education, and other factors. During a median follow-up of 8.4 years, there were 39,212 deaths (28.5%).
Cancer mortality in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes
Researchers analyzed annual deaths from cancer and from all causes over 20 years in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes.
In adults with type 2 diabetes, the average percentage change in cancer mortality per year, from 1998 to 2018 decreased in people aged 55 and 65 (–1.4% and –0.2%, respectively), but increased in people aged 75 and 85 (1.2% and 1.6%, respectively); increased more in women than in men (1.5% vs 1.0%), although women had lower cancer mortality than men; and increased more in the least deprived (wealthiest) individuals than in the most deprived (1.5% vs 1.0%). Cancer mortality rates were consistently higher in the most deprived individuals, Dr. Ling noted.
Cancer mortality also increased more in people with class III obesity (BMI ≥ 35) versus normal weight (5.8% vs 0.7%) and versus other weights. In addition, there was an upward trend in cancer mortality in people who were White or former/current smokers.
Deaths from specific cancers in diabetes vs. general population
Next, researchers determined cancer mortality ratios – the cancer mortality of the patients with diabetes divided by the cancer mortality of the general population.
They determined this for all cancers, the four most common cancers in the United Kingdom (lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate), and cancers caused by type 2 diabetes (pancreatic, liver, gallbladder, and endometrial cancer), standardized by sex and age.
Mortality from all cancer was 18% higher in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with the general population.
Overall, mortality from colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer was 2.4 times, 2.12 times, and 2.13 times higher, respectively, in patients with type 2 diabetes than in the general population.
Mortality from breast cancer was 9% higher and mortality from endometrial cancer was 2.08 times higher in women with type 2 diabetes than in women in the general population.
There was a constant upward trend for mortality rates for pancreatic, liver, and lung cancer at all ages, colorectal cancer at most ages, breast cancer at younger ages, and prostate and endometrial cancer at older ages.
The study was funded by Hope Against Cancer. Dr. Ling reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cancer appears to have overtaken cardiovascular disease (CVD) as a leading cause of death in adults with type 2 diabetes, a 20-year population study in England suggests.
The researchers found that, from 1998 to 2018, in more than 130,000 adults aged 35 and older with type 2 diabetes, all-cause mortality declined for all ages, but cancer mortality increased for those aged 75 and older; people with type 2 diabetes who were smokers had higher and steadily increasing cancer mortality rates; and people with type 2 diabetes had more than twice the rate of colorectal, pancreatic, liver, and endometrial cancer mortality than age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population.
The findings suggest that “cancer prevention strategies therefore deserve at least a similar level of attention as cardiovascular disease prevention, particularly in older people and for some cancers such as liver, colorectal, and pancreatic cancer,” the researchers wrote.
Tailored cancer prevention and early-detection strategies are needed to address persistent inequalities in the older population, the most deprived, and smokers, they added.
Breast cancer rates in younger women with type 2 diabetes rising
According to the researchers, “early cancer detection through changes to existing screening [programs], or more in-depth investigations for suspected/nonspecific symptoms, may reduce the number of avoidable cancer deaths in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Moreover, breast cancer rates in younger women with type 2 diabetes are rising by 4.1% per year, they wrote, which suggests such women are high risk and should be screened at a younger age, but screening age would need to be determined in cost-effectiveness analyses.
The study by Suping Ling, PhD, and colleagues was published online in Diabetologia.
Results challenge belief that preventing CVD is priority in type 2 diabetes
“The prevention of cardiovascular disease has been, and is still considered, a priority in people with diabetes,” the researchers wrote.
“Our results challenge this view by showing that cancer may have overtaken cardiovascular disease as a leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.”
“The proportion of cancer deaths out of all-cause deaths remains high (> 30%) in young ages, and it was steadily increasing in older ages,” Dr. Ling, from the department of noncommunicable disease epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said in a comment.
“Combined with previous studies reporting decreasing CVD mortality rates,” she said, “we concluded that cancer might have overtaken CVD as the leading cause of death in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Many evidence-based cancer-prevention strategies related to lifestyle (such as being physically active, being a healthy weight, eating a better diet, stopping smoking, as summarized by the World Cancer Research Fund), are helpful for preventing both cancer and CVD, Ling observed.
However, in the medical community, many additional efforts were made for monitoring, early detection, and innovating medications for CVD, she noted. “Therefore, we would like to propose a similar level of attention and effort for cancer in people with type 2 diabetes.”
Deaths from cancer vs. all causes in patients with diabetes
The researchers identified 137,804 patients aged 35 and older who were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes from 1998 to 2018 in general practices in the UK that were part of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.
Patients were a median age of 64 years and 45% were women. Most (83%) were White, followed by South Asian (3.5%), Black (2.0%), and other (3%); 8.4% had missing information for race. Patients had a median body mass index (BMI) of 30.6 kg/m2.
Researchers divided patients into socioeconomic quintiles of most to least deprived based on income, employment, education, and other factors. During a median follow-up of 8.4 years, there were 39,212 deaths (28.5%).
Cancer mortality in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes
Researchers analyzed annual deaths from cancer and from all causes over 20 years in subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes.
In adults with type 2 diabetes, the average percentage change in cancer mortality per year, from 1998 to 2018 decreased in people aged 55 and 65 (–1.4% and –0.2%, respectively), but increased in people aged 75 and 85 (1.2% and 1.6%, respectively); increased more in women than in men (1.5% vs 1.0%), although women had lower cancer mortality than men; and increased more in the least deprived (wealthiest) individuals than in the most deprived (1.5% vs 1.0%). Cancer mortality rates were consistently higher in the most deprived individuals, Dr. Ling noted.
Cancer mortality also increased more in people with class III obesity (BMI ≥ 35) versus normal weight (5.8% vs 0.7%) and versus other weights. In addition, there was an upward trend in cancer mortality in people who were White or former/current smokers.
Deaths from specific cancers in diabetes vs. general population
Next, researchers determined cancer mortality ratios – the cancer mortality of the patients with diabetes divided by the cancer mortality of the general population.
They determined this for all cancers, the four most common cancers in the United Kingdom (lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate), and cancers caused by type 2 diabetes (pancreatic, liver, gallbladder, and endometrial cancer), standardized by sex and age.
Mortality from all cancer was 18% higher in patients with type 2 diabetes, compared with the general population.
Overall, mortality from colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and liver cancer was 2.4 times, 2.12 times, and 2.13 times higher, respectively, in patients with type 2 diabetes than in the general population.
Mortality from breast cancer was 9% higher and mortality from endometrial cancer was 2.08 times higher in women with type 2 diabetes than in women in the general population.
There was a constant upward trend for mortality rates for pancreatic, liver, and lung cancer at all ages, colorectal cancer at most ages, breast cancer at younger ages, and prostate and endometrial cancer at older ages.
The study was funded by Hope Against Cancer. Dr. Ling reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETOLOGIA
Medicare policy tweak on LVADs may reduce access to transplant
A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.
In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.
While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.
The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.
Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
Differential assessment?
Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.
“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.
“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”
The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.
They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.
“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.
“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.
The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.
In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.
While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.
The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.
Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
Differential assessment?
Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.
“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.
“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”
The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.
They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.
“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.
“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.
The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.
In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.
While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.
The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.
Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
Differential assessment?
Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.
“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.
“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”
The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.
They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.
“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.
“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.
The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Clarity on torsemide vs. furosemide in HF: TRANSFORM-HF published
Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.
The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.
TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
Perceived torsemide advantages
Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.
TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.
The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.
TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Mentz had also presented the trial’s preliminary results at the November American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in Chicago. The findings unveiled at the meeting and those published in the journal are essentially the same.
Reflections of standard practice
With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.
Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”
Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .
Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
Trial design caveats
But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”
The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.
The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).
“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.
“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”
TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.
The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.
TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
Perceived torsemide advantages
Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.
TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.
The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.
TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Mentz had also presented the trial’s preliminary results at the November American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in Chicago. The findings unveiled at the meeting and those published in the journal are essentially the same.
Reflections of standard practice
With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.
Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”
Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .
Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
Trial design caveats
But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”
The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.
The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).
“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.
“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”
TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.
The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.
TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
Perceived torsemide advantages
Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.
TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.
The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.
TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Dr. Mentz had also presented the trial’s preliminary results at the November American Heart Association Scientific Sessions in Chicago. The findings unveiled at the meeting and those published in the journal are essentially the same.
Reflections of standard practice
With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.
Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”
Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .
Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
Trial design caveats
But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”
The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.
The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).
“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.
“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”
TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
FDA approves new type 2 diabetes drug bexagliflozin
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2).
In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.
In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.
“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.
“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”
As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.
Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.
Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2).
In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.
In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.
“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.
“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”
As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.
Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.
Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved bexagliflozin (Brenzavvy, TheracosBio) for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes.
The once-daily 20-mg oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control for those with type 2 diabetes, but not type 1 diabetes. It can be used in adults with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Approval was based on results from 23 clinical trials with more than 5,000 participants, including more than 300 patients with stage 3 kidney disease (eGFR < 60 and > 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2).
In the phase 3 studies, bexagliflozin significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c and fasting blood glucose at 24 weeks as monotherapy or as add-on to metformin and other glucose-lowering drugs and combinations. It also produced modest reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure.
