Heart Failure

New analyses of trial results for the cardiorenal agents finerenone and sotagliflozin continued the pattern showing that they exert consistent heart failure benefits in patients who span a broad spectrum of renal function, further disproving the notion that more severe stages of chronic kidney disease preclude aggressive medical management.

Sam Rogers; Courtesy American Heart Association

Analysis of combined data from two pivotal trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia), which together enrolled more than 13,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, showed in greater detail that finerenone treatment reduced the incidence of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death “across the spectrum” of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1-4.

That spectrum included patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m² and patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria, as well as those with normal urinary albumin levels, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

And in a separate, unrelated report, combined data from the two pivotal trials, with a total of nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, for sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a novel and still unapproved agent that inhibits both the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 enzymes, showed a consistent effect significantly reducing cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure outpatient events in patients with eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.

These two reports follow a third, presented just a week earlier during Kidney Week, that showed the benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) for preventing heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remained consistent even in patients with an eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m² in results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. Similar findings for empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial came out nearly a year ago.

A message to clinicians from these reports is, “don’t wait for patients to develop heart failure” to start these drugs, according to Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management for the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “It’s time to start using these drugs upstream to have fewer patients with heart failure downstream,” she said in an interview.

Finerenone works differently than spironolactone

The new finerenone analysis included 5,734 patients enrolled in the FIDELIO-DKD trial, and 7,437 in the FIGARO-DKD trial, two very similar trials that differed by transposing the primary endpoint of one to the secondary endpoint of the other, and vice versa. The combined analysis is known as FIDELITY.

Expanding on a report that he first gave at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in August 2021, Dr. Filippatos provided a few additional details on the analysis that showed a consistent effect of finerenone on preventing hospitalizations for heart failure, and on preventing a combined endpoint of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death regardless of the severity of chronic kidney disease down to 25 mL/min per 1.73 m². Statistical analysis showed no hint of an interaction between finerenone’s effect on these outcomes in patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or greater and those with reduced renal function. Analyses also showed no interaction based on urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, be it more or less than 300 mg/g, reported Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of the heart failure unit at Attikon University Hospital in Athens.

“We use MRAs [such as spironolactone] in heart failure patients, but it’s difficult to use because of the risk of patients developing hyperkalemia,” noted Dr. Itchhaporia, who added that reluctance to use spironolactone is especially high for patients with depressed renal function, which could exacerbate a hyperkalemic effect. Evidence shows that finerenone poses a substantially reduced risk for raising serum potassium levels, making finerenone a more attractive agent to use in patients with CKD who have an elevated risk for heart failure events as well as an increased risk for hyperkalemia, like those enrolled in the two finerenone trials, she said.

Sotagliflozin uniquely inhibits SGLT1 and SGLT2

The new sotagliflozin analyses reported by Dr. Bhatt combined data for more than 11,800 patients randomized into either of two trials, SCORED, which randomized more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and SOLOIST, which randomized more than 1,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

A prespecified analysis for the combined data from both studies looked at the impact of sotagliflozin treatment on the combined outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an urgent outpatient visit because of heart failure based on kidney function at baseline. The analysis showed that sotagliflozin was at least as effective in the 8% of study patients who at baseline had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² as it was in patients with more preserved renal function.

Benefit from sotagliflozin treatment “was consistent across the full range of eGFR,” said Dr. Bhatt, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Results from a second analysis that he reported also showed a consistent effect of sotagliflozin on reducing hemoglobin A1c levels in the enrolled patients, even those with the lowest levels of renal function, an effect not previously seen with the related class of SGLT2 inhibitors (which includes empagliflozin, canagliflozin [Invokana], and dapagliflozin [Farxiga]). Dr. Bhatt suggested that, while SGLT2 inhibitors act entirely in the kidneys and hence their effect on glycemic control is blunted by renal dysfunction, sotagliflozin also inhibits the SGLT1 enzyme, which functions in the gut to transport glucose out of the digestive tract and into the blood, a glycemic control pathway that’s independent of renal function.

FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). SCORED and SOLOIST were sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon, the companies developing sotagliflozin (Zynquista). EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced were sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Filippatos has had financial relationships with Bayer and Boehringer-Ingelheim, as well as with Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies, and he has been an adviser to Boehringer-Ingelheim and several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com
 

New analyses of trial results for the cardiorenal agents finerenone and sotagliflozin continued the pattern showing that they exert consistent heart failure benefits in patients who span a broad spectrum of renal function, further disproving the notion that more severe stages of chronic kidney disease preclude aggressive medical management.

Sam Rogers; Courtesy American Heart Association

Analysis of combined data from two pivotal trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia), which together enrolled more than 13,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, showed in greater detail that finerenone treatment reduced the incidence of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death “across the spectrum” of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1-4.

That spectrum included patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m² and patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria, as well as those with normal urinary albumin levels, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

And in a separate, unrelated report, combined data from the two pivotal trials, with a total of nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, for sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a novel and still unapproved agent that inhibits both the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 enzymes, showed a consistent effect significantly reducing cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure outpatient events in patients with eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.

These two reports follow a third, presented just a week earlier during Kidney Week, that showed the benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) for preventing heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remained consistent even in patients with an eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m² in results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. Similar findings for empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial came out nearly a year ago.

A message to clinicians from these reports is, “don’t wait for patients to develop heart failure” to start these drugs, according to Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management for the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “It’s time to start using these drugs upstream to have fewer patients with heart failure downstream,” she said in an interview.

Finerenone works differently than spironolactone

The new finerenone analysis included 5,734 patients enrolled in the FIDELIO-DKD trial, and 7,437 in the FIGARO-DKD trial, two very similar trials that differed by transposing the primary endpoint of one to the secondary endpoint of the other, and vice versa. The combined analysis is known as FIDELITY.

Expanding on a report that he first gave at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in August 2021, Dr. Filippatos provided a few additional details on the analysis that showed a consistent effect of finerenone on preventing hospitalizations for heart failure, and on preventing a combined endpoint of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death regardless of the severity of chronic kidney disease down to 25 mL/min per 1.73 m². Statistical analysis showed no hint of an interaction between finerenone’s effect on these outcomes in patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or greater and those with reduced renal function. Analyses also showed no interaction based on urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, be it more or less than 300 mg/g, reported Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of the heart failure unit at Attikon University Hospital in Athens.

“We use MRAs [such as spironolactone] in heart failure patients, but it’s difficult to use because of the risk of patients developing hyperkalemia,” noted Dr. Itchhaporia, who added that reluctance to use spironolactone is especially high for patients with depressed renal function, which could exacerbate a hyperkalemic effect. Evidence shows that finerenone poses a substantially reduced risk for raising serum potassium levels, making finerenone a more attractive agent to use in patients with CKD who have an elevated risk for heart failure events as well as an increased risk for hyperkalemia, like those enrolled in the two finerenone trials, she said.

Sotagliflozin uniquely inhibits SGLT1 and SGLT2

The new sotagliflozin analyses reported by Dr. Bhatt combined data for more than 11,800 patients randomized into either of two trials, SCORED, which randomized more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and SOLOIST, which randomized more than 1,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

A prespecified analysis for the combined data from both studies looked at the impact of sotagliflozin treatment on the combined outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an urgent outpatient visit because of heart failure based on kidney function at baseline. The analysis showed that sotagliflozin was at least as effective in the 8% of study patients who at baseline had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² as it was in patients with more preserved renal function.

Benefit from sotagliflozin treatment “was consistent across the full range of eGFR,” said Dr. Bhatt, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Results from a second analysis that he reported also showed a consistent effect of sotagliflozin on reducing hemoglobin A1c levels in the enrolled patients, even those with the lowest levels of renal function, an effect not previously seen with the related class of SGLT2 inhibitors (which includes empagliflozin, canagliflozin [Invokana], and dapagliflozin [Farxiga]). Dr. Bhatt suggested that, while SGLT2 inhibitors act entirely in the kidneys and hence their effect on glycemic control is blunted by renal dysfunction, sotagliflozin also inhibits the SGLT1 enzyme, which functions in the gut to transport glucose out of the digestive tract and into the blood, a glycemic control pathway that’s independent of renal function.

FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). SCORED and SOLOIST were sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon, the companies developing sotagliflozin (Zynquista). EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced were sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Filippatos has had financial relationships with Bayer and Boehringer-Ingelheim, as well as with Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies, and he has been an adviser to Boehringer-Ingelheim and several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com
 

New analyses of trial results for the cardiorenal agents finerenone and sotagliflozin continued the pattern showing that they exert consistent heart failure benefits in patients who span a broad spectrum of renal function, further disproving the notion that more severe stages of chronic kidney disease preclude aggressive medical management.

Sam Rogers; Courtesy American Heart Association

Analysis of combined data from two pivotal trials of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia), which together enrolled more than 13,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, showed in greater detail that finerenone treatment reduced the incidence of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death “across the spectrum” of chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1-4.

That spectrum included patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m² and patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria, as well as those with normal urinary albumin levels, Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

And in a separate, unrelated report, combined data from the two pivotal trials, with a total of nearly 12,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, for sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a novel and still unapproved agent that inhibits both the sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 1 and 2 enzymes, showed a consistent effect significantly reducing cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure outpatient events in patients with eGFR rates as low as 25 mL/min per 1.73m², Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the meeting.

These two reports follow a third, presented just a week earlier during Kidney Week, that showed the benefit from the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) for preventing heart failure hospitalizations or cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remained consistent even in patients with an eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73m² in results from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial. Similar findings for empagliflozin in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial came out nearly a year ago.

A message to clinicians from these reports is, “don’t wait for patients to develop heart failure” to start these drugs, according to Dipti Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management for the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “It’s time to start using these drugs upstream to have fewer patients with heart failure downstream,” she said in an interview.

Finerenone works differently than spironolactone

The new finerenone analysis included 5,734 patients enrolled in the FIDELIO-DKD trial, and 7,437 in the FIGARO-DKD trial, two very similar trials that differed by transposing the primary endpoint of one to the secondary endpoint of the other, and vice versa. The combined analysis is known as FIDELITY.

Expanding on a report that he first gave at the European Society of Cardiology annual congress in August 2021, Dr. Filippatos provided a few additional details on the analysis that showed a consistent effect of finerenone on preventing hospitalizations for heart failure, and on preventing a combined endpoint of hospitalizations for heart failure and cardiovascular death regardless of the severity of chronic kidney disease down to 25 mL/min per 1.73 m². Statistical analysis showed no hint of an interaction between finerenone’s effect on these outcomes in patients with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or greater and those with reduced renal function. Analyses also showed no interaction based on urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio, be it more or less than 300 mg/g, reported Dr. Filippatos, professor and director of the heart failure unit at Attikon University Hospital in Athens.

“We use MRAs [such as spironolactone] in heart failure patients, but it’s difficult to use because of the risk of patients developing hyperkalemia,” noted Dr. Itchhaporia, who added that reluctance to use spironolactone is especially high for patients with depressed renal function, which could exacerbate a hyperkalemic effect. Evidence shows that finerenone poses a substantially reduced risk for raising serum potassium levels, making finerenone a more attractive agent to use in patients with CKD who have an elevated risk for heart failure events as well as an increased risk for hyperkalemia, like those enrolled in the two finerenone trials, she said.

Sotagliflozin uniquely inhibits SGLT1 and SGLT2

The new sotagliflozin analyses reported by Dr. Bhatt combined data for more than 11,800 patients randomized into either of two trials, SCORED, which randomized more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and SOLOIST, which randomized more than 1,000 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure.

A prespecified analysis for the combined data from both studies looked at the impact of sotagliflozin treatment on the combined outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or an urgent outpatient visit because of heart failure based on kidney function at baseline. The analysis showed that sotagliflozin was at least as effective in the 8% of study patients who at baseline had an eGFR of 25-29 mL/min per 1.73 m² as it was in patients with more preserved renal function.

Benefit from sotagliflozin treatment “was consistent across the full range of eGFR,” said Dr. Bhatt, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Results from a second analysis that he reported also showed a consistent effect of sotagliflozin on reducing hemoglobin A1c levels in the enrolled patients, even those with the lowest levels of renal function, an effect not previously seen with the related class of SGLT2 inhibitors (which includes empagliflozin, canagliflozin [Invokana], and dapagliflozin [Farxiga]). Dr. Bhatt suggested that, while SGLT2 inhibitors act entirely in the kidneys and hence their effect on glycemic control is blunted by renal dysfunction, sotagliflozin also inhibits the SGLT1 enzyme, which functions in the gut to transport glucose out of the digestive tract and into the blood, a glycemic control pathway that’s independent of renal function.

FIDELIO-DKD, FIGARO-DKD, and FIDELITY were sponsored by Bayer, the company that markets finerenone (Kerendia). SCORED and SOLOIST were sponsored by Sanofi, and later by Lexicon, the companies developing sotagliflozin (Zynquista). EMPEROR-Preserved and EMPEROR-Reduced were sponsored by Boehringer-Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Filippatos has had financial relationships with Bayer and Boehringer-Ingelheim, as well as with Amgen, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr. Bhatt has received research funding from Sanofi, Lexicon, Bayer, and Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly, and numerous other companies, and he has been an adviser to Boehringer-Ingelheim and several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com
 

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

The proportion of hypertensive patients with blood pressure control fell substantially in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, if the data from 24 health systems is representative of national trends.

GlobalStock/Getty Images

The decline in blood pressure control corresponded with – and might be explained by – a parallel decline in follow-up visits for uncontrolled hypertension from the same data source, according to Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology in the division of quantitative health sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

If the data are representative, a wave of cardiovascular (CV) events might be coming.

