Interventional Cardiology & Surgery

David Bennett Sr, the 57-year-old patient with terminal heart disease who became the first person to receive a genetically modified pig heart, has died. He passed away March 8, according to a statement from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, where the transplant was performed.

Mr. Bennett received the transplant on January 7 and lived for 2 months following the surgery.   

Although not providing the exact cause of his death, UMMC said Mr. Bennett’s condition began deteriorating several days before his death.

When it became clear that he would not recover, he was given compassionate palliative care and was able to communicate with his family during his final hours.

“We are devastated by the loss of Mr. Bennett. He proved to be a brave and noble patient who fought all the way to the end. We extend our sincerest condolences to his family,” Bartley P. Griffith, MD, who performed the transplant, said in the statement.

“We are grateful to Mr. Bennett for his unique and historic role in helping to contribute to a vast array of knowledge to the field of xenotransplantation,” added Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MD, director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Before receiving the genetically modified pig heart, Mr. Bennett had required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive but was rejected for standard heart transplantation at UMMC and other centers. He was ineligible for an implanted ventricular assist device due to ventricular arrhythmias.

Following surgery, the transplanted pig heart performed well for several weeks without any signs of rejection. The patient was able to spend time with his family and participate in physical therapy to help regain strength.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” UMMC said in a statement issued 3 days after the surgery.

Thanks to Mr. Bennett, “we have gained invaluable insights learning that the genetically modified pig heart can function well within the human body while the immune system is adequately suppressed,” said Dr. Mohiuddin. “We remain optimistic and plan on continuing our work in future clinical trials.”

The patient’s son, David Bennett Jr, said the family is “profoundly grateful for the life-extending opportunity” provided to his father by the “stellar team” at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical Center.

“We were able to spend some precious weeks together while he recovered from the transplant surgery, weeks we would not have had without this miraculous effort,” he said.

“We also hope that what was learned from his surgery will benefit future patients and hopefully, one day, end the organ shortage that costs so many lives each year,” he added.

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

David Bennett Sr, the 57-year-old patient with terminal heart disease who became the first person to receive a genetically modified pig heart, has died. He passed away March 8, according to a statement from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, where the transplant was performed.

Mr. Bennett received the transplant on January 7 and lived for 2 months following the surgery.   

Although not providing the exact cause of his death, UMMC said Mr. Bennett’s condition began deteriorating several days before his death.

When it became clear that he would not recover, he was given compassionate palliative care and was able to communicate with his family during his final hours.

“We are devastated by the loss of Mr. Bennett. He proved to be a brave and noble patient who fought all the way to the end. We extend our sincerest condolences to his family,” Bartley P. Griffith, MD, who performed the transplant, said in the statement.

“We are grateful to Mr. Bennett for his unique and historic role in helping to contribute to a vast array of knowledge to the field of xenotransplantation,” added Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MD, director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Before receiving the genetically modified pig heart, Mr. Bennett had required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive but was rejected for standard heart transplantation at UMMC and other centers. He was ineligible for an implanted ventricular assist device due to ventricular arrhythmias.

Following surgery, the transplanted pig heart performed well for several weeks without any signs of rejection. The patient was able to spend time with his family and participate in physical therapy to help regain strength.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” UMMC said in a statement issued 3 days after the surgery.

Thanks to Mr. Bennett, “we have gained invaluable insights learning that the genetically modified pig heart can function well within the human body while the immune system is adequately suppressed,” said Dr. Mohiuddin. “We remain optimistic and plan on continuing our work in future clinical trials.”

The patient’s son, David Bennett Jr, said the family is “profoundly grateful for the life-extending opportunity” provided to his father by the “stellar team” at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical Center.

“We were able to spend some precious weeks together while he recovered from the transplant surgery, weeks we would not have had without this miraculous effort,” he said.

“We also hope that what was learned from his surgery will benefit future patients and hopefully, one day, end the organ shortage that costs so many lives each year,” he added.

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

David Bennett Sr, the 57-year-old patient with terminal heart disease who became the first person to receive a genetically modified pig heart, has died. He passed away March 8, according to a statement from the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC), Baltimore, where the transplant was performed.

Mr. Bennett received the transplant on January 7 and lived for 2 months following the surgery.   

Although not providing the exact cause of his death, UMMC said Mr. Bennett’s condition began deteriorating several days before his death.

When it became clear that he would not recover, he was given compassionate palliative care and was able to communicate with his family during his final hours.

“We are devastated by the loss of Mr. Bennett. He proved to be a brave and noble patient who fought all the way to the end. We extend our sincerest condolences to his family,” Bartley P. Griffith, MD, who performed the transplant, said in the statement.

“We are grateful to Mr. Bennett for his unique and historic role in helping to contribute to a vast array of knowledge to the field of xenotransplantation,” added Muhammad M. Mohiuddin, MD, director of the cardiac xenotransplantation program at University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Before receiving the genetically modified pig heart, Mr. Bennett had required mechanical circulatory support to stay alive but was rejected for standard heart transplantation at UMMC and other centers. He was ineligible for an implanted ventricular assist device due to ventricular arrhythmias.

Following surgery, the transplanted pig heart performed well for several weeks without any signs of rejection. The patient was able to spend time with his family and participate in physical therapy to help regain strength.

“This organ transplant demonstrated for the first time that a genetically modified animal heart can function like a human heart without immediate rejection by the body,” UMMC said in a statement issued 3 days after the surgery.

Thanks to Mr. Bennett, “we have gained invaluable insights learning that the genetically modified pig heart can function well within the human body while the immune system is adequately suppressed,” said Dr. Mohiuddin. “We remain optimistic and plan on continuing our work in future clinical trials.”

The patient’s son, David Bennett Jr, said the family is “profoundly grateful for the life-extending opportunity” provided to his father by the “stellar team” at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the University of Maryland Medical Center.

“We were able to spend some precious weeks together while he recovered from the transplant surgery, weeks we would not have had without this miraculous effort,” he said.

“We also hope that what was learned from his surgery will benefit future patients and hopefully, one day, end the organ shortage that costs so many lives each year,” he added.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) appears preferable to standard cath-based angiography for the initial evaluation of most stable, intermediate-risk patients with angina-like symptoms, researchers say, based on their study conducted at centers across Europe.

Clinical outcomes over several years in the randomized trial – called DISCHARGE, with an enrollment of more than 3,500 – were statistically similar whether the patients were assigned to CTA or invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as their initial evaluation. Symptoms and quality-of-life measures were also similar.

But the patients assigned to the initial-CTA strategy, of whom fewer than a fourth went on to cardiac cath, showed far fewer procedure-related complications and less often went to coronary revascularization during the median follow-up of 3.5 years, the group reported March 4 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Based on the findings, CTA “is a safe alternative to cardiac catheterization for patients with suspected CAD [coronary artery disease] that will likely change clinical practice worldwide by replacing invasive testing in patients with stable chest pain who can be expected to benefit” those with an intermediate pretest probability for obstructive disease, principal investigator Marc Dewey, MD, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, told this news organization.

None of the patient subgroups explored in the trial showed a significant clinical benefit from one strategy over the other, Dr. Dewey commented in an email.