In the phase 3 Bexagliflozin Efficacy and Safety Trial (BEST) cardiovascular outcomes trial, the drug met its efficacy and safety objectives in patients at high cardiovascular risk. Noninferiority was demonstrated for the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unstable angina.
“As a class of drugs, SGLT2 inhibitors have shown tremendous benefit in treating adults with type 2 diabetes,” said Mason Freeman, MD, director of the Translational Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a press release from TheracosBio.
“Being involved in all of the clinical trials for Brenzavvy, I am greatly impressed with the efficacy of the drug in reducing blood glucose levels and I believe it is an important addition to the SGLT2 inhibitor class of drugs.”
As with other SGLT2 inhibitors, adverse events seen in the trials include ketoacidosis, lower limb amputation, volume depletion, urosepsis, pyelonephritis, Fournier’s gangrene, genital mycotic infections, and hypoglycemia when used with insulin or insulin secretagogues.
Bexagliflozin joins an already crowded field of SGLT2 inhibitors, some of which have been approved for additional cardiovascular and kidney indications.
Of interest, bexagliflozin was approved by the FDA for diabetes in cats in December 2022, as the first oral new animal drug to improve glycemic control in otherwise healthy cats with diabetes not previously treated with insulin.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Damar Hamlin’s cardiac arrest: Key lessons
This discussion was recorded on Jan. 9, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert D. Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul E. Pepe, an emergency medicine physician based in Florida and a highly recognized expert in emergency medical services (EMS), critical care, sports and event medicine, and resuscitation. Also joining us is Dr. Michael S. (“Mick”) Malloy, an emergency medicine physician based in Ireland, also an expert in prehospital care, resuscitation, and sports and event medicine. Welcome, gentlemen.
Dr. Pepe: Thanks for having us here.
Dr. Glatter: the Buffalo Bills safety who went down suffering a cardiac arrest in front of millions of people. Although we don’t know the exact cause of the events that transpired, the goal of our discussion is to guide our audience through a systematic approach to evaluation and management of an athlete suffering blunt force chest and neck trauma, and then suffering a cardiac arrest. We do know, obviously, that Damar was successfully resuscitated, thanks to the medical staff and trainers.
Almost 50 years ago, Chuck Hughes, a Detroit Lions receiver, went down and died with just a minute to go in the game and, unfortunately, didn’t survive.
Paul, can you tell me your impressions after viewing the replay of the events that evening? What were the most likely causes of this syncopal event and the subsequent cardiac arrest?
Dr. Pepe: We don’t know anything specifically. It’s being kept private about what the events were. It’s a little bit complicated in a sense that he basically had an extended resuscitation in the hospital. My experience has been that most people that have ventricular fibrillation, from whatever cause, will most likely be waking up on the field if you get to them. I’ve had personal experience with that.
More importantly than when it starts, when someone goes down on the field, both Dr. Malloy and I take a broader view. We don’t get tunnel vision and think, “Oh, it was a traumatic event,” or “It was cardiac event,” and we just have our minds open. There are many things that could make you stop breathing on the field. It could be a neck or a severe head injury, and then any kind of other internal injury that occurs.
When I saw in the video that Damar Hamlin stood up, that made it a less likely to be a spinal injury. He seemed to be physically functioning, and then he suddenly collapsed. That went along with something that looks like a ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia type of event and made me think right away that it was commotio cordis. I’m not a Latin scholar, but commotio is like commotion. A literal translation might be an agitation of the heart. I was thinking that he probably got hit somewhere in the middle of the chest at the right moment where the heart is resetting in that repolarization phase, like an R-on-T phenomenon, and then caused this sudden ventricular dysrhythmia.
Most people associate it to that because we have a couple of dozen cases a year of people getting hockey pucks or a baseball hitting their chest, which is very common with adolescents. On the other hand, you can’t get it from a blunt injury like this, and it was too early for it to be, say, a direct cardiac contusion, unless there was a direct injury there. It just happened so quickly.
In Europe, they’ve had a large amount of experience with this same kind of problem before, even just from a direct shoulder hit, for example. Mick Malloy is the dean of the faculty of sports and exercise medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and has vast experience, and now he is the person overseeing the procedures for this. Mick, have you had those kinds of experiences as well?
Dr. Molloy: Yes. It’s something that has occurred over recent decades and has been more recognized. I note that in professional sports, it’s a very different thing because you’ve got such huge teams and teams trained to respond very quickly. And that’s the most important thing in this scenario – having a team that is well functioning as a high-class emergency response team ready to get out on to that field very quickly after the person collapses, getting the automated external defibrillator (AED) on, and then recognizing whether there needs to be a shock given or not. The machine will tell you all that.
In our scenario, we run courses called CARES (Care of the Athlete Resuscitation and Emergencies in Sport) to make sure that our team physicians and team physiotherapists and trainers are all speaking as one when an emergency arises.
I don’t worry so much about the professional sport. It’s more with the amateur sports and the kids sports that I get a bit more concerned because there isn’t the same level of medical care there. Having everybody trained in basic life support would be very important to reduce unnecessary deaths from these types of conditions.
As Paul mentioned, there is a very specific cardiac cause in some of these circumstances, where you get hit just at the wrong time and that hit occurs at a particular electrical point in time. It causes this ventricular fibrillation, and the only real treatment there is the defibrillator as quickly as possible.
Dr. Glatter: What you’re saying ultimately is an important part about rapid defibrillation, and at first, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). People are concerned about whether they should begin CPR. We’re talking about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that is outside of a football stadium, for example. Some people are obsessed with taking a person’s pulse, and that’s been a point of contention. If someone is unconscious and not breathing, we should start CPR. Wouldn›t you agree? They will wake up quickly if you begin chest compressions if they’re not necessary.
Dr. Pepe: I tell people, just do it. You’re right, people will wake up and feel it if they don’t need it.
Getting back to Mick’s point of having things ready to go, for example, 8 years ago, we had a professional player on the bench who suddenly collapsed right there in front of the entire audience. We immediately did CPR, and we got the AED on. We shocked him and he was ready, willing, and able to get back on the bench again. It turns out he had underlying coronary artery disease, but we got him back right away.
I did an initial study where we placed an AED in a public place at the Chicago O’Hare Airport to see if the public would use these. Most cardiac arrests occur at home, of course, but in public places, that was a good place to try it. We had almost 10 cases the first year. What was fascinating was that we had almost no survivors over the previous decade, even though there were paramedics at the airport. When we put these out there, we had nine people go down that first year, and six people who had never operated an AED or seen one before knew to get one and use it. Every one of those people survived neurologically intact, and almost every person was waking up before traditional responders got there. That’s how effective this is, but you need to know where the AED is.
Dr. Glatter: How to turn it on, where it is, and how to operate it.
Dr. Pepe: That was the point: These rescuers saved lives in the first year, and it was tremendous. Two points I make about it are that one, you need to know where it is, and two, just go turn it on. It gives you the instructions to follow through; just be in the Nike mode, because it basically won’t hurt a person. It’s rare that there’s ever been any complication of that. The machine algorithms are so good.
Dr. Glatter: Mick, I want to turn to you about the European experience. Specifically in Denmark, we know that there’s a large public health initiative to have AEDs accessible. There have been studies showing that when the public is engaged, especially with studies looking at an app when access is available, survivability doubled in the past 10 years from having access to AEDs. What’s your experience in Ireland in terms of public access to defibrillators?
Dr. Molloy: We’ve got two different streams here. There was a big push to have more AEDs at all sports venues. That was great, but some of the sporting clubs put them inside the locked door. I said that there’s no point to that because nobody can access it. You need to have an external building and you need to leave it open. If somebody needs to use it, they need to know how to get it, open it, and get away, and not get in through a locked door to get access to a defibrillator. We have AEDs now in most stadiums and even in small rural areas, where you might have only 200 people turn up for a game.
From another public access side, if you dial in – in our scenario, it’s 112, not 911 –we have Community First Responder groups. In the rural areas, you have local people who’ve been trained in basic life support and community first response who have AEDs. They’ll have periods of the day where they come home from work as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, or a fireman, and they turn on an app on their phone and say, “I’m available for the next 5 hours.” If there’s a cardiac arrest rung in within 5 miles of their community, they will drive directly there with the AED that they have. We’ve had numerous saves from that in the country because it could take 40 minutes to get an EMS vehicle there, and obviously, time is crucial in these scenarios. Our dispatchers will talk people through CPR, and then the community responders arrive with the AED. It has been a fantastic initiative.
Dr. Pepe: In many places, people have apps on their phones where they’re locked into the system, and it will go off and tell them there is something nearby and even GPS them into it, and it’s been fantastic.
The two points I want to make to responding to what we just heard Dean Malloy say is one, we always have a designated spot to have these in various places. If I’m at City Hall, we always have them near the red elevators on every floor and down at security. In all the public high schools, we always have one right below the clock where everybody can see it. We set it up in a very standardized form that anybody and everybody will know where it is at the time an event happens.
The other point he made about having the response teams is fantastic. I live in a large high rise and there are two complexes with many people here, and many are older, so there’s going to be a higher risk for having an event. In fact, we’ve just had one recently. The concept we developed here was a community emergency response team, where we sometimes have doctors, nurses, and paramedics who live here be on call and be responsible, or you could try to find an AED. More importantly, we made sure everybody here knew where they were and where to get them. We’ve got most of the people trained, and we’re doing more training in what actions to take during these periods of time when such events happen.