The study, called BP Track, collated electronic medical data on almost 1.8 million patients with hypertension from 2017 through 2020. Up until the end of 2019 and prior to the pandemic, slightly less than 60% of these patients had blood pressure control, defined as less than 140/90 mm Hg.

While the pre-COVID control rates were already “suboptimal,” a decline began almost immediately when the full force of the COVID-19 pandemic began in March of 2020, said Dr. Chamberlain in reporting the BP Track results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When graphed from the start of the pandemic until the end of 2020, the proportion under control fell 7.2% to a level just above 50%. For the more rigorous target of less than 130/80 mm Hg, the proportion fell 4.6% over the same period of time, leaving only about 25% at that level of control.

Repeat visits for BP control rebounded

The proportion of patients with a repeat office visit within 4 weeks of a diagnosis of uncontrolled hypertension fell even more steeply, reaching a nadir at about the middle of 2020, but it was followed by a partial recovery. The rate was 5% lower by the end of 2020, relative to the prepandemic rate (31.7% vs. 36.7%), but that was 5% higher than the nadir.

A similar phenomenon was observed with several other metrics. For example, there was a steep, immediate fall correlating with the onset of the pandemic in the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 10–mm Hg reduction or a BP under 140/90 mm Hg when treated for hypertension. Again, the nadir in this proportion was reached in about mid-2020 followed by a partial recovery. By the end of 2020, 5.9% fewer patients were achieving 10–mm Hg or better improvement in BP control when treated relative to the prepandemic level (23.8% vs. 29.7%), but this level was almost 10% higher than the nadir.

Data based on electronic medical records

The nearly 1.8 million patient records evaluated in the BP Track study were drawn from the 24 centers participating in the PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System. Nationally distributed, 18 of the 24 systems were academically affiliated.

When stratified by race, the proportion of Asians meeting the definition of BP control prior to the pandemic was about 5% higher than the overall average, and the proportion in Blacks was more than 5% lower. Whites had rates of blood pressure control very near the average. The relative declines in BP and the proportion of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure who had a repeat visit within 4 weeks during the pandemic were generally parallel across racial groups.

The implications of these data and the role of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood pressure control are “concerning,” according to Adam Bress, PharmD, department of population health sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

Citing a study published in 2020 that suggested blood pressure control rates in the United States were already declining before the COVID-19 pandemic, he said the COVID-19 epidemic appears to be exacerbating an existing problem. He expressed particular concern for populations who already have low rates of control, such as African Americans.

“The impact of COVID-19 is likely to be disproportionately greater for underserved and minoritized patients,” said Dr. Bress, who was the lead author of a recent article on this specific topic.

The implication of BP Track is that a wave of cardiovascular events will be coming if the data are nationally representative.

“A recent meta-analysis shows that each 5–mm Hg reduction in blood pressure is associated with age-related reductions in CV events,” Dr. Bress said. For those 55 years of age or older, he said the risk reduction is about 10%. Given that the inverse is almost certainly true, he expects diminishing blood pressure control, whether COVID-19-related or not, to translate into increased CV events.

However, there is no guarantee that the BP Track data are representative of the U.S. population, cautioned Eugene Yang, MD, professor in the division of cardiology, University of Washington, Seattle. Even though a large group of patients was included, they were largely drawn from academic centers.

Nevertheless, Dr. Yang, who chairs the Hypertension Working Group of the American College of Cardiology’s Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Council, acknowledged that the implications are “scary.”

If the data are representative, “this type of reduction in blood pressure control would be expected to have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, but we also have to think of all the variables that were not tracked and might add to risk,” he said. He named such risk factors as weight gain, diminished exercise, and increased alcohol consumption, which have been cited by others as being exacerbated by the pandemic.

If these lead to more cardiovascular events on a population basis, the timing of these events would be expected to be age dependent.

“If you look at the patients included in this study, about 50% were 65 years of age or older. In a population like this you would expect to see an increase in events sooner rather than later,” said Dr. Wang.

In other words, if the trial is representative, a wave of cardiovascular events might be seen in the most vulnerable patients “within the next few years,” Dr. Yang speculated.

Dr. Chamberlain reports a research grant from EpidStrategies. Dr. Bress and Dr. Yang report no potential financial conflicts of interest.

Better to intervene early with a new valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are asymptomatic, even during exercise, than to wait for the disease to progress and symptoms to emerge before operating, suggests a small, randomized trial that challenges the guidelines.

Of the trial’s 157 patients, all with negative results on stress tests and normal left ventricular (LV) function despite severe AS, those assigned to early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), compared with standard watchful waiting, showed a better-than-50% drop in risk for death or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 2-3 years. The benefit appeared driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and deaths in the early-surgery group.

The findings “advocate for early surgery once aortic stenosis becomes significant and regardless of symptom status,” Marko Banovic, MD, PhD, said during his presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Banovic, from the University of Belgrade Medical School in Serbia, is coprincipal investigator on the trial, called AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis). He is also lead author on the study’s publication in Circulation, timed to coincide with his AHA presentation.

“The AVATAR findings provide additional evidence to help clinicians in guiding their decision when seeing a patient with significant aortic stenosis, normal left ventricular function, overall low surgical risk, and without significant comorbidities,” Dr. Banovic told this news organization.

European and North American Guidelines favor watchful waiting for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, with surgery upon development of symptoms or LV dysfunction, observed Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, an invited discussant for the AVATAR presentation.

AVATAR does suggest that “early surgery in truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction seems to provide better outcomes as compared to the conservative treatment,” she said. “But I think that the long-term follow-up for potential events, such as valve durability or endocarditis, is still needed.”

The trial has strengths, compared with the recent RECOVERY trial, which also concluded in favor of early SAVR over watchful waiting in patients described as asymptomatic with severe aortic stenosis. Dr. Delgado and other observers, however, have pointed out limitations of that trial, including questions about whether the patients were truly asymptomatic – stress testing wasn›t routinely performed.

In AVATAR, all patients were negative at stress testing, which required them to reach their estimated maximum heart rate, Dr. Banovic noted. As he and his colleagues write, the trial expands on RECOVERY “by providing evidence of the benefit of early surgery in a setting representative of a dilemma in decision making, in truly asymptomatic patients with severe but not critical aortic stenosis and normal LV function.”

A role for TAVR?

Guidelines in general “can be very conservative and lag behind evidence a bit,” Patricia A. Pellikka, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who is not associated with AVATAR, said in an interview.

“I think when we see patients clinically, we can advise them that if they don’t have symptoms and they do have severe aortic stenosis,” she said, “they’re likely going to get symptoms within a reasonably short period of time, according to our retrospective databases, and that doing the intervention early may yield better long-term outcomes.”

The results of AVATAR, in which valve replacement consisted only of SAVR, “probably could be extrapolated” to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Dr. Pellikka observed. “Certainly, TAVR is the procedure that patients come asking for. It’s attractive to avoid a major surgery, and it seems very plausible that TAVR would have yielded similar results if that had been a therapy in this trial.”

In practice, patient age and functional status would figure heavily in deciding whether early valve replacement, and which procedure, is appropriate, Dr. Banovic said in an interview. Importantly, the trial’s patients were at low surgical risk and free of major chronic diseases or other important health concerns.

“Frailty and older age are known risk factors for suboptimal recovery” after SAVR, Dr. Banovic said when interviewed. Therefore, frail patients, who were not many in AVATAR, might be “more suitable for TAVR than SAVR, based on the TAVR-vs.-SAVR results in symptomatic AS patients,” he said.

“One might extrapolate experience from AVATAR trial to TAVR, which may lower the bar for TAVR indications,” but that would require more supporting evidence, Dr. Banovic said.

Confirmed asymptomatic

AVATAR, conducted at nine centers in seven countries in the European Union, randomly assigned 157 adults with severe AS by echocardiography and a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% to early SAVR or conservative management. They averaged 67 years in age, and 43% were women.

The trial excluded anyone with dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, angina, or LV dysfunction and anyone with a history of atrial fibrillation or significant cardiac, renal, or lung disease. The cohort’s average Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 1.7%.

The 78 patients in the early-surgery group “were expected” to have the procedure within 8 weeks of randomization, the published report states; the median time was 55 days. Six of them ultimately did not have the surgery. There was only one periprocedural death, for an operative mortality of 1.4%.

The 79 patients assigned to conservative care were later referred for surgery if they developed symptoms, their LVEF dropped below 50%, or they showed a 0.3-m/sec jump in peak aortic jet velocity at follow-up echocardiography. That occurred with 25 patients a median of 400 days after randomization.

The rate of the primary endpoint – death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned HF hospitalization – was 16.6% in the early-surgery group and 32.9% for those managed conservatively over a median of 32 months. The hazard ratio by intention-to-treat analysis was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.90; P = .02). The HR for death from any cause or HF hospitalization was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19-0.84; P = .013). Any differences in the individual endpoints of death, first HF hospitalizations, thromboembolic complications, or major bleeding were not significant.

If early aortic valve replacement is better for patients like those in AVATAR, some sort of screening for previously unknown severe aortic stenosis may seem attractive for selected populations. “Echocardiography would be the screening test for aortic stenosis, but it’s fairly expensive and therefore has never been advocated as a test to screen everyone,” Dr. Pellikka observed.

“But things are changing,” given innovations such as point-of-care ultrasonography and machine learning, she noted. “Artificial intelligence is progressing in its application to echocardiography, and it’s conceivable that in the future, there might be some abbreviated or screening type of test. But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

Dr. Banovic had no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Delgado disclosed speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and GE Healthcare and unrestricted research grants to her institution from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Ionis, and Medtronic. Dr. Pellikka disclosed receiving a research grant from Ultromics and having unspecified modest relationships with GE Healthcare, Lantheus, and OxThera.

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

Better to intervene early with a new valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are asymptomatic, even during exercise, than to wait for the disease to progress and symptoms to emerge before operating, suggests a small, randomized trial that challenges the guidelines.

Of the trial’s 157 patients, all with negative results on stress tests and normal left ventricular (LV) function despite severe AS, those assigned to early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), compared with standard watchful waiting, showed a better-than-50% drop in risk for death or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 2-3 years. The benefit appeared driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and deaths in the early-surgery group.

The findings “advocate for early surgery once aortic stenosis becomes significant and regardless of symptom status,” Marko Banovic, MD, PhD, said during his presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Banovic, from the University of Belgrade Medical School in Serbia, is coprincipal investigator on the trial, called AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis). He is also lead author on the study’s publication in Circulation, timed to coincide with his AHA presentation.

“The AVATAR findings provide additional evidence to help clinicians in guiding their decision when seeing a patient with significant aortic stenosis, normal left ventricular function, overall low surgical risk, and without significant comorbidities,” Dr. Banovic told this news organization.

European and North American Guidelines favor watchful waiting for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, with surgery upon development of symptoms or LV dysfunction, observed Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, an invited discussant for the AVATAR presentation.

AVATAR does suggest that “early surgery in truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction seems to provide better outcomes as compared to the conservative treatment,” she said. “But I think that the long-term follow-up for potential events, such as valve durability or endocarditis, is still needed.”

The trial has strengths, compared with the recent RECOVERY trial, which also concluded in favor of early SAVR over watchful waiting in patients described as asymptomatic with severe aortic stenosis. Dr. Delgado and other observers, however, have pointed out limitations of that trial, including questions about whether the patients were truly asymptomatic – stress testing wasn›t routinely performed.

In AVATAR, all patients were negative at stress testing, which required them to reach their estimated maximum heart rate, Dr. Banovic noted. As he and his colleagues write, the trial expands on RECOVERY “by providing evidence of the benefit of early surgery in a setting representative of a dilemma in decision making, in truly asymptomatic patients with severe but not critical aortic stenosis and normal LV function.”

A role for TAVR?

Guidelines in general “can be very conservative and lag behind evidence a bit,” Patricia A. Pellikka, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who is not associated with AVATAR, said in an interview.

“I think when we see patients clinically, we can advise them that if they don’t have symptoms and they do have severe aortic stenosis,” she said, “they’re likely going to get symptoms within a reasonably short period of time, according to our retrospective databases, and that doing the intervention early may yield better long-term outcomes.”

The results of AVATAR, in which valve replacement consisted only of SAVR, “probably could be extrapolated” to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Dr. Pellikka observed. “Certainly, TAVR is the procedure that patients come asking for. It’s attractive to avoid a major surgery, and it seems very plausible that TAVR would have yielded similar results if that had been a therapy in this trial.”

In practice, patient age and functional status would figure heavily in deciding whether early valve replacement, and which procedure, is appropriate, Dr. Banovic said in an interview. Importantly, the trial’s patients were at low surgical risk and free of major chronic diseases or other important health concerns.

“Frailty and older age are known risk factors for suboptimal recovery” after SAVR, Dr. Banovic said when interviewed. Therefore, frail patients, who were not many in AVATAR, might be “more suitable for TAVR than SAVR, based on the TAVR-vs.-SAVR results in symptomatic AS patients,” he said.

“One might extrapolate experience from AVATAR trial to TAVR, which may lower the bar for TAVR indications,” but that would require more supporting evidence, Dr. Banovic said.

Confirmed asymptomatic

AVATAR, conducted at nine centers in seven countries in the European Union, randomly assigned 157 adults with severe AS by echocardiography and a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% to early SAVR or conservative management. They averaged 67 years in age, and 43% were women.

The trial excluded anyone with dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, angina, or LV dysfunction and anyone with a history of atrial fibrillation or significant cardiac, renal, or lung disease. The cohort’s average Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 1.7%.