The trial’s results don’t apply to patients unlike those entered, and in particular, he said, “ICA should remain the first test option in patients with high clinical pretest probability of obstructive CAD.”

Dr. Dewey is senior author on the study’s publication, which was timed to coincide with his presentation of the results at ECR 2022 Overture, an all-virtual scientific session of the European Congress of Radiology.

“This is the definitive study,” Matthew Budoff, MD, Lundquist Institute at Harbor-UCLA, Torrance, California, said in an interview. It suggests in a large population that the initial CTA strategy “is as good and maybe safer” in stable patients at intermediate risk compared with initial ICA. “I would say close to 75% or 80% of the patients that we see would fall into that range of risk” and be suitable for the testing algorithm used in the study, said Dr. Budoff, who was not part of the trial.

Invasive angiography would generally still be the initial approach for patients at greater than intermediate risk, such as those with breakthrough angina or electrocardiographic changes, he said. “I still think there’s a huge role for invasive angiography. It’s just a bit smaller now than it used to be for the lower-risk patient.”  

The DISCHARGE trial, agreed cardiothoracic radiology specialist Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, MD, PhD, University of Groningen, the Netherlands, “shows that in patients with intermediate pretest probability, CTA should be used as a gatekeeper before invasive coronary angiography, instead of directly referring for invasive coronary angiography.”

It shows that “a CT-first approach” is both safe and clinically effective and even a trend suggesting better clinical outcomes, compared with ICA. And it demonstrates that “still, many diagnostic invasive coronary angiographies are performed unnecessarily,” Dr. Vliegenthart said as the invited discussant following Dr. Dewey’s presentation.

DISCOVER is only the latest in a series of major studies to explore how CTA best fits in with ICA, stress imaging, and other tests for evaluating patients with chest pain. For example, “the PROMISE trial and the SCOT-HEART trial found that CT was as good as or even better than functional testing. DISCHARGE, I think, confirms the safety of the CT strategy” and reaffirms that it is “at least as good” as an ICA-first approach, cardiologist Klaus F. Kofoed, MD, PhD, DMSc, Rigshospitalet University of Copenhagen, said when co-presenting the trial’s results with Dr. Dewey.

“We can now say CT may be suitable in intermediate-risk patients referred for ICA, particularly those with a clinical constellation suggesting a higher event risk, with abnormal or inconclusive functional test results, or with persistent symptoms despite medical treatment,” said Dr. Kofoed, who is on the DISCOVER steering committee.

The trial’s 3,561 patients with stable chest pain – at 26 experienced centers in 16 countries – were randomly assigned to undergo CTA or ICA as their initial diagnostic imaging approach. Entry required them to be at intermediate risk, defined as an estimated 10% to 60% probability of having obstructive CAD. Of note, women made up about 56% of both groups.

Imaging was positive for obstructive disease in 26% of the 1,808 patients in the CTA group and in the same proportion of the 1,753 who were assigned to ICA. Nonobstructive CAD was identified in 36% and 22%, respectively.

Importantly, 404 (22.3%) patients in the CTA group then underwent ICA, which identified obstructive CAD in 293 (72.5%).

With a complete follow-up in about 99% of patients, the report notes, the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events, or MACE (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) was 2.1% in the CTA group and in 3.0% in the ICA group. The adjusted hazard ratio of 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.07; P = .10) fell short of significance.

The corresponding HR for an “expanded primary outcome” that also included transient ischemic attack or major procedure-related complications was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.42-0.85) in favor of the CTA group.

As a “pragmatic trial,” DISCHARGE relied on clinically identified events for the endpoint assessments and did not require, for example, laboratory biomarker or neurologic imaging for confirmation, the report notes.

Major procedure-related complications during the initial management phase occurred in 0.5% of the CTA group, and 1.9% of those assigned to initial ICA (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.55).

Coronary revascularization was less common in the CTA group during the trial’s follow-up, 14.2% versus 18.0% for those assigned to ICA (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.90).

But the prevalences of angina during the final 4 weeks of follow-up, the group reported, were statistically similar at 8.8% and 7.5% for patients assigned to CTA and ICA, respectively.

The trial showed “no material difference” between the initial CTA versus ICA strategies for its MACE primary endpoint, observed Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass., in an accompanying editorial.

“This result is probably a consequence of the lack of effect of revascularization on cardiovascular events among most patients with stable angina and the limited number of those with high-risk anatomy who would benefit from revascularization in the trial,” he writes.

That CTA was performed “significantly earlier than angiography, 3 days versus 12 days after enrollment,” may have led to earlier coronary revascularization in that group, and therefore is “a better outcome in patients whose anatomy would benefit from it.”

Dr. Loscalzo questioned several aspects of the trial design, which, for example, led to a more than 35% prevalence of patients with nonanginal chest pain among those randomized. Different criteria for classifying patients as “intermediate risk” might also have contributed to the fairly low prevalence of patients in either group ultimately identified with obstructive CAD, he proposes. That low prevalence “suggests that the overall trial population had a low risk of obstructive CAD rather than an intermediate risk.”

DISCHARGE was supported by grants from the European Union Seventh Framework Program, the Berlin Institute of Health, Rigshospitalet of the University of Copenhagen, the British Heart Foundation, and the German Research Foundation. Disclosures for the authors and editorialist are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Budoff has disclosed receiving grant support from General Electric. Dr. Vliegenthart discloses receiving grants from Siemens Healthineers and honorarium for speaking from Siemens Healthineers and Bayer.

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

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

Although the Sentinel cerebral embolism protection (CEP) device may not significantly reduce the overall stroke rate in patients after they’ve had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the device may improve survival and reduce the severity of procedure-related stroke, a retrospective database study reported.

Investigators led by Samir R. Kapadia, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, analyzed outcomes of 136,382 patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database who had TAVR in 2018-2019. The dataset included 10,201 people who received the Sentinel CEP device during TAVR.

The proportion of patients who had a stroke after TAVR was similar in both groups – 1.85% (189) in the CEP group and 1.94% (1,447) in the CEP nonusers – but, as Dr. Kapadia pointed out, the stroke outcomes between the two groups were noticeably different.

“Interestingly enough, what we found was that the people with the CEPs who had a stroke had half the mortality, and they were going home at a significantly higher rate, than the people who had a stroke and didn’t have CEPs,” Dr. Kapadia said in an interview. A previous registry study of 276,316 TAVR patients reported the overall rate of post-TAVR stroke declined from 2.75% to 2.3% over an 8-year period. The CEP device, approved in December 2017, had been available in the last 2 years of that study.

In the current retrospective database study, CEP patients went home after their post-TAVR strokes at a rate of 28.2%, compared with 19.9% for those who didn’t have CEP (P = .011). The in-hospital death rates were 6.3% and 11.8% for the respective groups (P = .023), and the 30-day readmission rates were 15.9% and 16.8% (P = .91). “The readmission rate is similar, but if you survive you get admitted,” Dr. Kapadia reported in a research letter published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

CEP involves inserting a catheter in the right wrist during TAVR. The catheter deploys two filters, one in the left carotid artery, the other on the right carotid and radial arteries, to capture embolic debris. After the aortic valve is seated and the TAVR completed, the CEP filters are removed.