Dr. Glatter: Yes, it’s critical. I wanted to point out that we’ve looked at the use of drones, especially here in the United States. There have been some pilot studies looking at their utility in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. I want to get both of your thoughts on this and the feasibility of this.
Dr. Molloy: In a rural area, it’s a fantastic idea. You’re going to get something there as the crow flies very quickly. You probably have to look at exactly in, say, a rural area like Ireland of 32,000 square kilometers, how many you›ll have to put, what kind of distances they can realistically cover, and make sure the batteries are charged. Certainly, that’s a very good initiative because with the AEDs, you can’t do anything wrong. You can’t give a shock unless a shock needs to be given. The machine directs you what to do, so somebody who has had no training can pick one of these out of the box and start to work with it quickly and confidently that they can’t do anything wrong.
It’s a great idea. It would be a little expensive potentially at the moment in getting the drones and having that volume of drones around. In the U.S., you have completely different air traffic than we have, and in cities, you have more helicopters flying around. We certainly wouldn’t have that in our cities because that could cause a challenge if you’ve got drones flying around as well. It’s about making it safe that nothing else can go wrong from a drone in somebody else’s flight path.
Dr. Pepe: In my experience, the earlier the intervention, the better the results. There is a limit here in terms of the drones if they just can’t get there soon enough. Having said that, we are so fortunate in the city of Seattle to have most citizens knowing CPR, and we’d get that person resuscitated because they were doing such a good job with the CPR up front.
That’s why you’re going to see the Buffalo Bills player survive neurologically intact – because he did get immediate treatment right then and there. In the future, we may even have some better devices that will actually even restore normal blood flow right then and there while you’re still in cardiac arrest. There are limitations in every case. But on the other hand, it’s exciting and it paid off in this case recently.
Dr. Molloy: Just a point of interest coming from this small little country over here. The first portable defibrillator was developed in Belfast, Ireland, in the back of a cardiac response car. Despite us being a tiny little country, we do have some advances ahead of the United States.
Dr. Pepe: That was a breakthrough. Dr. Frank Pantridge and John Geddes did this great work and that caught the imagination of everybody here. At first, they were just going out to give people oxygen and sedate them for their chest pain. It turned out that their defibrillators are what made the difference as they went out there. Absolutely, I have to acknowledge the folks in Ireland for giving us this. Many of the EMS systems got started because of the article they published in The Lancet back in 1967.
Dr. Glatter: I wanted to briefly talk about screening of the athletes at the high school/college level, but also at the professional level. Obviously, there are issues, including the risk for false-positives in terms of low incidence, but there are also false negatives, as the case with Christian Eriksen, who had a cardiac arrest in 2021 and who has been through extensive testing. We can debate the validity of such testing, but I wanted to get both of your takes on the utility of screening in such a population.
Dr. Molloy: That’s a very emotive subject. False-positives are difficult because you’re now saying to somebody that they can’t compete in your sport at a decent level. The difficult part is telling somebody that this is the end of their career.
The false-negative is a little bit more difficult. I don’t know Christian Eriksen and I’m not involved in his team in any way, but that is a one-point examination, and you’re dependent on the scale of the process interpreting the ECG, which is again only a couple of seconds and that particular arrhythmia may not have shown up on that.
Also, athletes, by nature of what they’re doing, are operating at 99% of efficiency on a frequent basis. They are at the peak of their physiologic fitness, and it does make them a little bit more prone to picking up viral illnesses from time to time. They may get a small viral myopericarditis, which causes a new arrhythmia that nobody knew about. They had the screening 2 or 3 years ago, and they now developed a new problem because of what they do, which just may not show up.
I was actually surprised that the gentleman came through it very well, which is fantastic. He wasn’t allowed to play football in the country where he was employed, and he has now moved to another country and is playing football with a defibrillator inserted. I don’t know what the rules are in American football where you can play with implantable defibrillators. I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to do that.
Dr. Pepe: One thing that we should bring up is that there are athletes with underlying cardiomyopathies or hypertrophies and things like that, but that was unlikely in this case. It’s possible, but it’s unlikely, because it would have manifested itself before. In terms of screening, I’ve met some very smart medical doctors who have run those tests, and they have been very encouraged even at the high school levels to have screenings done, whether it’s electrocardiography, echocardiography, and so on. I have to reiterate what Dr Malloy just said in that it may have its downsides as well. If you can pick up real obvious cases, I think that may be of value.
Dr. Glatter: I want to conclude and get some pearls and takeaways from each of you regarding the events that transpired and what our audience can really hold onto.
Dr. Molloy: Look at Formula One in the past 50 years. In Formula One, in the beginning it was a 2-minute job to change a tire. Now, they have this down where they’re measuring in fractions of a second and criticizing each other if one guy is 2.6 seconds and the other guy is 2.9 seconds. For me, that’s phenomenal. It takes me 25 minutes to change a tire.
We’ve looked at that from a resuscitation perspective, and we now do pit crew resuscitation before our events. We’ve planned our team and know who’s going to be occupying what role. After the events at the UEFA championships, we had a new rule brought in by UEFA where they handed me a new document saying, “This is what we would like you to do for resuscitation.” It was a three-man triangle, and I said, “No, we’re not going to do that here.” And they said, “Why, you have to; it’s our rule.”
I said, “No, our rule in Ireland is we have a six-person triangle. We’re not downing our standards because of what you have internationally. You’re covering games in some very low-resource environments, I know that. We have a particular standard here that we’re sticking to. We have a six-person group. We know what we’re all doing; we come very quickly to those downed players and get involved and we’ve had good outcomes, so we’re not going to change the standards.”
That’s the thing: You need to practice these things. The players don’t go out on the weekend and do a move for the very first time without practicing it hundreds of times. We need to look at it the same way as the medical team who are looking after that group of players and the crowd because we also look after the crowd.
A particular challenge in some of our stadiums is that the upper decks are so steep, and it’s very hard to get a patient onto a trolley and do CPR as you’re bringing them down to a zone to get them flat. We’ve had to come up with some innovative techniques to try and do that and accommodate that using some of the mechanical CPR devices. That’s the result you’ll only get from having practiced these events and trying to extricate patients. We want to check response times, so you have to practice your response team activity very frequently.
Dr. Pepe: There are two points made by Mick that I want to react to. One, the pit crew approach is critical in so many ways. We do the same thing in what we call the medical first attack, where we knew who the A, B, and C person would be. When we took it out to the NBA trainers, I recommended for them to have a similar approach so that if an event does happen right in the middle of prime time, they are coordinated.
The second point is that we do mass-gathering medicine. It’s not just the sportspeople on the field or the entertainers that we’re looking after; it is the people in the stands. We will see a cardiac arrest once a month. If you think about it, you might see a cardiac arrest occur in any community on a regular basis. Now you’ve got 100,000 people in one stadium, and something is bound to go wrong over those 3 or 4 hours where they are there and may have a critical emergency. Preparation for all of that is really important as well.
The final point is that on a day-to-day basis, most cardiac arrests do occur in the home. Granted, 80% of them are nonshockable cases, but the people who are more apt to survive are going to be the ones who have an electrical event. In fact, when we looked at our data years ago, we found that, of the cases of people with ventricular fibrillation that we resuscitated, half didn’t even have heart damage. Their enzymes were normal. It was a pure electrical event, and they were more resuscitable. They may have an underlying problem, but we can fix that once we get them back.
Everybody needs to know how to do bystander CPR, and second, we must make sure we have AEDs strategically placed, as I alluded to before. We also go out to other parts of the community and give them advice. All those things must be put in place, but more importantly, just get the training and make the training simple. It’s really a “just do it” philosophy, but make it simple.
For example, when I teach a course, I can do it in 15 minutes, and people retain it because I keep reiterating things like, “Okay, there’s one thing you need to know about choking: Pop the cork.” You give them a physiologic image of what’s happening. Everybody says, “I remember you saying to just do it, pop the cork.”
With AEDs, know where it is – that’s why we should have it in standardized places. Go get it, turn it on, and then follow the instructions. Also, the most important thing is making sure you’re doing quality compressions; and there are videos that can help you with that, as well as classes that you can take that will get you through it.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The public still has the misconception that you need to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The message has not permeated through society that you don’t need to do mouth-to-mouth. Hands-only CPR is the gold standard now.
Dr. Pepe: If people have a reversible cause like ventricular fibrillation, often they’re already gasping, which is better than a delivered breath, by the way. Most important, then, are the compressions to make sure you have oxygen going up to the brain, because you’re still theoretically loaded with oxygen in your bloodstream if you had a sudden cardiac arrest from a ventricular fibrillation.
Your points are well taken, and we found that we had better outcomes when we just gave instructions to do compressions only, and that became the standard. Mick, you’ve had some experiences with that as well.
Dr. Molloy: If we’re going to have a long-term benefit from all this, we have to start doing this in elementary school and teaching kids basic life support and some basic health messaging.
I remember trying to get this across to a teacher one day and the teacher saying, “But why would we teach young kids to resuscitate each other?” I said, “I think you forget that the only 60-year-old person in the room is you. You train them, and we train them. They’re the ones who are going to respond and keep you alive. That’s the way you should be looking at this.” That completely changed the mindset of whether we should be doing this for the kids or not.