The 78 patients in the early-surgery group “were expected” to have the procedure within 8 weeks of randomization, the published report states; the median time was 55 days. Six of them ultimately did not have the surgery. There was only one periprocedural death, for an operative mortality of 1.4%.

The 79 patients assigned to conservative care were later referred for surgery if they developed symptoms, their LVEF dropped below 50%, or they showed a 0.3-m/sec jump in peak aortic jet velocity at follow-up echocardiography. That occurred with 25 patients a median of 400 days after randomization.

The rate of the primary endpoint – death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned HF hospitalization – was 16.6% in the early-surgery group and 32.9% for those managed conservatively over a median of 32 months. The hazard ratio by intention-to-treat analysis was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.90; P = .02). The HR for death from any cause or HF hospitalization was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19-0.84; P = .013). Any differences in the individual endpoints of death, first HF hospitalizations, thromboembolic complications, or major bleeding were not significant.

If early aortic valve replacement is better for patients like those in AVATAR, some sort of screening for previously unknown severe aortic stenosis may seem attractive for selected populations. “Echocardiography would be the screening test for aortic stenosis, but it’s fairly expensive and therefore has never been advocated as a test to screen everyone,” Dr. Pellikka observed.

“But things are changing,” given innovations such as point-of-care ultrasonography and machine learning, she noted. “Artificial intelligence is progressing in its application to echocardiography, and it’s conceivable that in the future, there might be some abbreviated or screening type of test. But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

Dr. Banovic had no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Delgado disclosed speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and GE Healthcare and unrestricted research grants to her institution from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Ionis, and Medtronic. Dr. Pellikka disclosed receiving a research grant from Ultromics and having unspecified modest relationships with GE Healthcare, Lantheus, and OxThera.

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

Better to intervene early with a new valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are asymptomatic, even during exercise, than to wait for the disease to progress and symptoms to emerge before operating, suggests a small, randomized trial that challenges the guidelines.

Of the trial’s 157 patients, all with negative results on stress tests and normal left ventricular (LV) function despite severe AS, those assigned to early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), compared with standard watchful waiting, showed a better-than-50% drop in risk for death or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 2-3 years. The benefit appeared driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and deaths in the early-surgery group.

The findings “advocate for early surgery once aortic stenosis becomes significant and regardless of symptom status,” Marko Banovic, MD, PhD, said during his presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Banovic, from the University of Belgrade Medical School in Serbia, is coprincipal investigator on the trial, called AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis). He is also lead author on the study’s publication in Circulation, timed to coincide with his AHA presentation.

“The AVATAR findings provide additional evidence to help clinicians in guiding their decision when seeing a patient with significant aortic stenosis, normal left ventricular function, overall low surgical risk, and without significant comorbidities,” Dr. Banovic told this news organization.

European and North American Guidelines favor watchful waiting for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, with surgery upon development of symptoms or LV dysfunction, observed Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, an invited discussant for the AVATAR presentation.

AVATAR does suggest that “early surgery in truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction seems to provide better outcomes as compared to the conservative treatment,” she said. “But I think that the long-term follow-up for potential events, such as valve durability or endocarditis, is still needed.”

The trial has strengths, compared with the recent RECOVERY trial, which also concluded in favor of early SAVR over watchful waiting in patients described as asymptomatic with severe aortic stenosis. Dr. Delgado and other observers, however, have pointed out limitations of that trial, including questions about whether the patients were truly asymptomatic – stress testing wasn›t routinely performed.

In AVATAR, all patients were negative at stress testing, which required them to reach their estimated maximum heart rate, Dr. Banovic noted. As he and his colleagues write, the trial expands on RECOVERY “by providing evidence of the benefit of early surgery in a setting representative of a dilemma in decision making, in truly asymptomatic patients with severe but not critical aortic stenosis and normal LV function.”

A role for TAVR?

Guidelines in general “can be very conservative and lag behind evidence a bit,” Patricia A. Pellikka, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who is not associated with AVATAR, said in an interview.

“I think when we see patients clinically, we can advise them that if they don’t have symptoms and they do have severe aortic stenosis,” she said, “they’re likely going to get symptoms within a reasonably short period of time, according to our retrospective databases, and that doing the intervention early may yield better long-term outcomes.”

The results of AVATAR, in which valve replacement consisted only of SAVR, “probably could be extrapolated” to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Dr. Pellikka observed. “Certainly, TAVR is the procedure that patients come asking for. It’s attractive to avoid a major surgery, and it seems very plausible that TAVR would have yielded similar results if that had been a therapy in this trial.”

In practice, patient age and functional status would figure heavily in deciding whether early valve replacement, and which procedure, is appropriate, Dr. Banovic said in an interview. Importantly, the trial’s patients were at low surgical risk and free of major chronic diseases or other important health concerns.

“Frailty and older age are known risk factors for suboptimal recovery” after SAVR, Dr. Banovic said when interviewed. Therefore, frail patients, who were not many in AVATAR, might be “more suitable for TAVR than SAVR, based on the TAVR-vs.-SAVR results in symptomatic AS patients,” he said.

“One might extrapolate experience from AVATAR trial to TAVR, which may lower the bar for TAVR indications,” but that would require more supporting evidence, Dr. Banovic said.

Confirmed asymptomatic

AVATAR, conducted at nine centers in seven countries in the European Union, randomly assigned 157 adults with severe AS by echocardiography and a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% to early SAVR or conservative management. They averaged 67 years in age, and 43% were women.

The trial excluded anyone with dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, angina, or LV dysfunction and anyone with a history of atrial fibrillation or significant cardiac, renal, or lung disease. The cohort’s average Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 1.7%.

The 78 patients in the early-surgery group “were expected” to have the procedure within 8 weeks of randomization, the published report states; the median time was 55 days. Six of them ultimately did not have the surgery. There was only one periprocedural death, for an operative mortality of 1.4%.

The 79 patients assigned to conservative care were later referred for surgery if they developed symptoms, their LVEF dropped below 50%, or they showed a 0.3-m/sec jump in peak aortic jet velocity at follow-up echocardiography. That occurred with 25 patients a median of 400 days after randomization.

The rate of the primary endpoint – death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned HF hospitalization – was 16.6% in the early-surgery group and 32.9% for those managed conservatively over a median of 32 months. The hazard ratio by intention-to-treat analysis was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.90; P = .02). The HR for death from any cause or HF hospitalization was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19-0.84; P = .013). Any differences in the individual endpoints of death, first HF hospitalizations, thromboembolic complications, or major bleeding were not significant.

If early aortic valve replacement is better for patients like those in AVATAR, some sort of screening for previously unknown severe aortic stenosis may seem attractive for selected populations. “Echocardiography would be the screening test for aortic stenosis, but it’s fairly expensive and therefore has never been advocated as a test to screen everyone,” Dr. Pellikka observed.

“But things are changing,” given innovations such as point-of-care ultrasonography and machine learning, she noted. “Artificial intelligence is progressing in its application to echocardiography, and it’s conceivable that in the future, there might be some abbreviated or screening type of test. But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

Dr. Banovic had no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Delgado disclosed speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and GE Healthcare and unrestricted research grants to her institution from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Ionis, and Medtronic. Dr. Pellikka disclosed receiving a research grant from Ultromics and having unspecified modest relationships with GE Healthcare, Lantheus, and OxThera.

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

Tricuspid valve repair at the time of mitral valve surgery reduces tricuspid regurgitation progression, but at the cost of more than a fivefold increase in permanent pacemakers, results of a new Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network study show.

The results were presented during the opening late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common among patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, and there’s broad agreement to intervene when a patient has severe TR. There’s uncertainty, however, about the management of moderate or less TR during mitral valve surgery, which is reflected in current guidelines on the basis of observational data, explained coprimary investigator James Gammie, MD, codirector and surgical director of the Johns Hopkins Heart and Vascular Institute, Baltimore. As a result, rates of concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery range from 5% to 75% at various centers.

To help fill the gap, Dr. Gammie and colleagues screened 5,208 patients at 29 centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany undergoing surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation, and randomly assigned 401 patients (75% male) to mitral valve surgery alone or with tricuspid annuloplasty.

Patients had either moderate TR (37%) or less than moderate TR with a dilated tricuspid annulus of at least 40 mm or at least 21 mm/m² indexed for body surface area. Importantly, there was a uniform surgical approach using undersized (26-30 mm) rigid nonplanar annuloplasty rings to repair the tricuspid valve, he said.

The study’s primary outcome of treatment failure at 2 years was defined as the composite of death, reoperation for TR, or progression of TR from baseline by 2 grades or severe TR.

The primary endpoint occurred in 10.2% of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery alone and 3.9% who underwent concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86; P = .02).

The endpoint was driven exclusively by less TR progression in the annuloplasty group, with no TR reoperations in either group, observed Dr. Gammie. At 2 years, just 0.6% of the annuloplasty group had severe TR, compared with 5.6% of the surgery-alone group.

The rate of permanent pacemaker implantations, however, jumped from 2.5% with surgery alone to 14.1% with concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27-14.60). More than half of pacemakers were placed during the first 2 days after surgery.

There was no between-group difference in 2-year rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, readmission, quality of life, or functional status.

Less than moderate TR

In a post hoc analysis stratified by baseline TR severity, treatment failure was significantly less common with surgery plus tricuspid annuloplasty among patients with moderate TR (4.5% vs. 18.1%) but not among those with less than moderate TR and tricuspid annular dilation (3.4% vs. 6.1%).

Although the trial was not powered for the subgroup analysis, “these results call into question the idea that less than moderate TR with annular dilation should be an indication for tricuspid valve repair,” Dr. Gammie told this news organization.

“I did not repair the tricuspid valve in the setting of less than moderate TR before the trial, and my practice won’t change; but it will be based on much better evidence,” he added. “Of course, long-term data from our trial will be of great interest.”

Discussant Joseph Woo, MD, chair of surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, congratulated the authors on a “landmark trial” that addresses a highly relevant problem without a clear-cut indication.

In the 2020 AHA/American College of Cardiology heart valve disease guideline, tricuspid valve surgery is a class I recommendation when there’s severe TR (stages C and D) and left-sided valve surgery but a class IIa recommendation in patients with progressive TR (stage B) with an annular dilation of at least 40 mm.

“The interesting findings in this study include that moderate TR was only 37% of the enrolled patients, and only 97% of the patients with degenerative MR received a mitral valve repair,” Dr. Woo said. “This level of mitral valve repair is perhaps lower than what we might expect at these centers and lower, certainly, than what the AHA/ACC guidelines recommend for surgery on asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation.”

Panelist Roxanna Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York said, “What I was struck by is that we, as clinicians, believe that if you fix the mitral valve, maybe the tricuspid regurgitation will improve. And it seems like that is not what’s happening, and I think that’s a big takeaway.”

Session comoderator Joanna Chikwe, MD, head of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said, “I think we can all agree that severe tricuspid regurgitation is a disaster for patients, and I think the fact the trial is designed for an additional 5 years’ follow-up will hopefully give us some insights into the clinical impact of severe tricuspid regurgitation.”

For now, “a back of the envelope calculation suggests that, for every 20 patients with moderate tricuspid regurgitation who we repair the tricuspid valve in, we would prevent severe tricuspid valve regurgitation in 1 at the price of pacemakers in 2,” she said.

Dr. Chikwe said in an interview that “transcatheter tricuspid repair is increasingly helping these patients, but if you could avoid it with a technique that doesn’t cause incremental harm beyond, perhaps, the need for pacemakers, then this is helpful data that supports that approach.”

The pacemaker burden is not negligible, she said, but also not surprising to surgeons. “If you look at national practice of mitral-tricuspid surgery, it’s about 15% after that, and it’s simply because the conduction tissue is so close to the tricuspid annulus.”

Pacemaker implantation rates, like those for concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery, are also highly variable, and in some single-center series only around 2%, Dr. Chikwe said. “So that suggests there are technical approaches that can minimize the pacemaker rate [such as] being extremely careful to avoid suture placement around the area of the conduction tissues.”

For some the trade-off between reduced TR progression and the risk of a permanent pacemaker is worth it. “But the fact that the trial didn’t show a difference in survival, a difference in symptoms or quality of life, might suggest that patients you anticipated were high risk for surgery or didn’t have a longer projected survival aren’t going to benefit from what is quite an aggressive surgical approach,” Dr. Chikwe said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chikwe and Mario Gaudino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, also point out that the “very dynamic nature of tricuspid regurgitation and wide variability in assessing tricuspid annular dilatation are additional compelling reasons to leave lesser regurgitation alone.”

Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, Kings College and tricuspid service lead at Guys and St. Thomas NHS, London, also pointed to the need for longer-term follow-up but said increased use of imaging markers is also needed to help pinpoint TR progression in these patients. “For the moment, the results should remind imagers and clinicians to refer patients earlier.”

“As a valvular heart physician, I see more and more patients coming in with significant severe tricuspid regurgitation post–mitral valve surgery and because of the time that’s passed, there’s dysfunction of the right heart, the left heart, and it’s very hard to suggest an operation because they’re at high risk,” she said. “So we’re discussing with these patients whether to do an intervention or medical management.”

“Now, with this study, and the pending longer follow-up by the authors, I’m optimistic that the class II recommendation will be class I in order to help our patients treat tricuspid regurgitation earlier than late,” said Dr. Grapsa, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Gammie reports a consultant/stockholder relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grapsa reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Chikwe reports that as coprincipal investigator/study director of NCT 05051033 (an NHLBI-sponsored Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial), she collaborates with several of the study authors.
 