Potential effectiveness of filters

The study builds on work by Dr. Kapadia and colleagues reported in the PARTNER trial, which showed that CEP filters consistently captured embolized debris resulting in smaller brain lesions after TAVR than no filters. The hypothesis for the latest study, Dr. Kapadia said, “was that, even though the stroke rates may be very similar between the TAVR patients who had CEP and those who did not, the filter removed the large embolic particles, although there were small particles. In those cases, the consequence of stroke would be much less in the sense that you would have minor strokes, and you would either not die from the stroke or you would be able to walk home safely if you did have a stroke.”

In Dr. Kapadia’s experience, the filters capture up to 80% of embolic debris. The Cleveland Clinic used CEP in 96.5% of its TAVR cases in 2021, he said, adding that national rates are considerably lower because Medicare doesn’t reimburse for the procedure. An observational registry study reported that 13% of TAVR procedures used CEP by December 2019.

Dr. Kapadia said that the PROTECTED TAVR trial of the CEP device has completed data gathering and should report results later in 2022. The study randomized 3,000 patients to TAVR with or without CEP.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the findings require further study to validate them. “If it is all true, it will change the practice; it will make TAVR safer.”

David J. Cohen, MD, MSc, director of clinical and outcome research at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, called the study findings “provocative,” adding: “It makes points that we’ve seen in previous studies and certainly suggests there may be an important benefit of cerebral embolism protection that has not been well established to date.” Dr. Cohen is also director of academic affairs at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.

The primary two findings of the study – lower risk of death and greater likelihood of discharge to home in CEP patients who had strokes after TAVR – “suggest that, while data on whether embolic protection actually prevents strokes is controversial and not at all definitive, these data suggest that perhaps one additional mechanism of benefit is that it’s making it much less severe when stroke occurs. That would obviously be of tremendous value.”

The findings are in line with other “suggestions that have not yet been explained,” Dr. Cohen said. “They may provide sort of a unifying explanation of why embolic protection may not prevent as many strokes as we thought but they may still be a very valuable adjunct.”

Boston Scientific distributes the Sentinel CEP device used in the study. Dr. Kapadia is the principal investigator of the PROTECTED TAVR trial, sponsored by Boston Scientific. Dr. Kapadia and study coauthors reported no other disclosures. Dr. Cohen is a consultant to Boston Scientific.

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

The chance that patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) will receive aortic valve replacement (AVR) is worse than the flip of a coin, even a decade after the gamechanging transcatheter option became available, a new study suggests.

Of the study’s 6,150 patients with an indication or potential indication for AVR, 48% received the procedure at Massachusetts General Hospital and its partner institution Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston – both of which have active, high-volume transcatheter and surgical AVR (TAVR/SAVR) programs.

“Essentially, this is a best-case scenario. So, unfortunately, I think on the national level we are likely to see rates that are far worse than what we observed here,” senior author Sammy Elmariah, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, told this news organization.

The volume of AVR increased more than 10-fold over the 18-year study period (2000 to 2017), driven by the exponential growth of TAVR, he noted. However, the graying of America led to an even greater increase in the number of patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR.

The study, led by Shawn X. Li, MD, MBA, of Mass General, was published in the March 8 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Previous research has provided equally compelling data on the undertreatment of AS, including a 2021 study using natural language processing (NLP) that found AVR use was just 35.6% within 1 year of diagnosis and varied wildly among managing cardiologists.

The present study used NLP tools to identify symptoms consistent with severe AS in the medical record coupled with echocardiographic data from 10,795 patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm2). Patients were divided into four AS subtypes and then classified as having a class 1 indication (high-gradient AS with symptoms or reduced ejection fraction [EF]) or a potential class 2a indication (low-gradient AS with symptoms) for AVR.

Among patients with high-gradient AS and class 1 indication for AVR, 1 in 3 did not receive AVR over the study period, including 30% with a normal EF and 47% with a low EF.

In those with low-gradient AS, 67% with a normal EF and 62% with a low EF did not receive AVR. The low-gradient groups were significantly less likely to receive AVR both in the entire study period and in the more contemporary period from 2014 to 2017, despite the valvular heart disease guideline 2014 update indicating AVR was “reasonable” in patients with low-gradient AS – a 2a recommendation upgraded to class 1 in the most recent 2020 update.
 

Better survival

In patients with a class 1 or potential class 2a indication, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality in all four AS subgroups:

• High gradient/normal EF: 3% vs. 15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42
• High-gradient/low EF: 16% vs. 72%; aHR, 0.28
• Low-gradient/normal EF: 5% vs. 14%; aHR, 0.73
• Low-gradient/low EF: 11% vs. 34%; aHR, 0.48; P < .001 for all

“I think what we need to do is change the paradigm, such that patients with a valve area that is less than or equal to 1 [cm2] is severe aortic stenosis until proven otherwise, and that essentially establishes a premise by which we default to treat these patients unless we can prove that it is in fact moderate,” Dr. Elmariah said.

Unfortunately, the opposite is currently true today, he said, and the default is not to treat and put patients through surgery or an invasive TAVR procedure unless physicians can definitively prove that it is severe AS. But they’re not always correct and don’t always have the ability to truly differentiate moderate from severe disease.

“The question, therefore, is ‘What do we do with those patients?’” Dr. Elmariah asked. “I think if a patient has symptoms, then we are obligated to intervene, given the stark difference in mortality that one sees when these patients go undertreated.”
 

Sounding the alarm

Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago and a writing committee member for the 2014 guideline update, said the study is a “big wake-up call” and “the take-home message is that we are missing some patients who have treatable aortic stenosis.”

The sheer magnitude of the problem, however, can be difficult to fully ascertain from administrative data like this, he said. Notably, patients who did not receive AVR were significantly older, with 37% aged 81-90 years and 12% over age 90, and had a lower hematocrit and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate. But it’s not clear how many had cancer, end-stage renal disease, or severe lung disease, which could have factored into the decision to undergo AVR.

“What’s also an issue is that over 50% of patients had low gradient disease, which is very problematic and takes careful assessment in an individual patient,” said Dr. Bonow, who is also editor-in-chief of JAMA Cardiology. “That’s all being generated by a low valve area of less than 1 cm2 from echo reports, so that’s not necessarily a careful prospective echo assessment ... so some of the patients with low-gradient disease may not have true severe aortic stenosis.”

Dr. Elmariah agreed that echocardiogram reports are not always clear cut and pointed out that referral to a valve specialist was highly predictive of whether or not a patient underwent AVR, supporting the class 1 guideline recommendation.

He also noted that Mass General is launching the DETECT-AS trial to determine whether electronic physician notifications highlighting clinical practice guideline recommendations will improve AVR utilization over standard care in 940 patients with severe AS on echocardiogram, defined by a valve area less than 1 cm2.

Reached for comment, Catherine Otto, MD, director of the Heart Valve Clinic at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a fellow member of the 2014 guideline writing committee, said “this adds to the data [that] we’re undertreating severe aortic stenosis, and it continues to be surprising given the availability of transcatheter options.”

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

Building on several previous reports that the newest models of mobile telephones and other electronics that use magnets pose a threat to the function of defibrillators and other implantable cardiovascular devices, a new study implicates any device that emits a 10-gauss (G) magnetic field more than a couple of inches.