Dr. Pepe: In fact, what we find is that that’s exactly who gets saved. I had case after case where the kids at the school had learned CPR and saved the teachers or the administrator at the high school or elementary school. It’s a fantastic point that you bring up, Dr. Malloy.
Dr. Glatter: One other brief thing we can interject here is that the team was excellent on field in that they evaluated Damar Hamlin in a primary survey sense of ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation) for things like a tension pneumothorax. In the sense in which he was hit, there are reversible causes. Making sure he didn’t have a tension pneumothorax that caused the arrest, in my mind, was critical.
Dr. Pepe: We do the same thing on a day-to-day basis with a car wreck, because it could be that the person had ventricular fibrillation and then had the wreck. It’s not always trauma. That’s a fantastic point that you’re making. That’s exactly what I think happened, and that’s what we do.
Dr. Glatter: Well, thank you, gentlemen. This was an informative and helpful discussion for our audience. I appreciate your time and expertise.
Dr. Glatter, is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes.
Dr. Pepe is a professor of internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, public health, and emergency medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. He’s also a global coordinator of the U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors (“Eagles”) Coalition.
Dr. Molloy works clinically as a consultant in emergency medicine in Wexford General Hospital, part of the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG). Internationally, he is a member of the Disaster Medicine Section of the European Society of Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) and has been appointed by the Irish Medical Organization (IMO) as one of two Irish delegates to serve on the European Board and Section of Emergency Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), having served for a number of years on its predecessor, the Multidisciplinary Joint Committee on Emergency Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Jan. 9, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert D. Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul E. Pepe, an emergency medicine physician based in Florida and a highly recognized expert in emergency medical services (EMS), critical care, sports and event medicine, and resuscitation. Also joining us is Dr. Michael S. (“Mick”) Malloy, an emergency medicine physician based in Ireland, also an expert in prehospital care, resuscitation, and sports and event medicine. Welcome, gentlemen.
Dr. Pepe: Thanks for having us here.
Dr. Glatter: the Buffalo Bills safety who went down suffering a cardiac arrest in front of millions of people. Although we don’t know the exact cause of the events that transpired, the goal of our discussion is to guide our audience through a systematic approach to evaluation and management of an athlete suffering blunt force chest and neck trauma, and then suffering a cardiac arrest. We do know, obviously, that Damar was successfully resuscitated, thanks to the medical staff and trainers.
Almost 50 years ago, Chuck Hughes, a Detroit Lions receiver, went down and died with just a minute to go in the game and, unfortunately, didn’t survive.
Paul, can you tell me your impressions after viewing the replay of the events that evening? What were the most likely causes of this syncopal event and the subsequent cardiac arrest?
Dr. Pepe: We don’t know anything specifically. It’s being kept private about what the events were. It’s a little bit complicated in a sense that he basically had an extended resuscitation in the hospital. My experience has been that most people that have ventricular fibrillation, from whatever cause, will most likely be waking up on the field if you get to them. I’ve had personal experience with that.
More importantly than when it starts, when someone goes down on the field, both Dr. Malloy and I take a broader view. We don’t get tunnel vision and think, “Oh, it was a traumatic event,” or “It was cardiac event,” and we just have our minds open. There are many things that could make you stop breathing on the field. It could be a neck or a severe head injury, and then any kind of other internal injury that occurs.
When I saw in the video that Damar Hamlin stood up, that made it a less likely to be a spinal injury. He seemed to be physically functioning, and then he suddenly collapsed. That went along with something that looks like a ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia type of event and made me think right away that it was commotio cordis. I’m not a Latin scholar, but commotio is like commotion. A literal translation might be an agitation of the heart. I was thinking that he probably got hit somewhere in the middle of the chest at the right moment where the heart is resetting in that repolarization phase, like an R-on-T phenomenon, and then caused this sudden ventricular dysrhythmia.
Most people associate it to that because we have a couple of dozen cases a year of people getting hockey pucks or a baseball hitting their chest, which is very common with adolescents. On the other hand, you can’t get it from a blunt injury like this, and it was too early for it to be, say, a direct cardiac contusion, unless there was a direct injury there. It just happened so quickly.
In Europe, they’ve had a large amount of experience with this same kind of problem before, even just from a direct shoulder hit, for example. Mick Malloy is the dean of the faculty of sports and exercise medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and has vast experience, and now he is the person overseeing the procedures for this. Mick, have you had those kinds of experiences as well?
Dr. Molloy: Yes. It’s something that has occurred over recent decades and has been more recognized. I note that in professional sports, it’s a very different thing because you’ve got such huge teams and teams trained to respond very quickly. And that’s the most important thing in this scenario – having a team that is well functioning as a high-class emergency response team ready to get out on to that field very quickly after the person collapses, getting the automated external defibrillator (AED) on, and then recognizing whether there needs to be a shock given or not. The machine will tell you all that.
In our scenario, we run courses called CARES (Care of the Athlete Resuscitation and Emergencies in Sport) to make sure that our team physicians and team physiotherapists and trainers are all speaking as one when an emergency arises.
I don’t worry so much about the professional sport. It’s more with the amateur sports and the kids sports that I get a bit more concerned because there isn’t the same level of medical care there. Having everybody trained in basic life support would be very important to reduce unnecessary deaths from these types of conditions.
As Paul mentioned, there is a very specific cardiac cause in some of these circumstances, where you get hit just at the wrong time and that hit occurs at a particular electrical point in time. It causes this ventricular fibrillation, and the only real treatment there is the defibrillator as quickly as possible.
Dr. Glatter: What you’re saying ultimately is an important part about rapid defibrillation, and at first, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). People are concerned about whether they should begin CPR. We’re talking about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that is outside of a football stadium, for example. Some people are obsessed with taking a person’s pulse, and that’s been a point of contention. If someone is unconscious and not breathing, we should start CPR. Wouldn›t you agree? They will wake up quickly if you begin chest compressions if they’re not necessary.
Dr. Pepe: I tell people, just do it. You’re right, people will wake up and feel it if they don’t need it.
Getting back to Mick’s point of having things ready to go, for example, 8 years ago, we had a professional player on the bench who suddenly collapsed right there in front of the entire audience. We immediately did CPR, and we got the AED on. We shocked him and he was ready, willing, and able to get back on the bench again. It turns out he had underlying coronary artery disease, but we got him back right away.
I did an initial study where we placed an AED in a public place at the Chicago O’Hare Airport to see if the public would use these. Most cardiac arrests occur at home, of course, but in public places, that was a good place to try it. We had almost 10 cases the first year. What was fascinating was that we had almost no survivors over the previous decade, even though there were paramedics at the airport. When we put these out there, we had nine people go down that first year, and six people who had never operated an AED or seen one before knew to get one and use it. Every one of those people survived neurologically intact, and almost every person was waking up before traditional responders got there. That’s how effective this is, but you need to know where the AED is.
Dr. Glatter: How to turn it on, where it is, and how to operate it.
Dr. Pepe: That was the point: These rescuers saved lives in the first year, and it was tremendous. Two points I make about it are that one, you need to know where it is, and two, just go turn it on. It gives you the instructions to follow through; just be in the Nike mode, because it basically won’t hurt a person. It’s rare that there’s ever been any complication of that. The machine algorithms are so good.
Dr. Glatter: Mick, I want to turn to you about the European experience. Specifically in Denmark, we know that there’s a large public health initiative to have AEDs accessible. There have been studies showing that when the public is engaged, especially with studies looking at an app when access is available, survivability doubled in the past 10 years from having access to AEDs. What’s your experience in Ireland in terms of public access to defibrillators?
Dr. Molloy: We’ve got two different streams here. There was a big push to have more AEDs at all sports venues. That was great, but some of the sporting clubs put them inside the locked door. I said that there’s no point to that because nobody can access it. You need to have an external building and you need to leave it open. If somebody needs to use it, they need to know how to get it, open it, and get away, and not get in through a locked door to get access to a defibrillator. We have AEDs now in most stadiums and even in small rural areas, where you might have only 200 people turn up for a game.
From another public access side, if you dial in – in our scenario, it’s 112, not 911 –we have Community First Responder groups. In the rural areas, you have local people who’ve been trained in basic life support and community first response who have AEDs. They’ll have periods of the day where they come home from work as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, or a fireman, and they turn on an app on their phone and say, “I’m available for the next 5 hours.” If there’s a cardiac arrest rung in within 5 miles of their community, they will drive directly there with the AED that they have. We’ve had numerous saves from that in the country because it could take 40 minutes to get an EMS vehicle there, and obviously, time is crucial in these scenarios. Our dispatchers will talk people through CPR, and then the community responders arrive with the AED. It has been a fantastic initiative.
Dr. Pepe: In many places, people have apps on their phones where they’re locked into the system, and it will go off and tell them there is something nearby and even GPS them into it, and it’s been fantastic.
The two points I want to make to responding to what we just heard Dean Malloy say is one, we always have a designated spot to have these in various places. If I’m at City Hall, we always have them near the red elevators on every floor and down at security. In all the public high schools, we always have one right below the clock where everybody can see it. We set it up in a very standardized form that anybody and everybody will know where it is at the time an event happens.