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

Tricuspid valve repair at the time of mitral valve surgery reduces tricuspid regurgitation progression, but at the cost of more than a fivefold increase in permanent pacemakers, results of a new Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network study show.

The results were presented during the opening late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common among patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, and there’s broad agreement to intervene when a patient has severe TR. There’s uncertainty, however, about the management of moderate or less TR during mitral valve surgery, which is reflected in current guidelines on the basis of observational data, explained coprimary investigator James Gammie, MD, codirector and surgical director of the Johns Hopkins Heart and Vascular Institute, Baltimore. As a result, rates of concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery range from 5% to 75% at various centers.

To help fill the gap, Dr. Gammie and colleagues screened 5,208 patients at 29 centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany undergoing surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation, and randomly assigned 401 patients (75% male) to mitral valve surgery alone or with tricuspid annuloplasty.

Patients had either moderate TR (37%) or less than moderate TR with a dilated tricuspid annulus of at least 40 mm or at least 21 mm/m² indexed for body surface area. Importantly, there was a uniform surgical approach using undersized (26-30 mm) rigid nonplanar annuloplasty rings to repair the tricuspid valve, he said.

The study’s primary outcome of treatment failure at 2 years was defined as the composite of death, reoperation for TR, or progression of TR from baseline by 2 grades or severe TR.

The primary endpoint occurred in 10.2% of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery alone and 3.9% who underwent concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86; P = .02).

The endpoint was driven exclusively by less TR progression in the annuloplasty group, with no TR reoperations in either group, observed Dr. Gammie. At 2 years, just 0.6% of the annuloplasty group had severe TR, compared with 5.6% of the surgery-alone group.

The rate of permanent pacemaker implantations, however, jumped from 2.5% with surgery alone to 14.1% with concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27-14.60). More than half of pacemakers were placed during the first 2 days after surgery.

There was no between-group difference in 2-year rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, readmission, quality of life, or functional status.

Less than moderate TR

In a post hoc analysis stratified by baseline TR severity, treatment failure was significantly less common with surgery plus tricuspid annuloplasty among patients with moderate TR (4.5% vs. 18.1%) but not among those with less than moderate TR and tricuspid annular dilation (3.4% vs. 6.1%).

Although the trial was not powered for the subgroup analysis, “these results call into question the idea that less than moderate TR with annular dilation should be an indication for tricuspid valve repair,” Dr. Gammie told this news organization.

“I did not repair the tricuspid valve in the setting of less than moderate TR before the trial, and my practice won’t change; but it will be based on much better evidence,” he added. “Of course, long-term data from our trial will be of great interest.”

Discussant Joseph Woo, MD, chair of surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, congratulated the authors on a “landmark trial” that addresses a highly relevant problem without a clear-cut indication.

In the 2020 AHA/American College of Cardiology heart valve disease guideline, tricuspid valve surgery is a class I recommendation when there’s severe TR (stages C and D) and left-sided valve surgery but a class IIa recommendation in patients with progressive TR (stage B) with an annular dilation of at least 40 mm.

“The interesting findings in this study include that moderate TR was only 37% of the enrolled patients, and only 97% of the patients with degenerative MR received a mitral valve repair,” Dr. Woo said. “This level of mitral valve repair is perhaps lower than what we might expect at these centers and lower, certainly, than what the AHA/ACC guidelines recommend for surgery on asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation.”

Panelist Roxanna Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York said, “What I was struck by is that we, as clinicians, believe that if you fix the mitral valve, maybe the tricuspid regurgitation will improve. And it seems like that is not what’s happening, and I think that’s a big takeaway.”

Session comoderator Joanna Chikwe, MD, head of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said, “I think we can all agree that severe tricuspid regurgitation is a disaster for patients, and I think the fact the trial is designed for an additional 5 years’ follow-up will hopefully give us some insights into the clinical impact of severe tricuspid regurgitation.”

For now, “a back of the envelope calculation suggests that, for every 20 patients with moderate tricuspid regurgitation who we repair the tricuspid valve in, we would prevent severe tricuspid valve regurgitation in 1 at the price of pacemakers in 2,” she said.

Dr. Chikwe said in an interview that “transcatheter tricuspid repair is increasingly helping these patients, but if you could avoid it with a technique that doesn’t cause incremental harm beyond, perhaps, the need for pacemakers, then this is helpful data that supports that approach.”

The pacemaker burden is not negligible, she said, but also not surprising to surgeons. “If you look at national practice of mitral-tricuspid surgery, it’s about 15% after that, and it’s simply because the conduction tissue is so close to the tricuspid annulus.”

Pacemaker implantation rates, like those for concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery, are also highly variable, and in some single-center series only around 2%, Dr. Chikwe said. “So that suggests there are technical approaches that can minimize the pacemaker rate [such as] being extremely careful to avoid suture placement around the area of the conduction tissues.”

For some the trade-off between reduced TR progression and the risk of a permanent pacemaker is worth it. “But the fact that the trial didn’t show a difference in survival, a difference in symptoms or quality of life, might suggest that patients you anticipated were high risk for surgery or didn’t have a longer projected survival aren’t going to benefit from what is quite an aggressive surgical approach,” Dr. Chikwe said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chikwe and Mario Gaudino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, also point out that the “very dynamic nature of tricuspid regurgitation and wide variability in assessing tricuspid annular dilatation are additional compelling reasons to leave lesser regurgitation alone.”

Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, Kings College and tricuspid service lead at Guys and St. Thomas NHS, London, also pointed to the need for longer-term follow-up but said increased use of imaging markers is also needed to help pinpoint TR progression in these patients. “For the moment, the results should remind imagers and clinicians to refer patients earlier.”

“As a valvular heart physician, I see more and more patients coming in with significant severe tricuspid regurgitation post–mitral valve surgery and because of the time that’s passed, there’s dysfunction of the right heart, the left heart, and it’s very hard to suggest an operation because they’re at high risk,” she said. “So we’re discussing with these patients whether to do an intervention or medical management.”

“Now, with this study, and the pending longer follow-up by the authors, I’m optimistic that the class II recommendation will be class I in order to help our patients treat tricuspid regurgitation earlier than late,” said Dr. Grapsa, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Gammie reports a consultant/stockholder relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grapsa reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Chikwe reports that as coprincipal investigator/study director of NCT 05051033 (an NHLBI-sponsored Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial), she collaborates with several of the study authors.
 

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

Tricuspid valve repair at the time of mitral valve surgery reduces tricuspid regurgitation progression, but at the cost of more than a fivefold increase in permanent pacemakers, results of a new Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network study show.

The results were presented during the opening late-breaking science session at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is common among patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, and there’s broad agreement to intervene when a patient has severe TR. There’s uncertainty, however, about the management of moderate or less TR during mitral valve surgery, which is reflected in current guidelines on the basis of observational data, explained coprimary investigator James Gammie, MD, codirector and surgical director of the Johns Hopkins Heart and Vascular Institute, Baltimore. As a result, rates of concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery range from 5% to 75% at various centers.

To help fill the gap, Dr. Gammie and colleagues screened 5,208 patients at 29 centers in the United States, Canada, and Germany undergoing surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation, and randomly assigned 401 patients (75% male) to mitral valve surgery alone or with tricuspid annuloplasty.

Patients had either moderate TR (37%) or less than moderate TR with a dilated tricuspid annulus of at least 40 mm or at least 21 mm/m² indexed for body surface area. Importantly, there was a uniform surgical approach using undersized (26-30 mm) rigid nonplanar annuloplasty rings to repair the tricuspid valve, he said.

The study’s primary outcome of treatment failure at 2 years was defined as the composite of death, reoperation for TR, or progression of TR from baseline by 2 grades or severe TR.

The primary endpoint occurred in 10.2% of patients who underwent mitral valve surgery alone and 3.9% who underwent concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.86; P = .02).

The endpoint was driven exclusively by less TR progression in the annuloplasty group, with no TR reoperations in either group, observed Dr. Gammie. At 2 years, just 0.6% of the annuloplasty group had severe TR, compared with 5.6% of the surgery-alone group.

The rate of permanent pacemaker implantations, however, jumped from 2.5% with surgery alone to 14.1% with concomitant tricuspid annuloplasty (rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27-14.60). More than half of pacemakers were placed during the first 2 days after surgery.

There was no between-group difference in 2-year rates of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, readmission, quality of life, or functional status.

Less than moderate TR

In a post hoc analysis stratified by baseline TR severity, treatment failure was significantly less common with surgery plus tricuspid annuloplasty among patients with moderate TR (4.5% vs. 18.1%) but not among those with less than moderate TR and tricuspid annular dilation (3.4% vs. 6.1%).

Although the trial was not powered for the subgroup analysis, “these results call into question the idea that less than moderate TR with annular dilation should be an indication for tricuspid valve repair,” Dr. Gammie told this news organization.

“I did not repair the tricuspid valve in the setting of less than moderate TR before the trial, and my practice won’t change; but it will be based on much better evidence,” he added. “Of course, long-term data from our trial will be of great interest.”

Discussant Joseph Woo, MD, chair of surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, congratulated the authors on a “landmark trial” that addresses a highly relevant problem without a clear-cut indication.

In the 2020 AHA/American College of Cardiology heart valve disease guideline, tricuspid valve surgery is a class I recommendation when there’s severe TR (stages C and D) and left-sided valve surgery but a class IIa recommendation in patients with progressive TR (stage B) with an annular dilation of at least 40 mm.

“The interesting findings in this study include that moderate TR was only 37% of the enrolled patients, and only 97% of the patients with degenerative MR received a mitral valve repair,” Dr. Woo said. “This level of mitral valve repair is perhaps lower than what we might expect at these centers and lower, certainly, than what the AHA/ACC guidelines recommend for surgery on asymptomatic severe mitral regurgitation.”

Panelist Roxanna Mehran, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York said, “What I was struck by is that we, as clinicians, believe that if you fix the mitral valve, maybe the tricuspid regurgitation will improve. And it seems like that is not what’s happening, and I think that’s a big takeaway.”

Session comoderator Joanna Chikwe, MD, head of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said, “I think we can all agree that severe tricuspid regurgitation is a disaster for patients, and I think the fact the trial is designed for an additional 5 years’ follow-up will hopefully give us some insights into the clinical impact of severe tricuspid regurgitation.”

For now, “a back of the envelope calculation suggests that, for every 20 patients with moderate tricuspid regurgitation who we repair the tricuspid valve in, we would prevent severe tricuspid valve regurgitation in 1 at the price of pacemakers in 2,” she said.

Dr. Chikwe said in an interview that “transcatheter tricuspid repair is increasingly helping these patients, but if you could avoid it with a technique that doesn’t cause incremental harm beyond, perhaps, the need for pacemakers, then this is helpful data that supports that approach.”

The pacemaker burden is not negligible, she said, but also not surprising to surgeons. “If you look at national practice of mitral-tricuspid surgery, it’s about 15% after that, and it’s simply because the conduction tissue is so close to the tricuspid annulus.”

Pacemaker implantation rates, like those for concomitant tricuspid-mitral surgery, are also highly variable, and in some single-center series only around 2%, Dr. Chikwe said. “So that suggests there are technical approaches that can minimize the pacemaker rate [such as] being extremely careful to avoid suture placement around the area of the conduction tissues.”

For some the trade-off between reduced TR progression and the risk of a permanent pacemaker is worth it. “But the fact that the trial didn’t show a difference in survival, a difference in symptoms or quality of life, might suggest that patients you anticipated were high risk for surgery or didn’t have a longer projected survival aren’t going to benefit from what is quite an aggressive surgical approach,” Dr. Chikwe said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Chikwe and Mario Gaudino, MD, of Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, also point out that the “very dynamic nature of tricuspid regurgitation and wide variability in assessing tricuspid annular dilatation are additional compelling reasons to leave lesser regurgitation alone.”

Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, Kings College and tricuspid service lead at Guys and St. Thomas NHS, London, also pointed to the need for longer-term follow-up but said increased use of imaging markers is also needed to help pinpoint TR progression in these patients. “For the moment, the results should remind imagers and clinicians to refer patients earlier.”

“As a valvular heart physician, I see more and more patients coming in with significant severe tricuspid regurgitation post–mitral valve surgery and because of the time that’s passed, there’s dysfunction of the right heart, the left heart, and it’s very hard to suggest an operation because they’re at high risk,” she said. “So we’re discussing with these patients whether to do an intervention or medical management.”

“Now, with this study, and the pending longer follow-up by the authors, I’m optimistic that the class II recommendation will be class I in order to help our patients treat tricuspid regurgitation earlier than late,” said Dr. Grapsa, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: Case Reports.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Gammie reports a consultant/stockholder relationship with Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Grapsa reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Chikwe reports that as coprincipal investigator/study director of NCT 05051033 (an NHLBI-sponsored Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial), she collaborates with several of the study authors.
 

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

On the basis of outcomes, there was no clear winner from a trial that directly compared two modern devices used in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

But the devices were not interchangeable for rates of complications or leaks, according to results of the open-label SWISS APERO trial, which compared the Amplatzer Amulet to the Watchman FLX device at eight participating centers in Europe.

At 45 days, the overall rates of leaks and the clinical outcomes in the two randomized groups were not significantly different, but there were differences in secondary endpoints, such as rates of peridevice leak (PDL), which were lower in the Amulet device group, and procedural complications, which were higher, Roberto Galea, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

LAA closure devices were developed as an alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although a similar comparison of LAA closure devices, called Amulet IDE, was recently published, that trial compared Amulet to Watchman 2.5, an earlier generation device.

Started later, SWISS APERO was also a planned comparison of Amulet and the Watchman 2.5, but the comparison switched to the Watchman FLX, when it was released in March of 2019.
 