“Beside the devices described in our manuscript, this can be any portable consumer product [with magnets] like electric cigarettes or smart watches,” explained study author Sven Knecht, DSc, a research electrophysiologist associated with the department of cardiology, University Hospital Basel (Switzerland).

In the newly published article, the investigators evaluated earphones, earphone charging cases, and two electronic pens used to draw on electronic tablets. These particular devices are of interest because, like mobile phones, they are of a size and shape to fit in a breast pocket adjacent to where many cardiovascular devices are implanted.

The study joins several previous studies that have shown the same risk, but this study used three-dimensional (3D) mapping of the magnetic field rather than a one-axis sensor, which is a standard adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the investigators.
 

3D mapping assessment used

Because of the 3D nature of magnetic fields, 3D mapping serves as a better tool to assess the risk of the magnetic force as the intensity gradient diminishes with distance from the source, the authors contended. The 3D maps used in this study have a resolution to 2 mm.

The ex vivo measurements of the magnetic field, which could be displayed in a configurable 3D volume in relation to the electronic products were performed on five different explanted cardioverter defibrillators from two manufacturers.

In the ex vivo setting, the ability of the earphones, earphone charging cases, and electronic pens to interfere with defibrillator function was compared to that of the Apple iPhone 12 Max, which was the subject of a small in vivo study published in 2021. When the iPhone 12 Max was placed on the skin over a cardiac implantable device in that study, clinically identifiable interference could be detected in all 3 patients evaluated.

Based on previous work, the International Organization for Standardization has established that a minimal field strength of 10 G is needed to interfere with an implantable device, but the actual risk from any specific device is determined by the distance at which this strength of magnetic field is projected.

In the 3D analysis, the 10-G intensity was found to project 20 mm from the surface of the ear phones, ear phone charging case, and one of the electronic pens and to project 29 mm from the other electronic pen. When tested against the five defibrillators, magnetic reversion mode was triggered by the portable electronics at distances ranging from 8 to 18 mm.

In an interview, Dr. Knecht explained that this study adds more devices to the list of those associated with potential for interfering with implantable cardiovascular devices, but added that the more important point is that any device that contains magnets emitting a force of 10 G or greater for more than a few inches can be expected to be associated with clinically meaningful interference. The devices tested in this study were produced by Apple and Microsoft, but a focus on specific devices obscures the main message.

“All portable electronics with an embedded permanent magnet creating a 10-G magnetic field have a theoretical capability of triggering implantable devices,” he said.

For pacemakers, the interference is likely to trigger constant pacing, which would not be expected to pose a significant health threat if detected with a reasonable period, according to Dr. Knecht. Interference is potentially more serious for defibrillators, which might fail during magnetic interference to provide the shock needed to terminate a serious arrhythmia.

The combination of events – interference at the time of an arrhythmia – make this risk “very low,” but Dr. Knecht said it is sufficient to mean that patients receiving an implantable cardiovascular device should be made aware of the risk and the need to avoid placing portable electronic products near the implanted device.

When in vivo evidence of a disturbance with the iPhone 12 was reported in 2021, it amplified existing concern. The American Heart Association maintains a list of electronic products with the potential to interfere with implantable devices on its website. But, again, understanding the potential for risk and the need to keep electronic products with magnets at a safe distance from cardiovascular implantable devices is more important than trying to memorize the ever-growing list of devices with this capability.

“Prudent education of patients receiving an implantable device is important,” said N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh. However, in an interview, he warned that the growing list of implicated devices makes a complete survey impractical, and, even if achievable, likely to leave patients “feeling overwhelmed.”
 

In Dr. Estes’s practice, he does provide printed information about the risks of electronics to interfere with implantable devices as well as a list of dos and don’ts. He agreed that the absolute risk of interference from a device causing significant clinical complications is low, but the goal is to “bring it as close to zero as possible.”

“No clinical case of a meaningful interaction of an electronic product and dysfunction of an implantable device has ever been documented,” he said. Given the widespread use of the new generation of cellphones that contain magnets powerful enough to induce dysfunction in an implantable device, “this speaks to the fact that the risk continues to be very low.”

Dr. Knecht and coinvestigators, along with Dr. Estes, reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Building on several previous reports that the newest models of mobile telephones and other electronics that use magnets pose a threat to the function of defibrillators and other implantable cardiovascular devices, a new study implicates any device that emits a 10-gauss (G) magnetic field more than a couple of inches.

“Beside the devices described in our manuscript, this can be any portable consumer product [with magnets] like electric cigarettes or smart watches,” explained study author Sven Knecht, DSc, a research electrophysiologist associated with the department of cardiology, University Hospital Basel (Switzerland).

In the newly published article, the investigators evaluated earphones, earphone charging cases, and two electronic pens used to draw on electronic tablets. These particular devices are of interest because, like mobile phones, they are of a size and shape to fit in a breast pocket adjacent to where many cardiovascular devices are implanted.

The study joins several previous studies that have shown the same risk, but this study used three-dimensional (3D) mapping of the magnetic field rather than a one-axis sensor, which is a standard adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the investigators.
 

3D mapping assessment used

Because of the 3D nature of magnetic fields, 3D mapping serves as a better tool to assess the risk of the magnetic force as the intensity gradient diminishes with distance from the source, the authors contended. The 3D maps used in this study have a resolution to 2 mm.

The ex vivo measurements of the magnetic field, which could be displayed in a configurable 3D volume in relation to the electronic products were performed on five different explanted cardioverter defibrillators from two manufacturers.

In the ex vivo setting, the ability of the earphones, earphone charging cases, and electronic pens to interfere with defibrillator function was compared to that of the Apple iPhone 12 Max, which was the subject of a small in vivo study published in 2021. When the iPhone 12 Max was placed on the skin over a cardiac implantable device in that study, clinically identifiable interference could be detected in all 3 patients evaluated.

Based on previous work, the International Organization for Standardization has established that a minimal field strength of 10 G is needed to interfere with an implantable device, but the actual risk from any specific device is determined by the distance at which this strength of magnetic field is projected.

In the 3D analysis, the 10-G intensity was found to project 20 mm from the surface of the ear phones, ear phone charging case, and one of the electronic pens and to project 29 mm from the other electronic pen. When tested against the five defibrillators, magnetic reversion mode was triggered by the portable electronics at distances ranging from 8 to 18 mm.

In an interview, Dr. Knecht explained that this study adds more devices to the list of those associated with potential for interfering with implantable cardiovascular devices, but added that the more important point is that any device that contains magnets emitting a force of 10 G or greater for more than a few inches can be expected to be associated with clinically meaningful interference. The devices tested in this study were produced by Apple and Microsoft, but a focus on specific devices obscures the main message.

“All portable electronics with an embedded permanent magnet creating a 10-G magnetic field have a theoretical capability of triggering implantable devices,” he said.

For pacemakers, the interference is likely to trigger constant pacing, which would not be expected to pose a significant health threat if detected with a reasonable period, according to Dr. Knecht. Interference is potentially more serious for defibrillators, which might fail during magnetic interference to provide the shock needed to terminate a serious arrhythmia.