The other point he made about having the response teams is fantastic. I live in a large high rise and there are two complexes with many people here, and many are older, so there’s going to be a higher risk for having an event. In fact, we’ve just had one recently. The concept we developed here was a community emergency response team, where we sometimes have doctors, nurses, and paramedics who live here be on call and be responsible, or you could try to find an AED. More importantly, we made sure everybody here knew where they were and where to get them. We’ve got most of the people trained, and we’re doing more training in what actions to take during these periods of time when such events happen.
Dr. Glatter: Yes, it’s critical. I wanted to point out that we’ve looked at the use of drones, especially here in the United States. There have been some pilot studies looking at their utility in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. I want to get both of your thoughts on this and the feasibility of this.
Dr. Molloy: In a rural area, it’s a fantastic idea. You’re going to get something there as the crow flies very quickly. You probably have to look at exactly in, say, a rural area like Ireland of 32,000 square kilometers, how many you›ll have to put, what kind of distances they can realistically cover, and make sure the batteries are charged. Certainly, that’s a very good initiative because with the AEDs, you can’t do anything wrong. You can’t give a shock unless a shock needs to be given. The machine directs you what to do, so somebody who has had no training can pick one of these out of the box and start to work with it quickly and confidently that they can’t do anything wrong.
It’s a great idea. It would be a little expensive potentially at the moment in getting the drones and having that volume of drones around. In the U.S., you have completely different air traffic than we have, and in cities, you have more helicopters flying around. We certainly wouldn’t have that in our cities because that could cause a challenge if you’ve got drones flying around as well. It’s about making it safe that nothing else can go wrong from a drone in somebody else’s flight path.
Dr. Pepe: In my experience, the earlier the intervention, the better the results. There is a limit here in terms of the drones if they just can’t get there soon enough. Having said that, we are so fortunate in the city of Seattle to have most citizens knowing CPR, and we’d get that person resuscitated because they were doing such a good job with the CPR up front.
That’s why you’re going to see the Buffalo Bills player survive neurologically intact – because he did get immediate treatment right then and there. In the future, we may even have some better devices that will actually even restore normal blood flow right then and there while you’re still in cardiac arrest. There are limitations in every case. But on the other hand, it’s exciting and it paid off in this case recently.
Dr. Molloy: Just a point of interest coming from this small little country over here. The first portable defibrillator was developed in Belfast, Ireland, in the back of a cardiac response car. Despite us being a tiny little country, we do have some advances ahead of the United States.
Dr. Pepe: That was a breakthrough. Dr. Frank Pantridge and John Geddes did this great work and that caught the imagination of everybody here. At first, they were just going out to give people oxygen and sedate them for their chest pain. It turned out that their defibrillators are what made the difference as they went out there. Absolutely, I have to acknowledge the folks in Ireland for giving us this. Many of the EMS systems got started because of the article they published in The Lancet back in 1967.
Dr. Glatter: I wanted to briefly talk about screening of the athletes at the high school/college level, but also at the professional level. Obviously, there are issues, including the risk for false-positives in terms of low incidence, but there are also false negatives, as the case with Christian Eriksen, who had a cardiac arrest in 2021 and who has been through extensive testing. We can debate the validity of such testing, but I wanted to get both of your takes on the utility of screening in such a population.
Dr. Molloy: That’s a very emotive subject. False-positives are difficult because you’re now saying to somebody that they can’t compete in your sport at a decent level. The difficult part is telling somebody that this is the end of their career.
The false-negative is a little bit more difficult. I don’t know Christian Eriksen and I’m not involved in his team in any way, but that is a one-point examination, and you’re dependent on the scale of the process interpreting the ECG, which is again only a couple of seconds and that particular arrhythmia may not have shown up on that.
Also, athletes, by nature of what they’re doing, are operating at 99% of efficiency on a frequent basis. They are at the peak of their physiologic fitness, and it does make them a little bit more prone to picking up viral illnesses from time to time. They may get a small viral myopericarditis, which causes a new arrhythmia that nobody knew about. They had the screening 2 or 3 years ago, and they now developed a new problem because of what they do, which just may not show up.
I was actually surprised that the gentleman came through it very well, which is fantastic. He wasn’t allowed to play football in the country where he was employed, and he has now moved to another country and is playing football with a defibrillator inserted. I don’t know what the rules are in American football where you can play with implantable defibrillators. I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to do that.
Dr. Pepe: One thing that we should bring up is that there are athletes with underlying cardiomyopathies or hypertrophies and things like that, but that was unlikely in this case. It’s possible, but it’s unlikely, because it would have manifested itself before. In terms of screening, I’ve met some very smart medical doctors who have run those tests, and they have been very encouraged even at the high school levels to have screenings done, whether it’s electrocardiography, echocardiography, and so on. I have to reiterate what Dr Malloy just said in that it may have its downsides as well. If you can pick up real obvious cases, I think that may be of value.
Dr. Glatter: I want to conclude and get some pearls and takeaways from each of you regarding the events that transpired and what our audience can really hold onto.
Dr. Molloy: Look at Formula One in the past 50 years. In Formula One, in the beginning it was a 2-minute job to change a tire. Now, they have this down where they’re measuring in fractions of a second and criticizing each other if one guy is 2.6 seconds and the other guy is 2.9 seconds. For me, that’s phenomenal. It takes me 25 minutes to change a tire.
We’ve looked at that from a resuscitation perspective, and we now do pit crew resuscitation before our events. We’ve planned our team and know who’s going to be occupying what role. After the events at the UEFA championships, we had a new rule brought in by UEFA where they handed me a new document saying, “This is what we would like you to do for resuscitation.” It was a three-man triangle, and I said, “No, we’re not going to do that here.” And they said, “Why, you have to; it’s our rule.”
I said, “No, our rule in Ireland is we have a six-person triangle. We’re not downing our standards because of what you have internationally. You’re covering games in some very low-resource environments, I know that. We have a particular standard here that we’re sticking to. We have a six-person group. We know what we’re all doing; we come very quickly to those downed players and get involved and we’ve had good outcomes, so we’re not going to change the standards.”
That’s the thing: You need to practice these things. The players don’t go out on the weekend and do a move for the very first time without practicing it hundreds of times. We need to look at it the same way as the medical team who are looking after that group of players and the crowd because we also look after the crowd.
A particular challenge in some of our stadiums is that the upper decks are so steep, and it’s very hard to get a patient onto a trolley and do CPR as you’re bringing them down to a zone to get them flat. We’ve had to come up with some innovative techniques to try and do that and accommodate that using some of the mechanical CPR devices. That’s the result you’ll only get from having practiced these events and trying to extricate patients. We want to check response times, so you have to practice your response team activity very frequently.
Dr. Pepe: There are two points made by Mick that I want to react to. One, the pit crew approach is critical in so many ways. We do the same thing in what we call the medical first attack, where we knew who the A, B, and C person would be. When we took it out to the NBA trainers, I recommended for them to have a similar approach so that if an event does happen right in the middle of prime time, they are coordinated.
The second point is that we do mass-gathering medicine. It’s not just the sportspeople on the field or the entertainers that we’re looking after; it is the people in the stands. We will see a cardiac arrest once a month. If you think about it, you might see a cardiac arrest occur in any community on a regular basis. Now you’ve got 100,000 people in one stadium, and something is bound to go wrong over those 3 or 4 hours where they are there and may have a critical emergency. Preparation for all of that is really important as well.
The final point is that on a day-to-day basis, most cardiac arrests do occur in the home. Granted, 80% of them are nonshockable cases, but the people who are more apt to survive are going to be the ones who have an electrical event. In fact, when we looked at our data years ago, we found that, of the cases of people with ventricular fibrillation that we resuscitated, half didn’t even have heart damage. Their enzymes were normal. It was a pure electrical event, and they were more resuscitable. They may have an underlying problem, but we can fix that once we get them back.
Everybody needs to know how to do bystander CPR, and second, we must make sure we have AEDs strategically placed, as I alluded to before. We also go out to other parts of the community and give them advice. All those things must be put in place, but more importantly, just get the training and make the training simple. It’s really a “just do it” philosophy, but make it simple.
For example, when I teach a course, I can do it in 15 minutes, and people retain it because I keep reiterating things like, “Okay, there’s one thing you need to know about choking: Pop the cork.” You give them a physiologic image of what’s happening. Everybody says, “I remember you saying to just do it, pop the cork.”
With AEDs, know where it is – that’s why we should have it in standardized places. Go get it, turn it on, and then follow the instructions. Also, the most important thing is making sure you’re doing quality compressions; and there are videos that can help you with that, as well as classes that you can take that will get you through it.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The public still has the misconception that you need to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The message has not permeated through society that you don’t need to do mouth-to-mouth. Hands-only CPR is the gold standard now.
Dr. Pepe: If people have a reversible cause like ventricular fibrillation, often they’re already gasping, which is better than a delivered breath, by the way. Most important, then, are the compressions to make sure you have oxygen going up to the brain, because you’re still theoretically loaded with oxygen in your bloodstream if you had a sudden cardiac arrest from a ventricular fibrillation.
Your points are well taken, and we found that we had better outcomes when we just gave instructions to do compressions only, and that became the standard. Mick, you’ve had some experiences with that as well.
Dr. Molloy: If we’re going to have a long-term benefit from all this, we have to start doing this in elementary school and teaching kids basic life support and some basic health messaging.