First randomized comparison with Watchman FLX

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to include the Watchman FLX,” said Dr. Galea, a clinical investigator in the department of cardiology, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. He noted that Watchman FLX included some adjustments in design with the potential to reduce leak rates.

After preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that patients had suitable anatomy to receive either device, the 221 patients who qualified for SWISS APERO were randomized. The primary endpoint was a composite of a justified crossover to a device other than the one to which they were assigned or residual patency detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days.

The primary endpoint was reached by 67.6% of patients randomized to the Amulet device and 70% of those randomized to Watchman Flex, a statistically nonsignificant difference (P = .71).

Because only one patient in the Amulet group and none in the Watchman group had a justified crossover to a nonrandomized device, most of the differences in the 45-day CCTA involved patency, defined as LAA density of at least 100 Hounsfield units. While the proportion of patients with leaks was similar, the types of leaks, which were stratified by underlying leak mechanism into PDL, mixed leaks (including incomplete side sealing), intradevice leaks, and leaks of unclear origin, were different.
 

Peridevice leaks twofold greater with Watchman

Those randomized to the Watchman device were more than twice as likely to have PDL (27.5% vs. 13.7%; P = .02), although no visible leak exceeded 5 mm in size. They were also more likely to have mixed leaks (14% vs. 3.8%; P = .01) and patency with no visible leak (21.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .02). There were also more device-related thrombi in the Watchman group even though the difference did not reach statistical significance (9.9% vs. 3.7%; P = .08).

Intradevice leaks (44.8% vs. 23.0%; P = .001) were the only type of patency significantly more common among patients randomized to Amulet, but the difference was relatively large. In addition, procedural complications of any type (32.4% vs. 19.1%; P = .023) were higher in the Amulet group. Most of these involved non–clinically relevant pericardial effusions, Dr. Galea said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes by 45 days was similar, but the types of complications differed. Of the six deaths, two occurred in the Amulet group as a result of periprocedural complications (one stemming from an air embolism and the other from a series of events following pericardial effusion). Three of the four deaths in the Watchman group were due to fatal bleeding. The fourth was a sudden death that occurred 30 days after the procedure.
 

Amulet IDE trial generates similar data

The much larger Amulet IDE trial, which compared Amulet to the Watchman 2.5 device, produced generally similar results. Again, the proportion of patients reaching the composite primary endpoints was similar.

The primary safety endpoint, which included death and major bleeding within 12 months of randomization, occurred in 14.5% and 14.7% of the Amulet and Watchman patients, respectively (P < .001 for noninferiority). The primary efficacy endpoint, which included stroke or systemic embolism within 18 months of randomization, occurred in 2.8% of patients in both groups.

As in SWISS APERO, the 1,878-patient Amulet IDE trial showed that the devices are similarly effective and safe but not necessarily interchangeable. Ultimately, the rate of LAA occlusion was higher for Amulet than the older generation Watchman (98.9% vs. 96.8%; P = .003) but procedural complication occurred more frequently among those randomized to the Amulet device (4.5% vs. 2.5%).

“The closure mechanisms are not the same, which might explain why we see differences in some secondary outcomes even when they perform similarly on the primary outcomes,” said Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, executive medical director, Kansas City (Kansas) Heart Rhythm Institute.

The lead investigator of the Amulet IDE trial, Dr. Lakkireddy was referring to both the AMULET IDE and the SWISS APERO study when he said that the currently available data do not allow one device to be considered superior to the other. He did suggest that differences between devices might still be considered meaningful in specific clinical situations or to specific clinicians.

Without studies to show objective differences, Dr. Lakkireddy suggested that training and experience is probably the most important variable in achieving treatment goals. “Operator comfort is certainly important,” he said.

Dr. Galea reports no significant financial relationships. The investigator-initiated study received funding from Abbott, the manufacturer of the Amulet device. Dr. Lakkireddy has financial relationships with Abbott, AltaThera, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, which makes the Watchman device.

On the basis of outcomes, there was no clear winner from a trial that directly compared two modern devices used in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

But the devices were not interchangeable for rates of complications or leaks, according to results of the open-label SWISS APERO trial, which compared the Amplatzer Amulet to the Watchman FLX device at eight participating centers in Europe.

At 45 days, the overall rates of leaks and the clinical outcomes in the two randomized groups were not significantly different, but there were differences in secondary endpoints, such as rates of peridevice leak (PDL), which were lower in the Amulet device group, and procedural complications, which were higher, Roberto Galea, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

LAA closure devices were developed as an alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although a similar comparison of LAA closure devices, called Amulet IDE, was recently published, that trial compared Amulet to Watchman 2.5, an earlier generation device.

Started later, SWISS APERO was also a planned comparison of Amulet and the Watchman 2.5, but the comparison switched to the Watchman FLX, when it was released in March of 2019.
 

First randomized comparison with Watchman FLX

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to include the Watchman FLX,” said Dr. Galea, a clinical investigator in the department of cardiology, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. He noted that Watchman FLX included some adjustments in design with the potential to reduce leak rates.

After preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that patients had suitable anatomy to receive either device, the 221 patients who qualified for SWISS APERO were randomized. The primary endpoint was a composite of a justified crossover to a device other than the one to which they were assigned or residual patency detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days.

The primary endpoint was reached by 67.6% of patients randomized to the Amulet device and 70% of those randomized to Watchman Flex, a statistically nonsignificant difference (P = .71).

Because only one patient in the Amulet group and none in the Watchman group had a justified crossover to a nonrandomized device, most of the differences in the 45-day CCTA involved patency, defined as LAA density of at least 100 Hounsfield units. While the proportion of patients with leaks was similar, the types of leaks, which were stratified by underlying leak mechanism into PDL, mixed leaks (including incomplete side sealing), intradevice leaks, and leaks of unclear origin, were different.
 

Peridevice leaks twofold greater with Watchman

Those randomized to the Watchman device were more than twice as likely to have PDL (27.5% vs. 13.7%; P = .02), although no visible leak exceeded 5 mm in size. They were also more likely to have mixed leaks (14% vs. 3.8%; P = .01) and patency with no visible leak (21.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .02). There were also more device-related thrombi in the Watchman group even though the difference did not reach statistical significance (9.9% vs. 3.7%; P = .08).

Intradevice leaks (44.8% vs. 23.0%; P = .001) were the only type of patency significantly more common among patients randomized to Amulet, but the difference was relatively large. In addition, procedural complications of any type (32.4% vs. 19.1%; P = .023) were higher in the Amulet group. Most of these involved non–clinically relevant pericardial effusions, Dr. Galea said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes by 45 days was similar, but the types of complications differed. Of the six deaths, two occurred in the Amulet group as a result of periprocedural complications (one stemming from an air embolism and the other from a series of events following pericardial effusion). Three of the four deaths in the Watchman group were due to fatal bleeding. The fourth was a sudden death that occurred 30 days after the procedure.
 

Amulet IDE trial generates similar data

The much larger Amulet IDE trial, which compared Amulet to the Watchman 2.5 device, produced generally similar results. Again, the proportion of patients reaching the composite primary endpoints was similar.

The primary safety endpoint, which included death and major bleeding within 12 months of randomization, occurred in 14.5% and 14.7% of the Amulet and Watchman patients, respectively (P < .001 for noninferiority). The primary efficacy endpoint, which included stroke or systemic embolism within 18 months of randomization, occurred in 2.8% of patients in both groups.

As in SWISS APERO, the 1,878-patient Amulet IDE trial showed that the devices are similarly effective and safe but not necessarily interchangeable. Ultimately, the rate of LAA occlusion was higher for Amulet than the older generation Watchman (98.9% vs. 96.8%; P = .003) but procedural complication occurred more frequently among those randomized to the Amulet device (4.5% vs. 2.5%).

“The closure mechanisms are not the same, which might explain why we see differences in some secondary outcomes even when they perform similarly on the primary outcomes,” said Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, executive medical director, Kansas City (Kansas) Heart Rhythm Institute.

The lead investigator of the Amulet IDE trial, Dr. Lakkireddy was referring to both the AMULET IDE and the SWISS APERO study when he said that the currently available data do not allow one device to be considered superior to the other. He did suggest that differences between devices might still be considered meaningful in specific clinical situations or to specific clinicians.

Without studies to show objective differences, Dr. Lakkireddy suggested that training and experience is probably the most important variable in achieving treatment goals. “Operator comfort is certainly important,” he said.

Dr. Galea reports no significant financial relationships. The investigator-initiated study received funding from Abbott, the manufacturer of the Amulet device. Dr. Lakkireddy has financial relationships with Abbott, AltaThera, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, which makes the Watchman device.

On the basis of outcomes, there was no clear winner from a trial that directly compared two modern devices used in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure.

But the devices were not interchangeable for rates of complications or leaks, according to results of the open-label SWISS APERO trial, which compared the Amplatzer Amulet to the Watchman FLX device at eight participating centers in Europe.

At 45 days, the overall rates of leaks and the clinical outcomes in the two randomized groups were not significantly different, but there were differences in secondary endpoints, such as rates of peridevice leak (PDL), which were lower in the Amulet device group, and procedural complications, which were higher, Roberto Galea, MD, reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

LAA closure devices were developed as an alternative to oral anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Although a similar comparison of LAA closure devices, called Amulet IDE, was recently published, that trial compared Amulet to Watchman 2.5, an earlier generation device.

Started later, SWISS APERO was also a planned comparison of Amulet and the Watchman 2.5, but the comparison switched to the Watchman FLX, when it was released in March of 2019.
 

First randomized comparison with Watchman FLX

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to include the Watchman FLX,” said Dr. Galea, a clinical investigator in the department of cardiology, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital. He noted that Watchman FLX included some adjustments in design with the potential to reduce leak rates.

After preprocedural transesophageal echocardiography confirmed that patients had suitable anatomy to receive either device, the 221 patients who qualified for SWISS APERO were randomized. The primary endpoint was a composite of a justified crossover to a device other than the one to which they were assigned or residual patency detected by coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) at 45 days.

The primary endpoint was reached by 67.6% of patients randomized to the Amulet device and 70% of those randomized to Watchman Flex, a statistically nonsignificant difference (P = .71).

Because only one patient in the Amulet group and none in the Watchman group had a justified crossover to a nonrandomized device, most of the differences in the 45-day CCTA involved patency, defined as LAA density of at least 100 Hounsfield units. While the proportion of patients with leaks was similar, the types of leaks, which were stratified by underlying leak mechanism into PDL, mixed leaks (including incomplete side sealing), intradevice leaks, and leaks of unclear origin, were different.
 

Peridevice leaks twofold greater with Watchman

Those randomized to the Watchman device were more than twice as likely to have PDL (27.5% vs. 13.7%; P = .02), although no visible leak exceeded 5 mm in size. They were also more likely to have mixed leaks (14% vs. 3.8%; P = .01) and patency with no visible leak (21.0% vs. 9.5%; P = .02). There were also more device-related thrombi in the Watchman group even though the difference did not reach statistical significance (9.9% vs. 3.7%; P = .08).

Intradevice leaks (44.8% vs. 23.0%; P = .001) were the only type of patency significantly more common among patients randomized to Amulet, but the difference was relatively large. In addition, procedural complications of any type (32.4% vs. 19.1%; P = .023) were higher in the Amulet group. Most of these involved non–clinically relevant pericardial effusions, Dr. Galea said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The proportion of patients with adverse outcomes by 45 days was similar, but the types of complications differed. Of the six deaths, two occurred in the Amulet group as a result of periprocedural complications (one stemming from an air embolism and the other from a series of events following pericardial effusion). Three of the four deaths in the Watchman group were due to fatal bleeding. The fourth was a sudden death that occurred 30 days after the procedure.
 

Amulet IDE trial generates similar data

The much larger Amulet IDE trial, which compared Amulet to the Watchman 2.5 device, produced generally similar results. Again, the proportion of patients reaching the composite primary endpoints was similar.

The primary safety endpoint, which included death and major bleeding within 12 months of randomization, occurred in 14.5% and 14.7% of the Amulet and Watchman patients, respectively (P < .001 for noninferiority). The primary efficacy endpoint, which included stroke or systemic embolism within 18 months of randomization, occurred in 2.8% of patients in both groups.

As in SWISS APERO, the 1,878-patient Amulet IDE trial showed that the devices are similarly effective and safe but not necessarily interchangeable. Ultimately, the rate of LAA occlusion was higher for Amulet than the older generation Watchman (98.9% vs. 96.8%; P = .003) but procedural complication occurred more frequently among those randomized to the Amulet device (4.5% vs. 2.5%).

“The closure mechanisms are not the same, which might explain why we see differences in some secondary outcomes even when they perform similarly on the primary outcomes,” said Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, executive medical director, Kansas City (Kansas) Heart Rhythm Institute.

The lead investigator of the Amulet IDE trial, Dr. Lakkireddy was referring to both the AMULET IDE and the SWISS APERO study when he said that the currently available data do not allow one device to be considered superior to the other. He did suggest that differences between devices might still be considered meaningful in specific clinical situations or to specific clinicians.

Without studies to show objective differences, Dr. Lakkireddy suggested that training and experience is probably the most important variable in achieving treatment goals. “Operator comfort is certainly important,” he said.

Dr. Galea reports no significant financial relationships. The investigator-initiated study received funding from Abbott, the manufacturer of the Amulet device. Dr. Lakkireddy has financial relationships with Abbott, AltaThera, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, which makes the Watchman device.