The combination of events – interference at the time of an arrhythmia – make this risk “very low,” but Dr. Knecht said it is sufficient to mean that patients receiving an implantable cardiovascular device should be made aware of the risk and the need to avoid placing portable electronic products near the implanted device.

When in vivo evidence of a disturbance with the iPhone 12 was reported in 2021, it amplified existing concern. The American Heart Association maintains a list of electronic products with the potential to interfere with implantable devices on its website. But, again, understanding the potential for risk and the need to keep electronic products with magnets at a safe distance from cardiovascular implantable devices is more important than trying to memorize the ever-growing list of devices with this capability.

“Prudent education of patients receiving an implantable device is important,” said N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh. However, in an interview, he warned that the growing list of implicated devices makes a complete survey impractical, and, even if achievable, likely to leave patients “feeling overwhelmed.”
 

In Dr. Estes’s practice, he does provide printed information about the risks of electronics to interfere with implantable devices as well as a list of dos and don’ts. He agreed that the absolute risk of interference from a device causing significant clinical complications is low, but the goal is to “bring it as close to zero as possible.”

“No clinical case of a meaningful interaction of an electronic product and dysfunction of an implantable device has ever been documented,” he said. Given the widespread use of the new generation of cellphones that contain magnets powerful enough to induce dysfunction in an implantable device, “this speaks to the fact that the risk continues to be very low.”

Dr. Knecht and coinvestigators, along with Dr. Estes, reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Building on several previous reports that the newest models of mobile telephones and other electronics that use magnets pose a threat to the function of defibrillators and other implantable cardiovascular devices, a new study implicates any device that emits a 10-gauss (G) magnetic field more than a couple of inches.

“Beside the devices described in our manuscript, this can be any portable consumer product [with magnets] like electric cigarettes or smart watches,” explained study author Sven Knecht, DSc, a research electrophysiologist associated with the department of cardiology, University Hospital Basel (Switzerland).

In the newly published article, the investigators evaluated earphones, earphone charging cases, and two electronic pens used to draw on electronic tablets. These particular devices are of interest because, like mobile phones, they are of a size and shape to fit in a breast pocket adjacent to where many cardiovascular devices are implanted.

The study joins several previous studies that have shown the same risk, but this study used three-dimensional (3D) mapping of the magnetic field rather than a one-axis sensor, which is a standard adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the investigators.
 

3D mapping assessment used

Because of the 3D nature of magnetic fields, 3D mapping serves as a better tool to assess the risk of the magnetic force as the intensity gradient diminishes with distance from the source, the authors contended. The 3D maps used in this study have a resolution to 2 mm.

The ex vivo measurements of the magnetic field, which could be displayed in a configurable 3D volume in relation to the electronic products were performed on five different explanted cardioverter defibrillators from two manufacturers.

In the ex vivo setting, the ability of the earphones, earphone charging cases, and electronic pens to interfere with defibrillator function was compared to that of the Apple iPhone 12 Max, which was the subject of a small in vivo study published in 2021. When the iPhone 12 Max was placed on the skin over a cardiac implantable device in that study, clinically identifiable interference could be detected in all 3 patients evaluated.

Based on previous work, the International Organization for Standardization has established that a minimal field strength of 10 G is needed to interfere with an implantable device, but the actual risk from any specific device is determined by the distance at which this strength of magnetic field is projected.

In the 3D analysis, the 10-G intensity was found to project 20 mm from the surface of the ear phones, ear phone charging case, and one of the electronic pens and to project 29 mm from the other electronic pen. When tested against the five defibrillators, magnetic reversion mode was triggered by the portable electronics at distances ranging from 8 to 18 mm.

In an interview, Dr. Knecht explained that this study adds more devices to the list of those associated with potential for interfering with implantable cardiovascular devices, but added that the more important point is that any device that contains magnets emitting a force of 10 G or greater for more than a few inches can be expected to be associated with clinically meaningful interference. The devices tested in this study were produced by Apple and Microsoft, but a focus on specific devices obscures the main message.

“All portable electronics with an embedded permanent magnet creating a 10-G magnetic field have a theoretical capability of triggering implantable devices,” he said.

For pacemakers, the interference is likely to trigger constant pacing, which would not be expected to pose a significant health threat if detected with a reasonable period, according to Dr. Knecht. Interference is potentially more serious for defibrillators, which might fail during magnetic interference to provide the shock needed to terminate a serious arrhythmia.

The combination of events – interference at the time of an arrhythmia – make this risk “very low,” but Dr. Knecht said it is sufficient to mean that patients receiving an implantable cardiovascular device should be made aware of the risk and the need to avoid placing portable electronic products near the implanted device.

When in vivo evidence of a disturbance with the iPhone 12 was reported in 2021, it amplified existing concern. The American Heart Association maintains a list of electronic products with the potential to interfere with implantable devices on its website. But, again, understanding the potential for risk and the need to keep electronic products with magnets at a safe distance from cardiovascular implantable devices is more important than trying to memorize the ever-growing list of devices with this capability.

“Prudent education of patients receiving an implantable device is important,” said N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, professor of medicine in the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh. However, in an interview, he warned that the growing list of implicated devices makes a complete survey impractical, and, even if achievable, likely to leave patients “feeling overwhelmed.”
 

In Dr. Estes’s practice, he does provide printed information about the risks of electronics to interfere with implantable devices as well as a list of dos and don’ts. He agreed that the absolute risk of interference from a device causing significant clinical complications is low, but the goal is to “bring it as close to zero as possible.”

“No clinical case of a meaningful interaction of an electronic product and dysfunction of an implantable device has ever been documented,” he said. Given the widespread use of the new generation of cellphones that contain magnets powerful enough to induce dysfunction in an implantable device, “this speaks to the fact that the risk continues to be very low.”

Dr. Knecht and coinvestigators, along with Dr. Estes, reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are “common, potentially harmful, and costly,” and there is a critical need to reduce this kind of care, the American Heart Association said in a newly released scientific statement.

Each year, nearly half of patients in the United States will receive at least one low-value test or procedure, with the attendant risk of avoidable complications from cascades of care and excess costs to individuals and society, the authors noted. Reducing low-value care is particularly important in cardiology, given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States.

The statement was published online Feb. 22, 2022, in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

High burden with uncertain benefit

“Cardiovascular disease is common and can present suddenly, such as a heart attack or abnormal heart rhythm,” Vinay Kini, MD, chair of the statement writing group and assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said in a news release.

“Our desire to be vigilant about treating and preventing cardiovascular disease may sometimes lead to use of tests and procedures where the benefits to patients may be uncertain,” Dr. Kini said. “This may impose burdens on patients, in the form of increased risk of physical harm from the low-value procedure or potential complications, as well as follow-up care and out-of-pocket financial costs.”

For example, studies have shown that up to one in five echocardiograms and up to half of all stress tests performed in the United States may be rated as rarely appropriate, based on established guidelines for their use.

In addition, up to 15% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) are classified as rarely appropriate, the writing group said.

Annually, among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, low-value stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease is estimated to cost between $212 million and $2.1 billion, while costs of PCI for stable CAD range from $212 million to $2.8 billion, the writing group noted.

“At best, spending on low-value care potentially diverts resources from higher-value services that would benefit patients more effectively at the same or reduced cost. At worst, low-value care results in physical harm in the form of preventable morbidity and mortality,” they said.