I remember trying to get this across to a teacher one day and the teacher saying, “But why would we teach young kids to resuscitate each other?” I said, “I think you forget that the only 60-year-old person in the room is you. You train them, and we train them. They’re the ones who are going to respond and keep you alive. That’s the way you should be looking at this.” That completely changed the mindset of whether we should be doing this for the kids or not.
Dr. Pepe: In fact, what we find is that that’s exactly who gets saved. I had case after case where the kids at the school had learned CPR and saved the teachers or the administrator at the high school or elementary school. It’s a fantastic point that you bring up, Dr. Malloy.
Dr. Glatter: One other brief thing we can interject here is that the team was excellent on field in that they evaluated Damar Hamlin in a primary survey sense of ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation) for things like a tension pneumothorax. In the sense in which he was hit, there are reversible causes. Making sure he didn’t have a tension pneumothorax that caused the arrest, in my mind, was critical.
Dr. Pepe: We do the same thing on a day-to-day basis with a car wreck, because it could be that the person had ventricular fibrillation and then had the wreck. It’s not always trauma. That’s a fantastic point that you’re making. That’s exactly what I think happened, and that’s what we do.
Dr. Glatter: Well, thank you, gentlemen. This was an informative and helpful discussion for our audience. I appreciate your time and expertise.
Dr. Glatter, is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes.
Dr. Pepe is a professor of internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, public health, and emergency medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. He’s also a global coordinator of the U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors (“Eagles”) Coalition.
Dr. Molloy works clinically as a consultant in emergency medicine in Wexford General Hospital, part of the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG). Internationally, he is a member of the Disaster Medicine Section of the European Society of Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) and has been appointed by the Irish Medical Organization (IMO) as one of two Irish delegates to serve on the European Board and Section of Emergency Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), having served for a number of years on its predecessor, the Multidisciplinary Joint Committee on Emergency Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This discussion was recorded on Jan. 9, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert D. Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul E. Pepe, an emergency medicine physician based in Florida and a highly recognized expert in emergency medical services (EMS), critical care, sports and event medicine, and resuscitation. Also joining us is Dr. Michael S. (“Mick”) Malloy, an emergency medicine physician based in Ireland, also an expert in prehospital care, resuscitation, and sports and event medicine. Welcome, gentlemen.
Dr. Pepe: Thanks for having us here.
Dr. Glatter: the Buffalo Bills safety who went down suffering a cardiac arrest in front of millions of people. Although we don’t know the exact cause of the events that transpired, the goal of our discussion is to guide our audience through a systematic approach to evaluation and management of an athlete suffering blunt force chest and neck trauma, and then suffering a cardiac arrest. We do know, obviously, that Damar was successfully resuscitated, thanks to the medical staff and trainers.
Almost 50 years ago, Chuck Hughes, a Detroit Lions receiver, went down and died with just a minute to go in the game and, unfortunately, didn’t survive.
Paul, can you tell me your impressions after viewing the replay of the events that evening? What were the most likely causes of this syncopal event and the subsequent cardiac arrest?
Dr. Pepe: We don’t know anything specifically. It’s being kept private about what the events were. It’s a little bit complicated in a sense that he basically had an extended resuscitation in the hospital. My experience has been that most people that have ventricular fibrillation, from whatever cause, will most likely be waking up on the field if you get to them. I’ve had personal experience with that.
More importantly than when it starts, when someone goes down on the field, both Dr. Malloy and I take a broader view. We don’t get tunnel vision and think, “Oh, it was a traumatic event,” or “It was cardiac event,” and we just have our minds open. There are many things that could make you stop breathing on the field. It could be a neck or a severe head injury, and then any kind of other internal injury that occurs.
When I saw in the video that Damar Hamlin stood up, that made it a less likely to be a spinal injury. He seemed to be physically functioning, and then he suddenly collapsed. That went along with something that looks like a ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia type of event and made me think right away that it was commotio cordis. I’m not a Latin scholar, but commotio is like commotion. A literal translation might be an agitation of the heart. I was thinking that he probably got hit somewhere in the middle of the chest at the right moment where the heart is resetting in that repolarization phase, like an R-on-T phenomenon, and then caused this sudden ventricular dysrhythmia.
Most people associate it to that because we have a couple of dozen cases a year of people getting hockey pucks or a baseball hitting their chest, which is very common with adolescents. On the other hand, you can’t get it from a blunt injury like this, and it was too early for it to be, say, a direct cardiac contusion, unless there was a direct injury there. It just happened so quickly.
In Europe, they’ve had a large amount of experience with this same kind of problem before, even just from a direct shoulder hit, for example. Mick Malloy is the dean of the faculty of sports and exercise medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and has vast experience, and now he is the person overseeing the procedures for this. Mick, have you had those kinds of experiences as well?
Dr. Molloy: Yes. It’s something that has occurred over recent decades and has been more recognized. I note that in professional sports, it’s a very different thing because you’ve got such huge teams and teams trained to respond very quickly. And that’s the most important thing in this scenario – having a team that is well functioning as a high-class emergency response team ready to get out on to that field very quickly after the person collapses, getting the automated external defibrillator (AED) on, and then recognizing whether there needs to be a shock given or not. The machine will tell you all that.
In our scenario, we run courses called CARES (Care of the Athlete Resuscitation and Emergencies in Sport) to make sure that our team physicians and team physiotherapists and trainers are all speaking as one when an emergency arises.
I don’t worry so much about the professional sport. It’s more with the amateur sports and the kids sports that I get a bit more concerned because there isn’t the same level of medical care there. Having everybody trained in basic life support would be very important to reduce unnecessary deaths from these types of conditions.
As Paul mentioned, there is a very specific cardiac cause in some of these circumstances, where you get hit just at the wrong time and that hit occurs at a particular electrical point in time. It causes this ventricular fibrillation, and the only real treatment there is the defibrillator as quickly as possible.
Dr. Glatter: What you’re saying ultimately is an important part about rapid defibrillation, and at first, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). People are concerned about whether they should begin CPR. We’re talking about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that is outside of a football stadium, for example. Some people are obsessed with taking a person’s pulse, and that’s been a point of contention. If someone is unconscious and not breathing, we should start CPR. Wouldn›t you agree? They will wake up quickly if you begin chest compressions if they’re not necessary.
Dr. Pepe: I tell people, just do it. You’re right, people will wake up and feel it if they don’t need it.
Getting back to Mick’s point of having things ready to go, for example, 8 years ago, we had a professional player on the bench who suddenly collapsed right there in front of the entire audience. We immediately did CPR, and we got the AED on. We shocked him and he was ready, willing, and able to get back on the bench again. It turns out he had underlying coronary artery disease, but we got him back right away.
I did an initial study where we placed an AED in a public place at the Chicago O’Hare Airport to see if the public would use these. Most cardiac arrests occur at home, of course, but in public places, that was a good place to try it. We had almost 10 cases the first year. What was fascinating was that we had almost no survivors over the previous decade, even though there were paramedics at the airport. When we put these out there, we had nine people go down that first year, and six people who had never operated an AED or seen one before knew to get one and use it. Every one of those people survived neurologically intact, and almost every person was waking up before traditional responders got there. That’s how effective this is, but you need to know where the AED is.
Dr. Glatter: How to turn it on, where it is, and how to operate it.
Dr. Pepe: That was the point: These rescuers saved lives in the first year, and it was tremendous. Two points I make about it are that one, you need to know where it is, and two, just go turn it on. It gives you the instructions to follow through; just be in the Nike mode, because it basically won’t hurt a person. It’s rare that there’s ever been any complication of that. The machine algorithms are so good.
Dr. Glatter: Mick, I want to turn to you about the European experience. Specifically in Denmark, we know that there’s a large public health initiative to have AEDs accessible. There have been studies showing that when the public is engaged, especially with studies looking at an app when access is available, survivability doubled in the past 10 years from having access to AEDs. What’s your experience in Ireland in terms of public access to defibrillators?
Dr. Molloy: We’ve got two different streams here. There was a big push to have more AEDs at all sports venues. That was great, but some of the sporting clubs put them inside the locked door. I said that there’s no point to that because nobody can access it. You need to have an external building and you need to leave it open. If somebody needs to use it, they need to know how to get it, open it, and get away, and not get in through a locked door to get access to a defibrillator. We have AEDs now in most stadiums and even in small rural areas, where you might have only 200 people turn up for a game.
From another public access side, if you dial in – in our scenario, it’s 112, not 911 –we have Community First Responder groups. In the rural areas, you have local people who’ve been trained in basic life support and community first response who have AEDs. They’ll have periods of the day where they come home from work as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, or a fireman, and they turn on an app on their phone and say, “I’m available for the next 5 hours.” If there’s a cardiac arrest rung in within 5 miles of their community, they will drive directly there with the AED that they have. We’ve had numerous saves from that in the country because it could take 40 minutes to get an EMS vehicle there, and obviously, time is crucial in these scenarios. Our dispatchers will talk people through CPR, and then the community responders arrive with the AED. It has been a fantastic initiative.
Dr. Pepe: In many places, people have apps on their phones where they’re locked into the system, and it will go off and tell them there is something nearby and even GPS them into it, and it’s been fantastic.