It remains early days for transcatheter mitral-valve replacement (TMVR) as a minimally invasive way to treat severe, mitral regurgitation (MR), but it’s even earlier days for TMVR as an endovascular procedure. Most of the technique’s limited experience with a dedicated mitral prosthesis has involved transapical delivery.

But now a 15-patient study of transfemoral, transeptal TMVR – with a prosthesis designed for the mitral position and previously tested only transapically – has shown good 30-day results in that MR was essentially abolished with virtually no paravalvular leakage.

Nor were there adverse clinical events such as death, stroke, reintervention, or new need for a pacemaker in any of the high-surgical-risk patients with MR in this feasibility study of the transfemoral Intrepid TMVR System (Medtronic). Implantation failed, however, in one patient who then received a surgical valve via sternotomy.

The current cohort is part of a larger ongoing trial that will track whether patients implanted transfemorally with the Intrepid also show reverse remodeling and good clinical outcomes over at least a year. That study, called APOLLO, is one of several exploring dedicated TMVR valves from different companies, with names like SUMMIT, MISCEND, and TIARA-2.

Currently, TMVR is approved in the United States only using one device designed for the aortic position and only for treating failed surgical mitral bioprostheses in high-risk patients.

If the Intrepid transfemoral system has an Achilles’ heel, at least in the current iteration, it might be its 35 F catheter delivery system that requires surgical access to the femoral vein. Seven of the patients in the small series experienced major bleeding events, including six at the femoral access site, listed as major vascular complications.

Overall, the study’s patients “were extremely sick with a lot of comorbidity. A lot of them had atrial fibrillation, a lot of them were on anticoagulation to start with,” observed Firas Zahr, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, as part of his presentation of the study at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held virtually as well as onsite in Orlando, Florida.

All had moderate-to-severe, usually primary MR; two thirds of the cohort had been in NYHA class III or IV at baseline, and 40% had been hospitalized for heart failure within the past year. Eight had a history of cardiovascular surgery, and eight had diabetes. Their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 4.7, Dr. Zahr reported.

“At 30 days, there was a significant improvement in their heart failure classification; the vast majority of the patients were [NYHA] class I and class II,” said Dr. Zahr, who is also lead author on the study’s Nov. 6 publication in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Observers of the study at TCT 2021 seemed enthusiastic about the study’s results but recognized that TMVR in its current form still has formidable limitations.

“This is clearly an exciting look into the future and very reassuring to a degree, aside from the complications, which are somewhat expected as we go with 30-plus French devices,” Rajiv Tayal, MD, MPH, said at a press conference on the Intrepid study held before Dr. Zahr’s formal presentation. Dr. Tayal is an interventional cardiologist with Valley Health System, Ridgewood, New Jersey, and New York Medical College, Valhalla.

“I think we’ve all learned that transapical [access] is just not a viable procedure for a lot of these patients, and so we’ve got to get to transfemoral,” Susheel K. Kodali, MD, interventional cardiologist at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said at the same forum.

A 35 F device “is going to be too big,” he said. However, “it is the first step to iterate to a smaller device.” Dr. Kodali said his center contributed a patient to the study, and he is listed as a coauthor on the publication.

The delivery system’s large profile is only part of the vascular complication issue. Not only did the procedure require surgical cutdown for venous access, but “we were fairly aggressive in anticoagulating these patients with the fear of thrombus formation,” Dr. Zahr said in the discussion following his presentation.

“A postprocedure anticoagulation regimen is recommended within the protocol, but ultimate therapy was left to the discretion of the treating site physician,” the published report states, noting that all 14 patients with successful TMVR were discharged on warfarin. They included 12 who were also put on a single antiplatelet and one given dual antiplatelet therapy on top of the oral anticoagulant.

“One thing that we learned is that we probably should standardize our approach to perioperative anticoagulation,” Dr. Zahr observed. Also, a 29 F sheath for the system is in the works, “and we’re hoping that with smaller sheath size, and hopefully going even to percutaneous, might have an impact on lowering the vascular complications.”

Explanations for the “higher-than-expected vascular complication rate” remains somewhat unclear, agreed an editorial accompanying the study’s publication, “but may include a learning curve with the system, the large introducer sheath, the need for surgical cutdown, and postprocedural anticoagulation.”

For trans-septal TMVR to become a default approach, “venous access will need to be achieved percutaneously and vascular complications need to be infrequent,” contends the editorial, with lead author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“These data provide a glimpse into the future of TMVR. The excellent short-term safety and effectiveness of this still very early-stage procedure represent a major step forward in the field,” they write.

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

It remains early days for transcatheter mitral-valve replacement (TMVR) as a minimally invasive way to treat severe, mitral regurgitation (MR), but it’s even earlier days for TMVR as an endovascular procedure. Most of the technique’s limited experience with a dedicated mitral prosthesis has involved transapical delivery.

But now a 15-patient study of transfemoral, transeptal TMVR – with a prosthesis designed for the mitral position and previously tested only transapically – has shown good 30-day results in that MR was essentially abolished with virtually no paravalvular leakage.

Nor were there adverse clinical events such as death, stroke, reintervention, or new need for a pacemaker in any of the high-surgical-risk patients with MR in this feasibility study of the transfemoral Intrepid TMVR System (Medtronic). Implantation failed, however, in one patient who then received a surgical valve via sternotomy.

The current cohort is part of a larger ongoing trial that will track whether patients implanted transfemorally with the Intrepid also show reverse remodeling and good clinical outcomes over at least a year. That study, called APOLLO, is one of several exploring dedicated TMVR valves from different companies, with names like SUMMIT, MISCEND, and TIARA-2.

Currently, TMVR is approved in the United States only using one device designed for the aortic position and only for treating failed surgical mitral bioprostheses in high-risk patients.

If the Intrepid transfemoral system has an Achilles’ heel, at least in the current iteration, it might be its 35 F catheter delivery system that requires surgical access to the femoral vein. Seven of the patients in the small series experienced major bleeding events, including six at the femoral access site, listed as major vascular complications.

Overall, the study’s patients “were extremely sick with a lot of comorbidity. A lot of them had atrial fibrillation, a lot of them were on anticoagulation to start with,” observed Firas Zahr, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, as part of his presentation of the study at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held virtually as well as onsite in Orlando, Florida.

All had moderate-to-severe, usually primary MR; two thirds of the cohort had been in NYHA class III or IV at baseline, and 40% had been hospitalized for heart failure within the past year. Eight had a history of cardiovascular surgery, and eight had diabetes. Their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 4.7, Dr. Zahr reported.

“At 30 days, there was a significant improvement in their heart failure classification; the vast majority of the patients were [NYHA] class I and class II,” said Dr. Zahr, who is also lead author on the study’s Nov. 6 publication in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Observers of the study at TCT 2021 seemed enthusiastic about the study’s results but recognized that TMVR in its current form still has formidable limitations.

“This is clearly an exciting look into the future and very reassuring to a degree, aside from the complications, which are somewhat expected as we go with 30-plus French devices,” Rajiv Tayal, MD, MPH, said at a press conference on the Intrepid study held before Dr. Zahr’s formal presentation. Dr. Tayal is an interventional cardiologist with Valley Health System, Ridgewood, New Jersey, and New York Medical College, Valhalla.

“I think we’ve all learned that transapical [access] is just not a viable procedure for a lot of these patients, and so we’ve got to get to transfemoral,” Susheel K. Kodali, MD, interventional cardiologist at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said at the same forum.

A 35 F device “is going to be too big,” he said. However, “it is the first step to iterate to a smaller device.” Dr. Kodali said his center contributed a patient to the study, and he is listed as a coauthor on the publication.

The delivery system’s large profile is only part of the vascular complication issue. Not only did the procedure require surgical cutdown for venous access, but “we were fairly aggressive in anticoagulating these patients with the fear of thrombus formation,” Dr. Zahr said in the discussion following his presentation.

“A postprocedure anticoagulation regimen is recommended within the protocol, but ultimate therapy was left to the discretion of the treating site physician,” the published report states, noting that all 14 patients with successful TMVR were discharged on warfarin. They included 12 who were also put on a single antiplatelet and one given dual antiplatelet therapy on top of the oral anticoagulant.

“One thing that we learned is that we probably should standardize our approach to perioperative anticoagulation,” Dr. Zahr observed. Also, a 29 F sheath for the system is in the works, “and we’re hoping that with smaller sheath size, and hopefully going even to percutaneous, might have an impact on lowering the vascular complications.”

Explanations for the “higher-than-expected vascular complication rate” remains somewhat unclear, agreed an editorial accompanying the study’s publication, “but may include a learning curve with the system, the large introducer sheath, the need for surgical cutdown, and postprocedural anticoagulation.”

For trans-septal TMVR to become a default approach, “venous access will need to be achieved percutaneously and vascular complications need to be infrequent,” contends the editorial, with lead author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“These data provide a glimpse into the future of TMVR. The excellent short-term safety and effectiveness of this still very early-stage procedure represent a major step forward in the field,” they write.

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

It remains early days for transcatheter mitral-valve replacement (TMVR) as a minimally invasive way to treat severe, mitral regurgitation (MR), but it’s even earlier days for TMVR as an endovascular procedure. Most of the technique’s limited experience with a dedicated mitral prosthesis has involved transapical delivery.

But now a 15-patient study of transfemoral, transeptal TMVR – with a prosthesis designed for the mitral position and previously tested only transapically – has shown good 30-day results in that MR was essentially abolished with virtually no paravalvular leakage.

Nor were there adverse clinical events such as death, stroke, reintervention, or new need for a pacemaker in any of the high-surgical-risk patients with MR in this feasibility study of the transfemoral Intrepid TMVR System (Medtronic). Implantation failed, however, in one patient who then received a surgical valve via sternotomy.

The current cohort is part of a larger ongoing trial that will track whether patients implanted transfemorally with the Intrepid also show reverse remodeling and good clinical outcomes over at least a year. That study, called APOLLO, is one of several exploring dedicated TMVR valves from different companies, with names like SUMMIT, MISCEND, and TIARA-2.

Currently, TMVR is approved in the United States only using one device designed for the aortic position and only for treating failed surgical mitral bioprostheses in high-risk patients.

If the Intrepid transfemoral system has an Achilles’ heel, at least in the current iteration, it might be its 35 F catheter delivery system that requires surgical access to the femoral vein. Seven of the patients in the small series experienced major bleeding events, including six at the femoral access site, listed as major vascular complications.

Overall, the study’s patients “were extremely sick with a lot of comorbidity. A lot of them had atrial fibrillation, a lot of them were on anticoagulation to start with,” observed Firas Zahr, MD, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, as part of his presentation of the study at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held virtually as well as onsite in Orlando, Florida.

All had moderate-to-severe, usually primary MR; two thirds of the cohort had been in NYHA class III or IV at baseline, and 40% had been hospitalized for heart failure within the past year. Eight had a history of cardiovascular surgery, and eight had diabetes. Their mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 4.7, Dr. Zahr reported.

“At 30 days, there was a significant improvement in their heart failure classification; the vast majority of the patients were [NYHA] class I and class II,” said Dr. Zahr, who is also lead author on the study’s Nov. 6 publication in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

Observers of the study at TCT 2021 seemed enthusiastic about the study’s results but recognized that TMVR in its current form still has formidable limitations.

“This is clearly an exciting look into the future and very reassuring to a degree, aside from the complications, which are somewhat expected as we go with 30-plus French devices,” Rajiv Tayal, MD, MPH, said at a press conference on the Intrepid study held before Dr. Zahr’s formal presentation. Dr. Tayal is an interventional cardiologist with Valley Health System, Ridgewood, New Jersey, and New York Medical College, Valhalla.

“I think we’ve all learned that transapical [access] is just not a viable procedure for a lot of these patients, and so we’ve got to get to transfemoral,” Susheel K. Kodali, MD, interventional cardiologist at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said at the same forum.

A 35 F device “is going to be too big,” he said. However, “it is the first step to iterate to a smaller device.” Dr. Kodali said his center contributed a patient to the study, and he is listed as a coauthor on the publication.

The delivery system’s large profile is only part of the vascular complication issue. Not only did the procedure require surgical cutdown for venous access, but “we were fairly aggressive in anticoagulating these patients with the fear of thrombus formation,” Dr. Zahr said in the discussion following his presentation.

“A postprocedure anticoagulation regimen is recommended within the protocol, but ultimate therapy was left to the discretion of the treating site physician,” the published report states, noting that all 14 patients with successful TMVR were discharged on warfarin. They included 12 who were also put on a single antiplatelet and one given dual antiplatelet therapy on top of the oral anticoagulant.

“One thing that we learned is that we probably should standardize our approach to perioperative anticoagulation,” Dr. Zahr observed. Also, a 29 F sheath for the system is in the works, “and we’re hoping that with smaller sheath size, and hopefully going even to percutaneous, might have an impact on lowering the vascular complications.”

Explanations for the “higher-than-expected vascular complication rate” remains somewhat unclear, agreed an editorial accompanying the study’s publication, “but may include a learning curve with the system, the large introducer sheath, the need for surgical cutdown, and postprocedural anticoagulation.”

For trans-septal TMVR to become a default approach, “venous access will need to be achieved percutaneously and vascular complications need to be infrequent,” contends the editorial, with lead author Mohamad Alkhouli, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

“These data provide a glimpse into the future of TMVR. The excellent short-term safety and effectiveness of this still very early-stage procedure represent a major step forward in the field,” they write.

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

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

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

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

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

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

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

In a new scientific statement on diet and lifestyle recommendations, the American Heart Association is highlighting, for the first time, structural challenges that impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns.

American Heart Association

This is in addition to stressing aspects of diet that improve cardiovascular health and reduce cardiovascular risk, with an emphasis on dietary patterns and food-based guidance beyond naming individual foods or nutrients.