“Thus, reducing low-value care is one of the few patient-centered solutions that directly address both the need to control health care spending and the societal imperative to devote its limited resources to beneficial health care services that improve health,” they added.

The group outlines several ways to reduce low-value cardiovascular care targeting patients, providers, and payers/policymakers.

For patients, education and shared decision-making may help reduce low-value care and dispel misconceptions about the intended purpose of test or treatment, they suggested.

For clinicians, a “layered” approach to reducing low-value care may be most effective, such as through education, audit and feedback, and behavioral science tools (“nudges”) to shift behaviors and practices, they said.

For payers and policy leaders, interventions to reduce low-value care include national insurance coverage determinations; prior authorization; alternative payment models that reward lower costs and higher-quality health care; value-based insurance designs that financially penalize low-value care; and medical liability reform to reduce defensive medical practices.

Low-value cardiovascular care is a complex problem, the writing group acknowledged, and achieving meaningful reductions in low-value cardiovascular care will require a multidisciplinary approach that includes continuous research, implementation, evaluation, and adjustment while ensuring equitable access to care.

“Each approach has benefits and drawbacks,” Dr. Kini said. “For example, prior authorization imposes a large burden on health care professionals to obtain insurance approval for tests and treatments. Prior authorization and some value-based payment models may unintentionally worsen existing racial and ethnic health care disparities.

“A one-size-fits-all approach to reducing low-value care is unlikely to succeed; rather, acting through multiple perspectives and frequently measuring impacts and potential unintended consequences is critical,” he concluded.

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA’s Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research.

The research had no commercial funding. Dr. Kini disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outcomes were mixed among ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion who underwent thrombectomy by an interventional cardiologist as part of a multidisciplinary stroke team, in a single-center, prospective study from Poland.

Results from the 2-year experience show mechanical thrombectomy took longer when carried out by interventional cardiologists than by vascular surgeons and neuroradiologists (120 minutes vs. 105 minutes; P = .020).

The procedures were also less likely to achieve angiographic success, defined as a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b or 3 (55.7% vs. 71.7%; P = .013), reported Krystian Wita, MD, PhD, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, and colleagues.

The differences in duration and recanalization require further attention, they noted, and are related to a learning curve, more time dedicated to decision-making and, in some cases, needing a second opinion. Cardiologists performed 80 procedures compared with 116 for vascular surgeons and 52 for neuroradiologists, and treated twice as many patients with a previous stroke (13.9% vs. 6.5%).

Still, the interventional cardiologist- and noncardiologist-treated groups had similar functional independence at 3 months, defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 (44.4% vs. 54.8%; P = .275). Mortality was also similar at 3 months (31.3% vs. 28.0%; P = .595).

“This is the first analysis to prove the noninferiority of the cardiology services in the treatment of stroke with mechanical thrombectomy,” the authors reported in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

But commenting for this news organization, J Mocco, MD, senior vice chair of neurosurgery and director of the Cerebrovascular Center at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, said this study isn’t designed as a noninferiority trial, is “grossly underpowered,” and the comparator cohort is not a gold standard comparator cohort.

“More importantly, they show that the cardiologists got significantly worse technical results and took longer, and we know that technical outcomes and the time to treatment are the two strongest predictors of outcome, which completely correlates with the fact that patients had 11% worse outcomes overall,” he said.

“It’s dumbfounding to me that this has been presented as evidence [that] an interventional cardiologist should be performing thrombectomy,” added Dr. Mocco, president-elect of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery.

Dr. Wita and coauthor Andrzej Kulach, MD, PhD, also with the Medical University of Silesia, told this news organization that timing is critical in mechanical thrombectomy (MT) and the sooner it’s performed, the better. But it cannot be performed by just any interventional cardiologist (IC).

“The IC must be trained in the procedure and cooperate with the neurologist to get good results,” they said. “We would like to stress that it is not a procedure for any cath lab and any cardiologist on duty. A network of cardiologists trained in MT must be organized and the stroke teams developed for the local unit to make the strategy reasonable and safe.”

The study was conducted from 2019 to 2020 and to participate, interventional cardiologists had to have performed a minimum of 700 angioplasties and 1,500 coronary angiographies and undergone complex training in thrombectomy, including 14-day training in a reference center and certified courses on a phantom and an animal model. They were also experienced in carotid angioplasty and participated as the second operators in neurointerventions.

“Considering the cardiologists are acting here in a multidisciplinary team led by neurologists, the findings are not surprising,” Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said. “What was surprising, is a certain level of skepticism among neurologists when cardiologists are to be involved in the procedure. We hope the quality of cardiology services will help to get over it.”

Major thrombectomy trials such as PRAGUE-16 have supported a role for interventional cardiologists to help meet demand for stroke thrombectomy. Dr. Wita and Dr. Kulach said there’s a lack of trained neuroradiologists and developed infrastructure for thrombectomy, whereas there’s a sufficient network of catheterization laboratories and trained cardiologists who could be involved.

The take-home message from the study, they said, is to “use the existing infrastructure to optimize the treatment of stroke. Building one from the very beginning is more time and resources-consuming.”

Dr. Mocco said a physician’s training is not a factor in the pathway to neurointerventional expertise, as long as they’re willing to put in the appropriate amount of specialization and training.

“There’s no way this represents a turf war or the neurology community somehow protecting its space, which is often used as a distraction, just like the idea that there’s not enough people,” he said. “It’s just not the case. Neurointervention is the most multispecialty space that I’m aware of.”

In the United States, at least, the problem isn’t a lack of resources or people to provide the service, but in getting patients to the correct hospitals, Dr. Mocco said. “We don’t have regionalized stroke care in the United States for the most part, so patients go to any hospital that says they provide stroke care rather than necessarily being triaged to capable centers that can provide the care.”

A 2021 Medicare analysis by Dr. Mocco and colleagues found that higher physician and hospital stroke thrombectomy volumes were associated with lower inpatient mortality and better outcomes.

Efforts are underway to regionalize care and delivery of patients in Los Angeles County and New York City, for example, where ambulances preferentially take patients with suspected large vessel occlusion to thrombectomy-capable stroke centers certified by independent organizations, Dr. Mocco said. In New York, “they’ve shown it has improved outcomes.”

Estêvão Carvalho de Campos Martins, MD, Hospital de Força Aérea do Galeão, Rio de Janeiro, and Fernando Luiz de Melo Bernardi, MD, Hospital Regional do Oeste, Chapecó, Brazil, noted in an accompanying editorial that the observational study is “hypothesis-generating only” and that the disconnect between technical and clinical outcomes is due to a type II error of low power.

They suggest that collaboration between specialties will be “essential for defining the optimal training program, so that ICs can reach solid procedural results.

“The accumulated experience with virtual simulation-based training for stroke could act as an educational accelerator but should be inserted in a prespecified program,” the editorialists said. “How to train and how to insert ICs into [an] MT interdisciplinary team is the current debate; meanwhile ICs are here, and many of them already contributing.”