The two points I want to make to responding to what we just heard Dean Malloy say is one, we always have a designated spot to have these in various places. If I’m at City Hall, we always have them near the red elevators on every floor and down at security. In all the public high schools, we always have one right below the clock where everybody can see it. We set it up in a very standardized form that anybody and everybody will know where it is at the time an event happens.
The other point he made about having the response teams is fantastic. I live in a large high rise and there are two complexes with many people here, and many are older, so there’s going to be a higher risk for having an event. In fact, we’ve just had one recently. The concept we developed here was a community emergency response team, where we sometimes have doctors, nurses, and paramedics who live here be on call and be responsible, or you could try to find an AED. More importantly, we made sure everybody here knew where they were and where to get them. We’ve got most of the people trained, and we’re doing more training in what actions to take during these periods of time when such events happen.
Dr. Glatter: Yes, it’s critical. I wanted to point out that we’ve looked at the use of drones, especially here in the United States. There have been some pilot studies looking at their utility in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. I want to get both of your thoughts on this and the feasibility of this.
Dr. Molloy: In a rural area, it’s a fantastic idea. You’re going to get something there as the crow flies very quickly. You probably have to look at exactly in, say, a rural area like Ireland of 32,000 square kilometers, how many you›ll have to put, what kind of distances they can realistically cover, and make sure the batteries are charged. Certainly, that’s a very good initiative because with the AEDs, you can’t do anything wrong. You can’t give a shock unless a shock needs to be given. The machine directs you what to do, so somebody who has had no training can pick one of these out of the box and start to work with it quickly and confidently that they can’t do anything wrong.
It’s a great idea. It would be a little expensive potentially at the moment in getting the drones and having that volume of drones around. In the U.S., you have completely different air traffic than we have, and in cities, you have more helicopters flying around. We certainly wouldn’t have that in our cities because that could cause a challenge if you’ve got drones flying around as well. It’s about making it safe that nothing else can go wrong from a drone in somebody else’s flight path.
Dr. Pepe: In my experience, the earlier the intervention, the better the results. There is a limit here in terms of the drones if they just can’t get there soon enough. Having said that, we are so fortunate in the city of Seattle to have most citizens knowing CPR, and we’d get that person resuscitated because they were doing such a good job with the CPR up front.
That’s why you’re going to see the Buffalo Bills player survive neurologically intact – because he did get immediate treatment right then and there. In the future, we may even have some better devices that will actually even restore normal blood flow right then and there while you’re still in cardiac arrest. There are limitations in every case. But on the other hand, it’s exciting and it paid off in this case recently.
Dr. Molloy: Just a point of interest coming from this small little country over here. The first portable defibrillator was developed in Belfast, Ireland, in the back of a cardiac response car. Despite us being a tiny little country, we do have some advances ahead of the United States.
Dr. Pepe: That was a breakthrough. Dr. Frank Pantridge and John Geddes did this great work and that caught the imagination of everybody here. At first, they were just going out to give people oxygen and sedate them for their chest pain. It turned out that their defibrillators are what made the difference as they went out there. Absolutely, I have to acknowledge the folks in Ireland for giving us this. Many of the EMS systems got started because of the article they published in The Lancet back in 1967.
Dr. Glatter: I wanted to briefly talk about screening of the athletes at the high school/college level, but also at the professional level. Obviously, there are issues, including the risk for false-positives in terms of low incidence, but there are also false negatives, as the case with Christian Eriksen, who had a cardiac arrest in 2021 and who has been through extensive testing. We can debate the validity of such testing, but I wanted to get both of your takes on the utility of screening in such a population.
Dr. Molloy: That’s a very emotive subject. False-positives are difficult because you’re now saying to somebody that they can’t compete in your sport at a decent level. The difficult part is telling somebody that this is the end of their career.
The false-negative is a little bit more difficult. I don’t know Christian Eriksen and I’m not involved in his team in any way, but that is a one-point examination, and you’re dependent on the scale of the process interpreting the ECG, which is again only a couple of seconds and that particular arrhythmia may not have shown up on that.
Also, athletes, by nature of what they’re doing, are operating at 99% of efficiency on a frequent basis. They are at the peak of their physiologic fitness, and it does make them a little bit more prone to picking up viral illnesses from time to time. They may get a small viral myopericarditis, which causes a new arrhythmia that nobody knew about. They had the screening 2 or 3 years ago, and they now developed a new problem because of what they do, which just may not show up.
I was actually surprised that the gentleman came through it very well, which is fantastic. He wasn’t allowed to play football in the country where he was employed, and he has now moved to another country and is playing football with a defibrillator inserted. I don’t know what the rules are in American football where you can play with implantable defibrillators. I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to do that.
Dr. Pepe: One thing that we should bring up is that there are athletes with underlying cardiomyopathies or hypertrophies and things like that, but that was unlikely in this case. It’s possible, but it’s unlikely, because it would have manifested itself before. In terms of screening, I’ve met some very smart medical doctors who have run those tests, and they have been very encouraged even at the high school levels to have screenings done, whether it’s electrocardiography, echocardiography, and so on. I have to reiterate what Dr Malloy just said in that it may have its downsides as well. If you can pick up real obvious cases, I think that may be of value.
Dr. Glatter: I want to conclude and get some pearls and takeaways from each of you regarding the events that transpired and what our audience can really hold onto.
Dr. Molloy: Look at Formula One in the past 50 years. In Formula One, in the beginning it was a 2-minute job to change a tire. Now, they have this down where they’re measuring in fractions of a second and criticizing each other if one guy is 2.6 seconds and the other guy is 2.9 seconds. For me, that’s phenomenal. It takes me 25 minutes to change a tire.
We’ve looked at that from a resuscitation perspective, and we now do pit crew resuscitation before our events. We’ve planned our team and know who’s going to be occupying what role. After the events at the UEFA championships, we had a new rule brought in by UEFA where they handed me a new document saying, “This is what we would like you to do for resuscitation.” It was a three-man triangle, and I said, “No, we’re not going to do that here.” And they said, “Why, you have to; it’s our rule.”
I said, “No, our rule in Ireland is we have a six-person triangle. We’re not downing our standards because of what you have internationally. You’re covering games in some very low-resource environments, I know that. We have a particular standard here that we’re sticking to. We have a six-person group. We know what we’re all doing; we come very quickly to those downed players and get involved and we’ve had good outcomes, so we’re not going to change the standards.”
That’s the thing: You need to practice these things. The players don’t go out on the weekend and do a move for the very first time without practicing it hundreds of times. We need to look at it the same way as the medical team who are looking after that group of players and the crowd because we also look after the crowd.
A particular challenge in some of our stadiums is that the upper decks are so steep, and it’s very hard to get a patient onto a trolley and do CPR as you’re bringing them down to a zone to get them flat. We’ve had to come up with some innovative techniques to try and do that and accommodate that using some of the mechanical CPR devices. That’s the result you’ll only get from having practiced these events and trying to extricate patients. We want to check response times, so you have to practice your response team activity very frequently.
Dr. Pepe: There are two points made by Mick that I want to react to. One, the pit crew approach is critical in so many ways. We do the same thing in what we call the medical first attack, where we knew who the A, B, and C person would be. When we took it out to the NBA trainers, I recommended for them to have a similar approach so that if an event does happen right in the middle of prime time, they are coordinated.
The second point is that we do mass-gathering medicine. It’s not just the sportspeople on the field or the entertainers that we’re looking after; it is the people in the stands. We will see a cardiac arrest once a month. If you think about it, you might see a cardiac arrest occur in any community on a regular basis. Now you’ve got 100,000 people in one stadium, and something is bound to go wrong over those 3 or 4 hours where they are there and may have a critical emergency. Preparation for all of that is really important as well.
The final point is that on a day-to-day basis, most cardiac arrests do occur in the home. Granted, 80% of them are nonshockable cases, but the people who are more apt to survive are going to be the ones who have an electrical event. In fact, when we looked at our data years ago, we found that, of the cases of people with ventricular fibrillation that we resuscitated, half didn’t even have heart damage. Their enzymes were normal. It was a pure electrical event, and they were more resuscitable. They may have an underlying problem, but we can fix that once we get them back.
Everybody needs to know how to do bystander CPR, and second, we must make sure we have AEDs strategically placed, as I alluded to before. We also go out to other parts of the community and give them advice. All those things must be put in place, but more importantly, just get the training and make the training simple. It’s really a “just do it” philosophy, but make it simple.
For example, when I teach a course, I can do it in 15 minutes, and people retain it because I keep reiterating things like, “Okay, there’s one thing you need to know about choking: Pop the cork.” You give them a physiologic image of what’s happening. Everybody says, “I remember you saying to just do it, pop the cork.”
With AEDs, know where it is – that’s why we should have it in standardized places. Go get it, turn it on, and then follow the instructions. Also, the most important thing is making sure you’re doing quality compressions; and there are videos that can help you with that, as well as classes that you can take that will get you through it.
Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The public still has the misconception that you need to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The message has not permeated through society that you don’t need to do mouth-to-mouth. Hands-only CPR is the gold standard now.
Dr. Pepe: If people have a reversible cause like ventricular fibrillation, often they’re already gasping, which is better than a delivered breath, by the way. Most important, then, are the compressions to make sure you have oxygen going up to the brain, because you’re still theoretically loaded with oxygen in your bloodstream if you had a sudden cardiac arrest from a ventricular fibrillation.