The 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health scientific statement, developed under Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, chair of the AHA writing group, provides 10 evidence-based guidance recommendations to promote cardiometabolic health.

“The way to make heart-healthy choices every day,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, in a statement, “is to step back, look at the environment in which you eat, whether it be at home, at work, during social interaction, and then identify what the best choices are. And if there are no good choices, then think about how you can modify your environment so that there are good choices.”

The statement, published in Circulation, underscores growing evidence that nutrition-related chronic diseases have maternal-nutritional origins, and that prevention of pediatric obesity is a key to preserving and prolonging ideal cardiovascular health.

The features are as follows:

• Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. To counter the shift toward higher energy intake and more sedentary lifestyles over the past 3 decades, the statement recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, adjusted for individual’s age, activity level, sex, and size.
• Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables; choose a wide variety. Observational and intervention studies document that dietary patterns rich in varied fruits and vegetables, with the exception of white potatoes, are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Also, whole fruits and vegetables, which more readily provide fiber and satiety, are preferred over juices.
• Choose whole grain foods and products made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains. Evidence from observational, interventional, and clinical studies confirm the benefits of frequent consumption of whole grains over infrequent consumption or over refined grains in terms of CVD risk, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic risk factors, laxation, and gut microbiota.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants (legumes and nuts).
• Higher intake of legumes, which are rich in protein and fiber, is associated with lower CVD risk, while higher nut intake is associated with lower risks of CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality/incidence. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-source whole foods, beyond health benefits, lowers the diet’s carbon footprint. Meat alternatives are often ultraprocessed and evidence on their short- and long-term health effects is limited. Unsaturated fats are preferred, as are lean, nonprocessed meats.
• Use liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel), animal fats (butter and lard), and partially hydrogenated fats. Saturated and trans fats (animal and dairy fats, and partially hydrogenated fat) should be replaced with nontropical liquid plant oils. Evidence supports cardiovascular benefits of dietary unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats primarily from plant oils (e.g. soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, walnuts, and flax seeds).
• Choose minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods. Because of their proven association with adverse health outcomes, including overweight and obesity, cardiometabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes, CVD), and all-cause mortality, the consumption of many ultraprocessed foods is of concern. Ultraprocessed foods include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. A general principle is to emphasize unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
• Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars. Added sugars (commonly glucose, dextrose, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, and concentrated fruit juice) are tied to elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and excess body weight. Findings from meta-analyses on body weight and metabolic outcomes for replacing added sugars with low-energy sweeteners are mixed, and the possibility of reverse causality has been raised.
• Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. In general, the effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure tend to be higher in Black people, middle-aged and older people, and those with hypertension. In the United States, the main combined sources of sodium intake are processed foods, those prepared outside the home, packaged foods, and restaurant foods. Potassium-enriched salts are a promising alternative.
• If you don’t drink alcohol, don’t start; if you choose to drink, limit intake.
• While relationships between alcohol intake and cardiovascular outcomes are complex, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently concluded that those who do drink should consume no more than one drink per day and should not drink alcohol in binges; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans con­tinues to recommend no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
• Adhere to the guidance regardless in all settings. Food-based dietary guidance applies to all foods and beverages, regardless of where prepared, procured, and consumed. Policies should be enacted that encourage healthier default options (for example, whole grains, minimized sodium and sugar content).

Recognizing impediments

The AHA/ASA scientific statement closes with the declaration: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.” It points to the National Institutes of Health’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for National Institutes of Health Nutrition Research, which focuses on precision nutrition as a means “to determine the impact on health of not only what individuals eat, but also of why, when, and how they eat throughout the life course.”

Ultimately, precision nutrition may provide personalized diets for CVD prevention. But the “food environment,” often conditioned by “rampant nutrition misinformation” through local, state, and federal practices and policies, may impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns. Factors such as targeted food marketing (for example, of processed food and beverages in minority neighborhoods), structural racism, neighborhood segregation, unhealthy built environments, and food insecurity create environments in which unhealthy foods are the default option.”

These factors compound adverse dietary and health effects, and underscore a need to “directly combat nutrition misinformation among the public and health care professionals.” They also explain why, despite widespread knowledge of heart-healthy dietary pattern components, little progress has been made in achieving dietary goals in the United States.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s office, in response to a request regarding AHA advocacy and consumer programs, provided the following links: Voices for Healthy Kids initiative site and choosing healthier processed foods and one on fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Lichtenstein had no disclosures. Disclosures for the writing group members are included in the statement.

In a new scientific statement on diet and lifestyle recommendations, the American Heart Association is highlighting, for the first time, structural challenges that impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns.

American Heart Association

This is in addition to stressing aspects of diet that improve cardiovascular health and reduce cardiovascular risk, with an emphasis on dietary patterns and food-based guidance beyond naming individual foods or nutrients.

The 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health scientific statement, developed under Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, chair of the AHA writing group, provides 10 evidence-based guidance recommendations to promote cardiometabolic health.

“The way to make heart-healthy choices every day,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, in a statement, “is to step back, look at the environment in which you eat, whether it be at home, at work, during social interaction, and then identify what the best choices are. And if there are no good choices, then think about how you can modify your environment so that there are good choices.”

The statement, published in Circulation, underscores growing evidence that nutrition-related chronic diseases have maternal-nutritional origins, and that prevention of pediatric obesity is a key to preserving and prolonging ideal cardiovascular health.

The features are as follows:

• Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. To counter the shift toward higher energy intake and more sedentary lifestyles over the past 3 decades, the statement recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, adjusted for individual’s age, activity level, sex, and size.
• Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables; choose a wide variety. Observational and intervention studies document that dietary patterns rich in varied fruits and vegetables, with the exception of white potatoes, are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Also, whole fruits and vegetables, which more readily provide fiber and satiety, are preferred over juices.
• Choose whole grain foods and products made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains. Evidence from observational, interventional, and clinical studies confirm the benefits of frequent consumption of whole grains over infrequent consumption or over refined grains in terms of CVD risk, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic risk factors, laxation, and gut microbiota.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants (legumes and nuts).
• Higher intake of legumes, which are rich in protein and fiber, is associated with lower CVD risk, while higher nut intake is associated with lower risks of CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality/incidence. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-source whole foods, beyond health benefits, lowers the diet’s carbon footprint. Meat alternatives are often ultraprocessed and evidence on their short- and long-term health effects is limited. Unsaturated fats are preferred, as are lean, nonprocessed meats.
• Use liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel), animal fats (butter and lard), and partially hydrogenated fats. Saturated and trans fats (animal and dairy fats, and partially hydrogenated fat) should be replaced with nontropical liquid plant oils. Evidence supports cardiovascular benefits of dietary unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats primarily from plant oils (e.g. soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, walnuts, and flax seeds).
• Choose minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods. Because of their proven association with adverse health outcomes, including overweight and obesity, cardiometabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes, CVD), and all-cause mortality, the consumption of many ultraprocessed foods is of concern. Ultraprocessed foods include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. A general principle is to emphasize unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
• Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars. Added sugars (commonly glucose, dextrose, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, and concentrated fruit juice) are tied to elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and excess body weight. Findings from meta-analyses on body weight and metabolic outcomes for replacing added sugars with low-energy sweeteners are mixed, and the possibility of reverse causality has been raised.
• Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. In general, the effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure tend to be higher in Black people, middle-aged and older people, and those with hypertension. In the United States, the main combined sources of sodium intake are processed foods, those prepared outside the home, packaged foods, and restaurant foods. Potassium-enriched salts are a promising alternative.
• If you don’t drink alcohol, don’t start; if you choose to drink, limit intake.
• While relationships between alcohol intake and cardiovascular outcomes are complex, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently concluded that those who do drink should consume no more than one drink per day and should not drink alcohol in binges; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans con­tinues to recommend no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
• Adhere to the guidance regardless in all settings. Food-based dietary guidance applies to all foods and beverages, regardless of where prepared, procured, and consumed. Policies should be enacted that encourage healthier default options (for example, whole grains, minimized sodium and sugar content).

Recognizing impediments

The AHA/ASA scientific statement closes with the declaration: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.” It points to the National Institutes of Health’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for National Institutes of Health Nutrition Research, which focuses on precision nutrition as a means “to determine the impact on health of not only what individuals eat, but also of why, when, and how they eat throughout the life course.”

Ultimately, precision nutrition may provide personalized diets for CVD prevention. But the “food environment,” often conditioned by “rampant nutrition misinformation” through local, state, and federal practices and policies, may impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns. Factors such as targeted food marketing (for example, of processed food and beverages in minority neighborhoods), structural racism, neighborhood segregation, unhealthy built environments, and food insecurity create environments in which unhealthy foods are the default option.”

These factors compound adverse dietary and health effects, and underscore a need to “directly combat nutrition misinformation among the public and health care professionals.” They also explain why, despite widespread knowledge of heart-healthy dietary pattern components, little progress has been made in achieving dietary goals in the United States.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s office, in response to a request regarding AHA advocacy and consumer programs, provided the following links: Voices for Healthy Kids initiative site and choosing healthier processed foods and one on fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Lichtenstein had no disclosures. Disclosures for the writing group members are included in the statement.

In a new scientific statement on diet and lifestyle recommendations, the American Heart Association is highlighting, for the first time, structural challenges that impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns.

American Heart Association

This is in addition to stressing aspects of diet that improve cardiovascular health and reduce cardiovascular risk, with an emphasis on dietary patterns and food-based guidance beyond naming individual foods or nutrients.

The 2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health scientific statement, developed under Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, chair of the AHA writing group, provides 10 evidence-based guidance recommendations to promote cardiometabolic health.

“The way to make heart-healthy choices every day,” said Dr. Lichtenstein, of the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, in a statement, “is to step back, look at the environment in which you eat, whether it be at home, at work, during social interaction, and then identify what the best choices are. And if there are no good choices, then think about how you can modify your environment so that there are good choices.”

The statement, published in Circulation, underscores growing evidence that nutrition-related chronic diseases have maternal-nutritional origins, and that prevention of pediatric obesity is a key to preserving and prolonging ideal cardiovascular health.

The features are as follows:

• Adjust energy intake and expenditure to achieve and maintain a healthy body weight. To counter the shift toward higher energy intake and more sedentary lifestyles over the past 3 decades, the statement recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week, adjusted for individual’s age, activity level, sex, and size.
• Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables; choose a wide variety. Observational and intervention studies document that dietary patterns rich in varied fruits and vegetables, with the exception of white potatoes, are linked to a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Also, whole fruits and vegetables, which more readily provide fiber and satiety, are preferred over juices.
• Choose whole grain foods and products made mostly with whole grains rather than refined grains. Evidence from observational, interventional, and clinical studies confirm the benefits of frequent consumption of whole grains over infrequent consumption or over refined grains in terms of CVD risk, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, metabolic syndrome, cardiometabolic risk factors, laxation, and gut microbiota.
• Choose healthy sources of protein, mostly from plants (legumes and nuts).
• Higher intake of legumes, which are rich in protein and fiber, is associated with lower CVD risk, while higher nut intake is associated with lower risks of CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality/incidence. Replacing animal-source foods with plant-source whole foods, beyond health benefits, lowers the diet’s carbon footprint. Meat alternatives are often ultraprocessed and evidence on their short- and long-term health effects is limited. Unsaturated fats are preferred, as are lean, nonprocessed meats.
• Use liquid plant oils rather than tropical oils (coconut, palm, and palm kernel), animal fats (butter and lard), and partially hydrogenated fats. Saturated and trans fats (animal and dairy fats, and partially hydrogenated fat) should be replaced with nontropical liquid plant oils. Evidence supports cardiovascular benefits of dietary unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats primarily from plant oils (e.g. soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, walnuts, and flax seeds).
• Choose minimally processed foods instead of ultraprocessed foods. Because of their proven association with adverse health outcomes, including overweight and obesity, cardiometabolic disorders (type 2 diabetes, CVD), and all-cause mortality, the consumption of many ultraprocessed foods is of concern. Ultraprocessed foods include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. A general principle is to emphasize unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
• Minimize intake of beverages and foods with added sugars. Added sugars (commonly glucose, dextrose, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, maple syrup, and concentrated fruit juice) are tied to elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, and excess body weight. Findings from meta-analyses on body weight and metabolic outcomes for replacing added sugars with low-energy sweeteners are mixed, and the possibility of reverse causality has been raised.
• Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. In general, the effects of sodium reduction on blood pressure tend to be higher in Black people, middle-aged and older people, and those with hypertension. In the United States, the main combined sources of sodium intake are processed foods, those prepared outside the home, packaged foods, and restaurant foods. Potassium-enriched salts are a promising alternative.
• If you don’t drink alcohol, don’t start; if you choose to drink, limit intake.
• While relationships between alcohol intake and cardiovascular outcomes are complex, the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recently concluded that those who do drink should consume no more than one drink per day and should not drink alcohol in binges; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans con­tinues to recommend no more than one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.
• Adhere to the guidance regardless in all settings. Food-based dietary guidance applies to all foods and beverages, regardless of where prepared, procured, and consumed. Policies should be enacted that encourage healthier default options (for example, whole grains, minimized sodium and sugar content).

Recognizing impediments

The AHA/ASA scientific statement closes with the declaration: “Creating an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, adherence to heart-healthy dietary patterns among all individuals is a public health imperative.” It points to the National Institutes of Health’s 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for National Institutes of Health Nutrition Research, which focuses on precision nutrition as a means “to determine the impact on health of not only what individuals eat, but also of why, when, and how they eat throughout the life course.”

Ultimately, precision nutrition may provide personalized diets for CVD prevention. But the “food environment,” often conditioned by “rampant nutrition misinformation” through local, state, and federal practices and policies, may impede the adoption of heart-healthy dietary patterns. Factors such as targeted food marketing (for example, of processed food and beverages in minority neighborhoods), structural racism, neighborhood segregation, unhealthy built environments, and food insecurity create environments in which unhealthy foods are the default option.”

These factors compound adverse dietary and health effects, and underscore a need to “directly combat nutrition misinformation among the public and health care professionals.” They also explain why, despite widespread knowledge of heart-healthy dietary pattern components, little progress has been made in achieving dietary goals in the United States.

Dr. Lichtenstein’s office, in response to a request regarding AHA advocacy and consumer programs, provided the following links: Voices for Healthy Kids initiative site and choosing healthier processed foods and one on fresh, frozen, and canned fruits and vegetables.

Dr. Lichtenstein had no disclosures. Disclosures for the writing group members are included in the statement.

Datascope/Getinge/Maquet is recalling CardioSave Hybrid and Rescue intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) because some battery packs may have a shortened run time and fail unexpectedly, according to a medical device recall notice posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The recalled IABPs have substandard batteries that do not meet performance specifications and were mistakenly released to a limited number of customers.

If a patient requires life-supporting therapy with an IABP and the device does not work or stops working during use because of battery failure, the patient will be at risk for serious injury, including death, the FDA cautions.

Both IABP monitors display battery life and have low battery alarms when alternative power sources are needed.

Datascope/Getting/Maquet has received six complaints but no reports of injury or death related to this issue.

“However, there is a potential for underreporting since the end user reporting a failed battery or short battery run time cannot be aware that they originally received a substandard battery,” the FDA said.

The recall involves 137 battery packs distributed in the United States between Sept. 23, 2017, and Aug. 17, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers are available in the recall notice.  

The company sent an urgent medical device removal letter to customers requesting that they check inventory to determine if there are any CardioSave LiIon battery packs with part number/reference number 0146-00-0097 and with serial numbers listed in the letter.

Customers are asked to replace any affected battery with an unaffected battery and remove the affected product from areas of use.

The company will issue credit or a replacement battery at no cost to the facility upon receipt of the response form attached to the letter.

Distributors who shipped any affected product to customers are asked to forward the device removal letter to customers.

All customers, regardless of whether or not they have defective batteries, are asked to complete and sign the response form to acknowledge that they received the notification and disposed of the affected batteries.

Completed forms can be scanned and emailed to Datascope/Getinge/Maquet at Li-Ionbattery.Datascope@getinge.com or by FAX to 1-877-446-3360.

Customers who have questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge/Maquet sales representative or, for technical questions, customer service (1-888-943-8872, option 2), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

Datascope/Getinge/Maquet is recalling CardioSave Hybrid and Rescue intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) because some battery packs may have a shortened run time and fail unexpectedly, according to a medical device recall notice posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The recalled IABPs have substandard batteries that do not meet performance specifications and were mistakenly released to a limited number of customers.

If a patient requires life-supporting therapy with an IABP and the device does not work or stops working during use because of battery failure, the patient will be at risk for serious injury, including death, the FDA cautions.

Both IABP monitors display battery life and have low battery alarms when alternative power sources are needed.

Datascope/Getting/Maquet has received six complaints but no reports of injury or death related to this issue.

“However, there is a potential for underreporting since the end user reporting a failed battery or short battery run time cannot be aware that they originally received a substandard battery,” the FDA said.

The recall involves 137 battery packs distributed in the United States between Sept. 23, 2017, and Aug. 17, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers are available in the recall notice.  

The company sent an urgent medical device removal letter to customers requesting that they check inventory to determine if there are any CardioSave LiIon battery packs with part number/reference number 0146-00-0097 and with serial numbers listed in the letter.

Customers are asked to replace any affected battery with an unaffected battery and remove the affected product from areas of use.

The company will issue credit or a replacement battery at no cost to the facility upon receipt of the response form attached to the letter.

Distributors who shipped any affected product to customers are asked to forward the device removal letter to customers.

All customers, regardless of whether or not they have defective batteries, are asked to complete and sign the response form to acknowledge that they received the notification and disposed of the affected batteries.

Completed forms can be scanned and emailed to Datascope/Getinge/Maquet at Li-Ionbattery.Datascope@getinge.com or by FAX to 1-877-446-3360.

Customers who have questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge/Maquet sales representative or, for technical questions, customer service (1-888-943-8872, option 2), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

Datascope/Getinge/Maquet is recalling CardioSave Hybrid and Rescue intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) because some battery packs may have a shortened run time and fail unexpectedly, according to a medical device recall notice posted on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website.

The FDA has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The recalled IABPs have substandard batteries that do not meet performance specifications and were mistakenly released to a limited number of customers.

If a patient requires life-supporting therapy with an IABP and the device does not work or stops working during use because of battery failure, the patient will be at risk for serious injury, including death, the FDA cautions.

Both IABP monitors display battery life and have low battery alarms when alternative power sources are needed.

Datascope/Getting/Maquet has received six complaints but no reports of injury or death related to this issue.

“However, there is a potential for underreporting since the end user reporting a failed battery or short battery run time cannot be aware that they originally received a substandard battery,” the FDA said.

The recall involves 137 battery packs distributed in the United States between Sept. 23, 2017, and Aug. 17, 2021. Product codes and lot numbers are available in the recall notice.  

The company sent an urgent medical device removal letter to customers requesting that they check inventory to determine if there are any CardioSave LiIon battery packs with part number/reference number 0146-00-0097 and with serial numbers listed in the letter.

Customers are asked to replace any affected battery with an unaffected battery and remove the affected product from areas of use.

The company will issue credit or a replacement battery at no cost to the facility upon receipt of the response form attached to the letter.

Distributors who shipped any affected product to customers are asked to forward the device removal letter to customers.

All customers, regardless of whether or not they have defective batteries, are asked to complete and sign the response form to acknowledge that they received the notification and disposed of the affected batteries.

Completed forms can be scanned and emailed to Datascope/Getinge/Maquet at Li-Ionbattery.Datascope@getinge.com or by FAX to 1-877-446-3360.

Customers who have questions about this recall should contact their Datascope/Getinge/Maquet sales representative or, for technical questions, customer service (1-888-943-8872, option 2), Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET.

Any adverse events or suspected adverse events related to the recalled CardioSave Hybrid/Rescue IABPs should be reported to the FDA through MedWatch, its adverse event reporting program.

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

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.

“Short-term hospitalization [for reasons other than diabetes] may not be the time to intervene in long-term diabetes management,” researchers conclude.

They found that, in a national cohort of older almost entirely male veterans with non–insulin-treated type 2 diabetes who were hospitalized for non–diabetes-related common medical conditions, intensified diabetes treatment on hospital discharge was linked to an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia in the immediate postdischarge period.

However, diabetes treatment intensification – that is, receiving a prescription for a new or higher dose of diabetes medicine – was not associated with decreased risks of severe hyperglycemia or with improved glycemic (hemoglobin A1c) control at 30 days or 1 year, according to study results, published in JAMA Network Open.

“We didn’t see a reduction in diabetes emergencies in more intensively treated patients,” lead investigator Timothy S. Anderson, MD, said in an interview.

Also, importantly, there was a low rate of persistence with the new treatment. “Half of the patients were no longer taking these [intensified diabetes medicines] at 1 year, which tells me that context is key,” he pointed out. “If a patient is in the hospital for diabetes [unlike the patients in this study], I think it makes a lot of sense to modify and adjust their regimen to try to help them right then and there.”

The overall risk of severe hyperglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was pretty small in the overall cohort, Dr. Anderson noted, “but we do put people at risk of leaving the hospital and ending up back in the hospital with low blood sugar when we intensify medications, and there’s not necessarily a good signal to suggest that it’s all that urgent to change these medicines.”

Instead, the “safer path” may be to make recommendations to the patient’s outpatient physician and also inform the patient – for example, “We saw some concerns about your diabetes while you were in the hospital, and this is really something that should be looked at when you’re recovered and feeling better from the rest of your health standpoint” – rather than making a diabetes medication change while the person is acutely ill or recovering from illness, said Dr. Anderson, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

The researchers also found an “unexpected” significant decrease in 30-day mortality in the patients with intensified diabetes treatment, which was probably because of confounding that was not accounted for, Dr. Anderson speculated, since clinical trials have consistently shown that benefits from diabetes medications take a longer time to show an effect.
 

‘Important study,’ but lacked newer meds

This is an “important” study for primary care and in-hospital physicians that shows that “hospitalization is really not the time and the place” to intensify diabetes medication, Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, coauthor of an invited commentary, told this news organization in an interview.

“While overcoming treatment inertia is important, [it should be] done appropriately, so that we don’t overtreat patients,” Dr. McCoy, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., stressed.

The very low rate of persistence of taking intensified medications is a major finding, she agreed. Hospitalized patients “are not in their usual state of health, so if we make long-term treatment decisions based on their acute abnormal situation, that may not be appropriate.”

However, patients with high A1c may benefit from a change at hospital discharge rather than when they see their primary care provider, with the caveat that they need close follow-up as an outpatient.

The study emphasizes the “need for longitudinal patient care rather than episodic patches,” according to Dr. McCoy.

For example, a patient who is hospitalized for a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma exacerbation may be receiving steroids that cause high blood glucose levels but as soon as they’re done with their steroid course, blood glucose will decrease, so the “need for close outpatient follow-up is very important.”

One limitation of the current work is that an earlier study in the same population by the research group showed that 49% of patients whose treatment regimens were intensified had limited life expectancy or were at or below their A1c goal, so they would not have benefited from the stepped-up treatment, she noted.

Another limitation is that the findings cannot be generalized to women or younger patients, or to patients treated with glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

The study patients were seen in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration health system when these newer agents were not used. Three-quarters of patients received intensified treatment with sulfonylurea or insulin, and only one patient received a new GLP-1–receptor agonist.

Ideally, Dr. McCoy said, patients should have been prescribed a GLP-1–receptor agonist if they had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, or an SGLT2 inhibitor if they had kidney disease or heart failure, which may have led to different results, and would need to be determined in further study.

Dr. Anderson agreed that “SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists are broadly much safer than the older diabetes medicines, at least when it comes to risk of hypoglycemia, and may have more clear benefits in heart disease and mortality. So I would not want to extrapolate our findings to those new classes,” he said. “A similar set of studies would need to be done.”
 

Study rationale and findings

Hospitalized older adults with diabetes commonly have transiently elevated blood glucose levels that might lead clinicians to discharge them from hospital with a prescription for more intensive diabetes medications than they were on before they were hospitalized, but it is not clear if these diabetes medication changes would improve outcomes.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from patients with diabetes who were 65 and older and hospitalized for common medical conditions in VHA hospitals during January 2011–September 2016, and then discharged to the community.

They excluded patients who were hospitalized for things that require immediate change in diabetes treatment and patients who were using insulin before their hospitalization (because instructions to modify insulin dosing frequently don’t have a new prescription).

The researchers identified 28,198 adults with diabetes who were not on insulin and were hospitalized in the VHA health system for heart failure (18%), coronary artery disease (13%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), pneumonia (9.6%), and urinary tract infection (7.5%), and less often and not in decreasing order, for acute coronary syndrome, arrhythmia, asthma, chest pain, conduction disorders, heart valve disorders, sepsis, skin infection, stroke, and transient ischemic attack.

Of these patients, 2,768 patients (9.8%) received diabetes medication intensification, and the researchers matched 2,648 of these patients with an equal number of patients who did not receive this treatment intensification.

The patients in each group had a mean age of 73 and 98.5% were male; 78% were White.

They had a mean A1c of 7.9%. Most were receiving sulfonylurea (43%) or metformin (39%), and few were receiving thiazolidinediones (4.1%), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (2.7%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (2.0%), or other types of diabetes drugs (0.1%).

Of the 2,768 patients who received intensified diabetes medication, most received a prescription for insulin (51%) or sulfonylurea (23%).

In the propensity-matched cohort, patients with intensified diabetes medication had a higher rate of severe hypoglycemia at 30 days (1% vs. 0.5%), which translated into a significant twofold higher risk (hazard ratio, 2.17).

The rates of severe hypoglycemia at 1 year were similar in both groups (3.1% and 2.9%).

The incidence of severe hyperglycemia was the same in both groups at 30 days (0.3%) and 1 year (1.3%).

In secondary outcomes, at 1 year, 48% of new oral diabetes medications and 39% of new insulin prescriptions were no longer being filled.

Overall, patients who were discharged with intensified diabetes medication were significantly less likely to die within 30 days than the other patients (1.3% vs. 2.4%; HR, 0.55).

However, this mortality benefit was found only in the subgroup of 2,524 patients who had uncontrolled diabetes when they were admitted to hospital (A1c >7.5%; mean A1c, 9.1%), and not in the propensity-matched subgroup of 2,672 patients who had controlled diabetes then (A1c up to 7.5%; mean A1c, 6.8%).

There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality in patients with versus without intensified treatment (15.8% vs. 17.8%).

There were also no significant between-group difference in rates of hospital readmission at 30 days (roughly 17%) or 1 year (roughly 51%).

The decreases in mean A1c from hospital discharge to 1 year later were also the same in both groups (going from 7.9% to 7.7%).

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging and the American College of Cardiology. Dr. Anderson has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. McCoy reported receiving grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, AARP, and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute outside the submitted work. The disclosures of the other authors and the editorial coauthor are available with the article and commentary.