Dr. Mocco is the principal investigator on research trials funded by Stryker Neurovascular, Microvention, and Penumbra; and is an investor in Cerebrotech, Imperative Care, Endostream, Viseon, BlinkTBI, Myra Medical, Serenity, Vastrax, NTI, RIST, Viz.ai , Synchron, Radical, and Truvic. He serves, or has recently served, as a consultant for: Cerebrotech, Viseon, Endostream, Vastrax, RIST, Synchron, Viz.ai , Perflow, and CVAid. Dr. Carvalho de Campos Martins and Dr. Luiz de Melo Bernardi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

Standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a potent P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months after stenting for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is under increasing fire from studies showing that varying the duration and intensity of DAPT can reduce bleeding risk without compromising ischemic protection.

A novel meta-analysis of 29 studies indirectly compares short DAPT and de-escalation in 50,602 patients, providing new insights into the relative safety and efficacy of the two strategies and further challenging current guideline recommendations.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Results show no difference in the risk of death between short DAPT with aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation 1-6 months after percutaneous coronary intervention and de-escalation to clopidogrel (Plavix) or lower-dose prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta) after the initial high-risk period for ischemic events (risk ratio, 0.98).

“However, there are some differentiating characteristics between the two. De-escalation seems to reduce NACE – net adverse cardiovascular events – likely because of a reduction in major adverse cardiac events, while short DAPT decreases bleeding,” senior author Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, University of Catania (Italy) told this news organization.

The findings, published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, are clinically plausible because patients remain on two antiplatelet drugs with de-escalation, but are on only one drug at the point of shortening DAPT, he said. “So, of course, if you have only one antiplatelet drug instead of two, you reduce bleeding. On the other hand, having two antiplatelets probably reduces the thrombotic and ischemic events.”

The study failed to show statistically significant differences in ischemic endpoints between strategies, likely because of few events and wide confidence intervals, Dr. Capodanno said. “In fact, when we look at each single component of this NACE, we see a directional difference in favor of de-escalation, which is what you would expect from two drugs.”

All-cause death was also similar among strategies in an alternative five-node analysis that split short DAPT and de-escalation into four groups and included standard DAPT.

Compared with short DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor discontinuation, both de-escalation to clopidogrel and to half-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor reduced the risk for NACE. De-escalation to half dose also reduced the risk for minor bleeding, compared with short DAPT with aspirin discontinuation.

The overall results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses and a Bayesian meta-analysis, according to the authors, led by Claudio Laudani, MD, also with the University of Catania.

The Bayesian analysis suggested a greater than 95% probability that de-escalation is the best strategy for NACE, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, and minor bleeding, whereas short DAPT ranks first for major bleeding with a greater than 95% probability.
 

Guidelines upside down?

In the absence of a head-to-head comparison, the authors say the results warrant a change in current guidelines, which give a class 2a recommendation for short DAPT and a weak class 2b for de-escalation.

“The two strategies have both merits and caveats but, overall, they are very similar; so this is why we believe they should be similar [in status],” Dr. Capodanno said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dean Kereiakes, MD, Christ Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Cincinnati, and Robert Yeh, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, suggest the guideline recommendations are upside down.

“The class 1 recommendation should be for short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation vs. standard DAPT based on this meta-analysis and, frankly, based on the independent analyses from Bangalore [et al.] and from Shoji [et al.],” Dr. Kereiakes told this news organization.

“When you look at the meta-analyses that have been done, what you see is a reduction of bleeding and either no change or a slight numeric reduction in ischemic events, which magnifies the net clinical benefit, favoring short DAPT or DAPT de-escalation in comparison to standard 12-month, guideline-compliant DAPT,” he said. “So for me, it’s kind of like, game over. When will the guidelines catch up?”

In a comment, Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an email that “both approaches warrant a class 1 recommendation in patients at high bleeding risk, and both a 2a in non–high bleeding risk patients. With contemporary drug-eluting stents, the prognosis is more strongly determined by bleeding risk and the occurrence of hemorrhagic complications than ischemic risk.”
 

Not all strategies are ‘created equal’

The editorialists caution that, while viable, not all short DAPT or de-escalation strategies are “created equal.” In the five-node analysis, for example, the relative risk of stent thrombosis is highest following a short DAPT regimen with extended aspirin monotherapy (RR, 1.45) and lowest following de-escalation to half-dose prasugrel/ticagrelor (RR, 0.45).

Although not universally observed, the signal of harm with aspirin is consistent with studies such as TWILIGHT, HOST EXAM, and a 2020 meta-analysis, in which stopping aspirin 1-3 months after PCI cut bleeding by 50%, compared with DAPT in patients with ACS, noted Dr. Kereiakes.

He also hinted that more data are forthcoming showing that short DAPT followed by aspirin single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) has relatively higher ischemic and bleeding event rates, compared with short DAPT followed by P2Y12 SAPT, with or without an anticoagulant on board.

The key going forward, all agree, is to formally incorporate ischemic/bleeding risk stratification tools into practice guidelines to allow personalized antiplatelet therapy. To that end, Dr. Kereiakes and Dr. Yeh offer a detailed graphic of rank-order recommendations for each strategy by clinical risk strata, with de-escalation generally best for those at greatest ischemic risk and short DAPT best applied to those at greatest bleeding risk.

“The biggest incremental knowledge provided by Davide and Laudani is that they gave us more insight into the granularity of platelet inhibition strategies,” Dr. Kereiakes said. “And it is mechanistically possible to be applied in clinical practice. It’s what I personally see in high-volume clinical practice.”

Before it can be determined which of these strategies is safer and/or more effective, a large, direct head-to-head comparative randomized trial is necessary, Dr. Stone cautioned.

“There are still many variables that were not adjusted for in this excellent study, including the timing of DAPT discontinuation or de-escalation, the specific agent used, etc.,” he added. “Finally, as implied by these results, the optimal regimen may vary based on the balance of ischemic and bleeding risk. Thus, the specific population enrolled in such a randomized trial might importantly affect its outcome.”

As a man “who likes science and statistics,” Dr. Capodanno said he’d also like a large, randomized trial directly comparing the two strategies to confirm these indirect findings. “But it’s very difficult to imagine the power for a trial like that, so it’s not something that’s easy to do.”

Dr. Capodanno reports consulting and speaker fees from Amgen, Arena, Biotronik, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Sanofi outside the present work. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Kereiakes reports consulting fees from SINO Medical Sciences Technologies, Svelte Medical Systems, Elixir Medical, and Caliber Therapeutics/Orchestra Biomed. Dr. Yeh reports consulting fees and grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Stone reported having no disclosures relevant to the study.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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

Right now, more than 106,600 people in the United States are on the national transplant waiting list, each hoping to hear soon that a lung, kidney, heart, or other vital organ has been found for them. It’s the promise not just of a new organ, but a new life.

Well before they are placed on that list, transplant candidates, as they’re known, are evaluated with a battery of tests and exams to be sure they are infection free, their other organs are healthy, and that all their vaccinations are up to date.

Now, COVID vaccinations – and some people’s resistance to them – have turned what used to be routine preparation controversial.

In January, a 31-year-old Boston father of two declined to get the COVID-19 vaccine, and Brigham and Women’s Hospital officials removed him from the heart transplant waiting list. And in North Carolina, a 38-year-old man in need of a kidney transplant said he, too, was denied the organ when he declined to get the vaccination.

Those are just two of the most recent cases. The decisions by the transplant centers to remove the candidates from the waiting list have set off a national debate among ethicists, family members, doctors, patients, and others.

On social media and in conversation, the question persists: Is removing them from the list unfair and cruel, or simply business as usual to keep the patient as healthy as possible and the transplant as successful as possible?

Two recent tweets sum up the debate.

“The people responsible for this should be charged with attempted homicide,” one Twitter user said, while another suggested that the more accurate way to headline the news about a transplant candidate refusing the COVID-19 vaccine would be: “Patient voluntarily forfeits donor organ.”

Doctors and ethics experts, as well as other patients on the waiting list, say it’s simply good medicine to require the COVID vaccine, along with a host of other pretransplant requirements.
 

Transplant protocols

“Transplant medicine has always been a strong promoter of vaccination,” said Silas Prescod Norman, MD, a clinical associate professor of nephrology and internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He is a kidney specialist who works in the university’s transplant clinic.

Requiring the COVID vaccine is in line with requirements to get numerous other vaccines, he said.“Promoting the COVID vaccine among our transplant candidates and recipients is just an extension of our usual practice.

“In transplantation, first and foremost is patient safety,” Dr. Norman said. “And we know that solid organ transplant patients are at substantially higher risk of contracting COVID than nontransplant patients.”

After the transplant, they are placed on immunosuppressant drugs, that weaken the immune system while also decreasing the body’s ability to reject the new organ.

“We know now, because there is good data about the vaccine to show that people who are on transplant medications are less likely to make detectable antibodies after vaccination,” said Dr. Norman, who’s also a medical adviser for the American Kidney Fund, a nonprofit that provides kidney health information and financial assistance for dialysis.

And this is not a surprise because of the immunosuppressive effects, he said. “So it only makes sense to get people vaccinated before transplantation.”

Researchers compared the cases of more than 17,000 people who had received organ transplants and were hospitalized from April to November 2020, either for COVID (1,682 of them) or other health issues. Those who had COVID were more likely to have complications and to die in the hospital than those who did not have it.
 

Vaccination guidelines, policies

Federal COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health state that transplant patients on immunosuppressant drugs used after the procedure should be considered at a higher risk of getting severe COVID if infected.

In a joint statement from the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American Society of Transplantation, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, the organizations say they “strongly recommend that all eligible children and adult transplant candidates and recipients be vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine [and booster] that is approved or authorized in their jurisdiction. Whenever possible, vaccination should occur prior to transplantation.” Ideally, it should be completed at least 2 weeks before the transplant.

The organizations also “support the development of institutional policies regarding pretransplant vaccination. We believe that this is in the best interest of the transplant candidate, optimizing their chances of getting through the perioperative and posttransplant periods without severe COVID-19 disease, especially at times of greater infection prevalence.”

Officials at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, where the 31-year-old father was removed from the list, issued a statement that reads, in part: “Our Mass General Brigham health care system requires several [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]-recommended vaccines, including the COVID-19 vaccine, and lifestyle behaviors for transplant candidates to create both the best chance for a successful operation and to optimize the patient’s survival after transplantation, given that their immune system is drastically suppressed. Patients are not active on the wait list without this.”
 

Ethics amid organ shortage

“Organs are scarce,” said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. That makes the goal of choosing the very best candidates for success even more crucial.

“You try to maximize the chance the organ will work,” he said. Pretransplant vaccination is one way.

The shortage is most severe for kidney transplants. In 2020, according to federal statistics, more than 91,000 kidney transplants were needed, but fewer than 23,000 were received. During 2021, 41,354 transplants were done, an increase of nearly 6% over the previous year. The total includes kidneys, hearts, lungs, and other organs, with kidneys accounting for more than 24,000 of the total.

Even with the rise in transplant numbers, supply does not meet demand. According to federal statistics, 17 people in the United States die each day waiting for an organ transplant. Every 9 minutes, someone is added to the waiting list.

“This isn’t and it shouldn’t be a fight about the COVID vaccine,” Dr. Caplan said. “This isn’t an issue about punishing non-COVID vaccinators. It’s deciding who is going to get a scarce organ.”

“A lot of people [opposed to removing the nonvaccinated from the list] think: ‘Oh, they are just killing those people who won’t take a COVID vaccine.’ That’s not what is going on.”

The transplant candidate must be in the best possible shape overall, Dr. Caplan and doctors agreed. Someone who is smoking, drinking heavily, or abusing drugs isn’t going to the top of the list either. And for other procedures, such as bariatric surgery or knee surgery, some patients are told first to lose weight before a surgeon will operate.

The worry about side effects from the vaccine, which some patients have cited as a concern, is misplaced, Dr. Caplan said. What transplant candidates who refuse the COVID vaccine may not be thinking about is that they are facing a serious operation and will be on numerous anti-rejection drugs, with side effects, after the surgery.

“So to be worried about the side effects of a COVID vaccine is irrational,” he said.
 

Transplants: The process

The patients who were recently removed from the transplant list could seek care and a transplant at an alternate center, said Anne Paschke, a spokesperson for the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit group that is under contract with the federal government and operates the national Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).

“Transplant hospitals decide which patients to add to the wait list based on their own criteria and medical judgment to create the best chance for a positive transplant outcome,” she said. That’s done with the understanding that patients will help with their medical care.

So, if one program won’t accept a patient, another may. But, if a patient turned down at one center due to refusing to get the COVID vaccine tries another center, the requirements at that hospital may be the same, she said.

OPTN maintains a list of transplant centers. As of Jan. 28, there were 251 transplant centers, according to UNOS, which manages the waiting list, matches donors and recipients, and strives for equity, among other duties.
 

Pretransplant refusers not typical

“The cases we are seeing are outliers,” Dr. Caplan said of the handful of known candidates who have refused the vaccine. Most ask their doctor exactly what they need to do to live and follow those instructions.

Dr. Norman agreed. Most of the kidney patients he cares for who are hoping for a transplant have been on dialysis, “which they do not like. They are doing whatever they can to make sure they don’t go back on dialysis. As a group, they tend to be very adherent, very safety conscious because they understand their risk and they understand the gift they have received [or will receive] through transplantation. They want to do everything they can to respect and protect that gift.”

Not surprisingly, some on the transplant list who are vaccinated have strong opinions about those who refuse to get the vaccine. Dana J. Ufkes, 61, a Seattle realtor, has been on the kidney transplant list – this time – since 2003, hoping for her third transplant. When asked if potential recipients should be removed from the list if they refuse the COVID vaccine, her answer was immediate: “Absolutely.”

At age 17, Ms. Ufkes got a serious kidney infection that went undiagnosed and untreated. Her kidney health worsened, and she needed a transplant. She got her first one in 1986, then again in 1992.

“They last longer than they used to,” she said. But not forever. (According to the American Kidney Fund, transplants from a living kidney donor last about 15-20 years; from a deceased donor, 10-15.)

The decision to decline the vaccine is, of course, each person’s choice, Ms. Ufkes said. But “if they don’t want to be vaccinated [and still want to be on the list], I think that’s BS.”

Citing the lack of organs, “it’s not like they are handing these out like jellybeans.”

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