Your points are well taken, and we found that we had better outcomes when we just gave instructions to do compressions only, and that became the standard. Mick, you’ve had some experiences with that as well.
Dr. Molloy: If we’re going to have a long-term benefit from all this, we have to start doing this in elementary school and teaching kids basic life support and some basic health messaging.
I remember trying to get this across to a teacher one day and the teacher saying, “But why would we teach young kids to resuscitate each other?” I said, “I think you forget that the only 60-year-old person in the room is you. You train them, and we train them. They’re the ones who are going to respond and keep you alive. That’s the way you should be looking at this.” That completely changed the mindset of whether we should be doing this for the kids or not.
Dr. Pepe: In fact, what we find is that that’s exactly who gets saved. I had case after case where the kids at the school had learned CPR and saved the teachers or the administrator at the high school or elementary school. It’s a fantastic point that you bring up, Dr. Malloy.
Dr. Glatter: One other brief thing we can interject here is that the team was excellent on field in that they evaluated Damar Hamlin in a primary survey sense of ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation) for things like a tension pneumothorax. In the sense in which he was hit, there are reversible causes. Making sure he didn’t have a tension pneumothorax that caused the arrest, in my mind, was critical.
Dr. Pepe: We do the same thing on a day-to-day basis with a car wreck, because it could be that the person had ventricular fibrillation and then had the wreck. It’s not always trauma. That’s a fantastic point that you’re making. That’s exactly what I think happened, and that’s what we do.
Dr. Glatter: Well, thank you, gentlemen. This was an informative and helpful discussion for our audience. I appreciate your time and expertise.
Dr. Glatter, is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes.
Dr. Pepe is a professor of internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, public health, and emergency medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. He’s also a global coordinator of the U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors (“Eagles”) Coalition.
Dr. Molloy works clinically as a consultant in emergency medicine in Wexford General Hospital, part of the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG). Internationally, he is a member of the Disaster Medicine Section of the European Society of Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) and has been appointed by the Irish Medical Organization (IMO) as one of two Irish delegates to serve on the European Board and Section of Emergency Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), having served for a number of years on its predecessor, the Multidisciplinary Joint Committee on Emergency Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Emotional eating tied to risk of diastolic dysfunction
Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.
“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.
Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.
Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.
In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.
Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).
Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.
More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.
The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.
“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.
“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”
The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”
Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.
More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.
Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.
Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.
“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.
Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.
Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.
In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.
Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).
Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.
More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.
The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.
“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.
“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”
The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”
Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.
More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.
Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.
Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Eating in response to stress – known as emotional eating – was significantly associated with several markers of long-term cardiovascular damage, based on data from 1,109 individuals.
“We know diet plays a huge role in cardiovascular disease, but we have focused a lot of work on what you eat, not on what makes you eat” – the current study did exactly that, Martha Gulati, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.
“Emotional eaters consume food to satisfy their brains rather than their stomachs,” study investigator Nicolas Girerd, MD, of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and a cardiologist at the University Hospital of Nancy (France), wrote in a press release accompanying the study.
Diet plays a role in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the impact of eating behavior on long-term cardiovascular health remains unclear, wrote Dr. Girerd and colleagues. Previous research has yielded three common psychological dimensions for eating behavior: emotional eating, restrained eating, and external eating.
Both emotional eating and restrained eating have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk, the researchers noted. “Because of previous findings, we hypothesized that [emotional and/or restrained dimensions of eating behavior] are positively associated with cardiovascular damages, as well as with CV risk factors, such as metabolic syndrome,” they wrote.
In a study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, the researchers reviewed data from 916 adults and 193 adolescents who were participants in the STANISLAS (Suivi Temporaire Annuel Non-Invasif de la Santé des Lorrains Assurés Sociaux), a longitudinal familial cohort in France. Cardiovascular data were collected at four medical visits as part of a full clinical examination between 1993 and 2016, with one visit every 5-10 years. Roughly one-third (31.0%) of the adults were overweight, 7.9% were obese, and 2.7% were underweight. The median age of the adults at the second visit was 44.7 years; the median age of the adolescent group was 15.2 years.
The primary outcome of cardiovascular damage was measured at the fourth visit. Eating behavior was assessed during the second visit using the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (DEBQ), and participants were identified as emotional eaters, restrained eaters, or external eaters.
Among the adults, emotional eating was associated with a 38% increased risk of diastolic dysfunction (odds ratio, 1.38; P = .02), over an average follow-up of 13 years, and this association was mediated by stress in 32% of cases. Emotional eating also was positively linked with a higher carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV-beta), indicative of increased arterial stiffness. However, none of the three dimensions of eating behavior was associated with cardiovascular damage among the adolescents. In addition, none of the eating-behavior dimensions was tied to metabolic syndrome in the adult group (this association was not measured in the adolescents).
Energy intake had no apparent impact on any associations between eating behavior and CVD measures, Dr. Girerd said in the press release. “We might expect that emotional eaters would consume high-calorie foods, which would in turn lead to cardiovascular problems, but this was not the case. One explanation is that we measured average calorie intake and emotional eaters may binge when stressed and then eat less at other times,” and that the resulting “yo-yo” pattern might negatively affect the heart and blood vessels more than stable food intake, he said.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design that prevented conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of a nonvalidated scale to measure stress, the lack of data on physical activity, and the use of a mainly healthy population in a limited geographic area, which may limit generalizability, they said.
More research is needed in other contexts and larger cohorts, but the results were strengthened by the large study population and the complete data on eating behaviors and detailed health information, they wrote. The results support previous studies and suggest that patients with emotional eating behavior could benefit from emotion regulation skills training, including cognitive, behavioral, psychological, and interpersonal therapies used in other areas, and from pharmacological treatments, the researchers concluded.
The current study offers a unique and important perspective on the relationship between diet and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Gulati, director of preventive cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, told this news organization.
“Examining eating behavior and its relationship with cardiovascular effects in healthy individuals in this prospective way is quite interesting,” said Dr. Gulati, who was not involved in the study.
The researchers examined healthy people at baseline, inquired about their eating habits, and found that emotional eaters “have evidence of cardiovascular changes when compared with the other groups of eaters, after controlling for other risk factors that are associated with cardiovascular disease when following them for 13 years,” said Dr. Gulati, who was recently named Anita Dann Friedman Endowed Chair in Women’s Cardiovascular Medicine and Research at Cedars-Sinai. “This same finding wasn’t seen in adolescents, but this is probably because they are younger, and the effects aren’t seen. That is reassuring, because it means that the more we address eating behaviors, the more likely we are to reduce their effects to the heart,” she noted.
“This study is important because usually, as cardiologists or anyone in medicine, how we assess diet is by assessment of what food people eat; we don’t usually ask about what triggers them to eat,” Dr. Gulati said. “Eating behaviors based on their triggers ultimately affect food choice and food quantity, and help us understand weight changes during a lifetime,” she said.
“I think we don’t have the data to know that an eating behavior would be able to affect cardiac function,” said Dr. Gulati, “but I think we all might hypothesize that emotional eating may be associated with abnormal diastolic function simply through eating high-density food and weight gain.”
The current study did not show a relationship between eating behavior and metabolic syndrome, in contrast with prior studies, Dr. Gulati noted. However, “the authors report that the association between eating behaviors and diastolic dysfunction was mediated through the stress level,” Dr. Gulati said. “It is important to note that this European population was healthy at baseline, and also relatively healthy 13 years later, which makes these findings even more profound.”
Dr. Gulati said that she agrees with the study authors on the need to assess diet and eating behaviors when assessing cardiovascular risk in patient. “Diet assessment as part of prevention is central, but we should ask not only ‘what do you eat,’ but also ‘what makes you eat,’ ” she said.
More research is needed in other populations, Dr. Gulati added. The current study population was healthy at baseline and follow-up. Studies are needed in cohorts in the United States and in the developing world to see how the results might differ; as well as in rural America or in “food deserts” where food choices are limited.
Another research topic is the interplay between eating behaviors and social determinants of health, in terms of their effect on cardiovascular function, Dr. Gulati said, “and it will be valuable to follow this cohort further to see how these eating behaviors and these intermediate measures translate into cardiovascular outcomes.” Future studies should also examine whether the changes in cardiac function are reversible by interventions to modify eating behavior, particularly emotional eating, she said.
Supporters of the study included the Regional University Hospital Center of Nancy, the French Ministry of Solidarity and Health, and a public grant overseen by the French National Research Agency. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Gulati, who serves on the editorial advisory board of MDedge Cardiology, had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY
Simulation-based training effective for transesophageal echo
Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.
“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”
Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.
Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”
Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
More ready, more confident
The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.
The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.
Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.
The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.
For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.
They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.
The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.
At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).
After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).
Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.
Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.
After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).
Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.
“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
Real-world outcomes required
Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.
“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”
In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”
Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”
Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”
Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.
“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”
Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.
“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”
Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.
Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”
Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
More ready, more confident
The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.
The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.
Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.
The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.
For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.
They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.
The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.
At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).
After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).
Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.
Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.
After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).
Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.
“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
Real-world outcomes required
Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.
“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”
In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”
Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”
Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”
Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.
“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”
Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.
“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”
Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.
Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”
Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
More ready, more confident
The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.
The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.
Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.
The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.
For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.
They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.
The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.
At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).
After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).
Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.
Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.
After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).
Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.
“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
Real-world outcomes required
Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.
“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”
In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”
Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”
Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”
Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.
“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”
Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY