MDedge Cardiology

TOPLINE: 

Patients with both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk for ischemic stroke than those with only AF. They are also less likely to receive oral anticoagulant treatment, which may contribute to this increased stroke risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a registry-based retrospective cohort study using the Norwegian Cardio-Rheuma Register to evaluate the risk for ischemic stroke following the diagnosis of AF in patients with or without RA.
• They included 163,595 patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2010 and 2017, of whom 2750 had RA. Patients had to be diagnosed with RA before the diagnosis of AF.
• They also assessed whether patients with RA were less likely to receive oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention within 3 months of AF diagnosis than those without RA.
• The median follow-up time was 2.5 years for patients with RA and 3.0 years for those without RA.
• The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke, which was identified through hospital admissions and visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, patients with both RA and AF showed a higher cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke than those with only AF (7.3% vs 5.0%).
• Among patients with AF, the risk of having a stroke was 25% higher in those with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
• Patients with RA were also less likely to receive treatment with oral anticoagulants than those without RA, driven by concerns over potential interactions with RA medications, bleeding risk, or other factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study prompts preventive measures such as meticulous cardiovascular risk factor control among patients with RA and AF and raises the question whether the presence of RA should be taken into account when considering OAC [oral anticoagulant] treatment for AF patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Anne M. Kerola, MD, PhD, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki in Finland. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked data on smoking, blood pressure measurements, alcohol use, and obesity, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the findings. The study population was limited to Norway and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Olav Thon Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. Some authors received speaker fees, participated in advisory boards, served as consultants, or had other ties with some pharmaceutical companies and institutions.

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

TOPLINE: 

Patients with both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk for ischemic stroke than those with only AF. They are also less likely to receive oral anticoagulant treatment, which may contribute to this increased stroke risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a registry-based retrospective cohort study using the Norwegian Cardio-Rheuma Register to evaluate the risk for ischemic stroke following the diagnosis of AF in patients with or without RA.
• They included 163,595 patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2010 and 2017, of whom 2750 had RA. Patients had to be diagnosed with RA before the diagnosis of AF.
• They also assessed whether patients with RA were less likely to receive oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention within 3 months of AF diagnosis than those without RA.
• The median follow-up time was 2.5 years for patients with RA and 3.0 years for those without RA.
• The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke, which was identified through hospital admissions and visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, patients with both RA and AF showed a higher cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke than those with only AF (7.3% vs 5.0%).
• Among patients with AF, the risk of having a stroke was 25% higher in those with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
• Patients with RA were also less likely to receive treatment with oral anticoagulants than those without RA, driven by concerns over potential interactions with RA medications, bleeding risk, or other factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study prompts preventive measures such as meticulous cardiovascular risk factor control among patients with RA and AF and raises the question whether the presence of RA should be taken into account when considering OAC [oral anticoagulant] treatment for AF patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Anne M. Kerola, MD, PhD, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki in Finland. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked data on smoking, blood pressure measurements, alcohol use, and obesity, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the findings. The study population was limited to Norway and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Olav Thon Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. Some authors received speaker fees, participated in advisory boards, served as consultants, or had other ties with some pharmaceutical companies and institutions.

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

TOPLINE: 

Patients with both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk for ischemic stroke than those with only AF. They are also less likely to receive oral anticoagulant treatment, which may contribute to this increased stroke risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a registry-based retrospective cohort study using the Norwegian Cardio-Rheuma Register to evaluate the risk for ischemic stroke following the diagnosis of AF in patients with or without RA.
• They included 163,595 patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2010 and 2017, of whom 2750 had RA. Patients had to be diagnosed with RA before the diagnosis of AF.
• They also assessed whether patients with RA were less likely to receive oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention within 3 months of AF diagnosis than those without RA.
• The median follow-up time was 2.5 years for patients with RA and 3.0 years for those without RA.
• The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke, which was identified through hospital admissions and visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, patients with both RA and AF showed a higher cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke than those with only AF (7.3% vs 5.0%).
• Among patients with AF, the risk of having a stroke was 25% higher in those with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
• Patients with RA were also less likely to receive treatment with oral anticoagulants than those without RA, driven by concerns over potential interactions with RA medications, bleeding risk, or other factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study prompts preventive measures such as meticulous cardiovascular risk factor control among patients with RA and AF and raises the question whether the presence of RA should be taken into account when considering OAC [oral anticoagulant] treatment for AF patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Anne M. Kerola, MD, PhD, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki in Finland. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked data on smoking, blood pressure measurements, alcohol use, and obesity, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the findings. The study population was limited to Norway and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Olav Thon Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. Some authors received speaker fees, participated in advisory boards, served as consultants, or had other ties with some pharmaceutical companies and institutions.

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

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City. 

We have many debates and arguments that are swirling around about the out-of-control costs of Medicare. Many people are arguing we’ve got to trim it and cut back, and many people note that we can’t just go on and on with that kind of expenditure.

People look around for savings. Rightly, we can’t go on with the prices that we’re paying. No system could. We’ll bankrupt ourselves if we don’t drive prices down. 

There’s another area that is driving up cost where, despite the fact that Medicare doesn’t pay for it, we could capture resources and hopefully shift them back to things like Medicare coverage or the insurance of other efficacious procedures. That area is the wellness industry. 

I looked up a number recently, and I was shocked to see that worldwide, $1.8 trillion is being spent on wellness, including billions in the US. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for that. That’s money coming out of people’s pockets that we could hopefully aim at the payment of things that we know work, not seeing the money drain out to cover bunk, nonsense, and charlatanism.

Does any or most of this stuff work? Do anything? Help anybody? No. We are spending money on charlatans and quacks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which you might think is the agency that could step in and start to get rid of some of this nonsense, is just too overwhelmed trying to track drugs, devices, and vaccines to give much attention to the wellness industry.

What am I talking about specifically? I’m talking about everything from gut probiotics that are sold in sodas to probiotic facial creams and the Goop industry of Gwyneth Paltrow, where you have people buying things like wellness mats or vaginal eggs that are supposed to maintain gynecologic health.

We’re talking about things like PEMF, or pulse electronic magnetic fields, where you buy a machine and expose yourself to mild magnetic pulses. I went online to look them up, and the machines cost $5000-$50,000. There’s no evidence that it works. By the way, the machines are not only out there as being sold for pain relief and many other things to humans, but also they’re being sold for your pets.

That industry is completely out of control. Wellness interventions, whether it’s transcranial magnetism or all manner of supplements that are sold in health food stores, over and over again, we see a world in which wellness is promoted but no data are introduced to show that any of it helps, works, or does anybody any good.

It may not be all that harmful, but it’s certainly financially toxic to many people who end up spending good amounts of money using these things. I think doctors need to ask patients if they are using any of these things, particularly if they have chronic conditions. They’re likely, many of them, to be seduced by online advertisement to get involved with this stuff because it’s preventive or it’ll help treat some condition that they have. 

The industry is out of control. We’re trying to figure out how to spend money on things we know work in medicine, and yet we continue to tolerate bunk, nonsense, quackery, and charlatanism, just letting it grow and grow and grow in terms of cost.

That’s money that could go elsewhere. That is money that is being taken out of the pockets of patients. They’re doing things that may even delay medical treatment, which won’t really help them, and they are doing things that perhaps might even interfere with medical care that really is known to be beneficial.

I think it’s time to push for more money for the FDA to regulate the wellness side. I think it’s time for the Federal Trade Commission to go after ads that promise health benefits. I think it’s time to have some honest conversations with patients: What are you using? What are you doing? Tell me about it, and here’s why I think you could probably spend your money in a better way. 
 

Dr. Caplan, director, Division of Medical Ethics, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, disclosed ties with Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). He serves as a contributing author and adviser for Medscape.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The ABYSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Final Two Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The ABYSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Final Two Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The ABYSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Final Two Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ABYSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

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

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

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

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ABYSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

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

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

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

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ABYSS Trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

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

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

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

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology.

For most treated patients, the new systolic blood pressure goal is a target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg, which is a move away from the previous two-step recommendation.

Although the updated guidelines, presented here at the ESC Congress, continue to define hypertension as a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg, there is a new category — elevated BP. This is defined as a systolic BP of 120 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg, and cardiovascular risk assessment is advised to guide treatment, particularly in patients with a BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg.

The guidelines also introduce new recommendations for lifestyle options to help lower BP, including changes to exercise advice and the addition of potassium supplementation. And for the first time, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for the use of renal denervation to treat hypertension in certain circumstances.

The guidelines were produced by an international panel, led by Bill McEvoy, MB BCh, from the University of Galway, Ireland, and Rhian Touyz, MB BCh, PhD, from McGill University in Montreal.
 

Three Categories of Blood Pressure

There are now three categories for BP classification — non-elevated (< 120/70 mm Hg), elevated (120 mm Hg to139 mm Hg/70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) — Dr. McEvoy reported during a session on the new guidelines here at ESC.

The emphasis on out-of-office BP measurement is stronger than in previous guidelines, but office measurement will still be used, he said.

All patients in the hypertension category qualify for treatment, whereas those in the new elevated BP category will be subject to cardiovascular risk stratification before a treatment decision is made.

Patients in the elevated BP category who also have moderate or severe chronic kidney disease, established cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia are among those considered at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as are patients with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher. In such patients with a confirmed BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg, after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, pharmacologic treatment is recommended.

“This new category of elevated blood pressure recognizes that people do not go from normal blood pressure to hypertensive overnight,” Dr. McEvoy said. “It is, in most cases, a steady gradient of change, and different subgroups of patients — for example, those at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease — could benefit from more intensive treatment before their blood pressure reaches the traditional threshold of hypertension.”
 

New Lower Target

The major change in target pressures in these guidelines is based on new clinical trial data that confirm that lower pressures lead to lower cardiovascular event rates, resulting in the new systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg for most patients receiving antihypertensive medications.

This systolic target represents a major change from previous European guidelines, Dr. McEvoy said, which have generally recommended that patients be treated to a target of less than 140/90 mm Hg and, only after that has been reached, then treated to a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg (a two-step approach).

“This change is driven by new trial evidence confirming that more intensive blood pressure treatment targets reduce cardiovascular outcomes across a broad spectrum of eligible patients,” Dr. McEvoy said.

There are, however, several caveats to this recommendation, including the requirement that treatment to this target be well tolerated; more lenient targets can be considered in people with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, those 85 years and older, and those with moderate to severe frailty or a limited life expectancy. For these patients, the guidelines recommend a target “that is as low as reasonably achievable.”
 

More in Line With US Guidelines

The new European guidelines are now more in line with the American guidelines, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, who is chair of the Hypertension Writing Group at the American College of Cardiology.

“These new European guidelines have thoughtfully used the latest study data to simplify recommendations for a specific lower blood pressure target. This is a step forward. There is now a greater alignment of European and US guidelines. This is good to reduce confusion and build consensus across the world,” he said.

Both sets of guidelines now recommend a BP target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for most people. 

“I think the Europeans have now embraced this more aggressive target because there are many more studies now showing that these lower blood pressure levels do lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events,” Dr. Yang explained. “When the last European guidelines came out, there was only SPRINT. Now there are several more studies showing similar results.”
 

New Lifestyle Advice

The updated recommendation of 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week has been added as an alternative to the previous recommendation of at least 2.5 hours per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. This should be complemented with low- or moderate-intensity dynamic or isometric resistance training two to three times a week. 

It is also recommended that people with hypertension, but without moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease, increase potassium intake with salt substitutes or diets rich in fruits and vegetables.
 

Renal Denervation Included for First Time 

For the first time, the guidelines include the option of renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension — at medium- to high-volume centers — for patients with resistant hypertension that is uncontrolled despite a three-drug combination.

However, renal denervation is not recommended as a first-line treatment because of the lack of evidence of a benefit in cardiovascular outcomes. It is also not recommended for patients with highly impaired renal function or secondary causes of hypertension.

Dr. Yang said he approves of the inclusion of a frailty assessment in the new guidelines and less aggressive targets for people who are in poor health and older than age 85 years, but added that, “on the whole, they have less age-specific stratification than before, which is a significant change, and a good one in my view.” 

Again, this is like the American guidelines, which have no age cutoffs and a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all, with the caveat that clinical judgment may be needed for individuals who are institutionalized, he added.

Dr. Yang said he was not as keen on the requirement for a cardiovascular risk assessment to guide treatment decisions for people with a systolic BP in the 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg range, although this is also included in the current American guidelines.

“As a clinician, I think this complicates things a bit too much and, as such, will be a barrier to treatment. In my view, blood pressure treatment recommendations need to be as simple as possible, so I think we still have some work to do there,” he said.

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

LONDON — Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology.

For most treated patients, the new systolic blood pressure goal is a target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg, which is a move away from the previous two-step recommendation.

Although the updated guidelines, presented here at the ESC Congress, continue to define hypertension as a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg, there is a new category — elevated BP. This is defined as a systolic BP of 120 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg, and cardiovascular risk assessment is advised to guide treatment, particularly in patients with a BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg.

The guidelines also introduce new recommendations for lifestyle options to help lower BP, including changes to exercise advice and the addition of potassium supplementation. And for the first time, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for the use of renal denervation to treat hypertension in certain circumstances.

The guidelines were produced by an international panel, led by Bill McEvoy, MB BCh, from the University of Galway, Ireland, and Rhian Touyz, MB BCh, PhD, from McGill University in Montreal.
 

Three Categories of Blood Pressure

There are now three categories for BP classification — non-elevated (< 120/70 mm Hg), elevated (120 mm Hg to139 mm Hg/70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) — Dr. McEvoy reported during a session on the new guidelines here at ESC.

The emphasis on out-of-office BP measurement is stronger than in previous guidelines, but office measurement will still be used, he said.

All patients in the hypertension category qualify for treatment, whereas those in the new elevated BP category will be subject to cardiovascular risk stratification before a treatment decision is made.

Patients in the elevated BP category who also have moderate or severe chronic kidney disease, established cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia are among those considered at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as are patients with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher. In such patients with a confirmed BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg, after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, pharmacologic treatment is recommended.

“This new category of elevated blood pressure recognizes that people do not go from normal blood pressure to hypertensive overnight,” Dr. McEvoy said. “It is, in most cases, a steady gradient of change, and different subgroups of patients — for example, those at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease — could benefit from more intensive treatment before their blood pressure reaches the traditional threshold of hypertension.”
 

New Lower Target

The major change in target pressures in these guidelines is based on new clinical trial data that confirm that lower pressures lead to lower cardiovascular event rates, resulting in the new systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg for most patients receiving antihypertensive medications.

This systolic target represents a major change from previous European guidelines, Dr. McEvoy said, which have generally recommended that patients be treated to a target of less than 140/90 mm Hg and, only after that has been reached, then treated to a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg (a two-step approach).

“This change is driven by new trial evidence confirming that more intensive blood pressure treatment targets reduce cardiovascular outcomes across a broad spectrum of eligible patients,” Dr. McEvoy said.

There are, however, several caveats to this recommendation, including the requirement that treatment to this target be well tolerated; more lenient targets can be considered in people with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, those 85 years and older, and those with moderate to severe frailty or a limited life expectancy. For these patients, the guidelines recommend a target “that is as low as reasonably achievable.”
 

More in Line With US Guidelines

The new European guidelines are now more in line with the American guidelines, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, who is chair of the Hypertension Writing Group at the American College of Cardiology.

“These new European guidelines have thoughtfully used the latest study data to simplify recommendations for a specific lower blood pressure target. This is a step forward. There is now a greater alignment of European and US guidelines. This is good to reduce confusion and build consensus across the world,” he said.

Both sets of guidelines now recommend a BP target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for most people. 

“I think the Europeans have now embraced this more aggressive target because there are many more studies now showing that these lower blood pressure levels do lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events,” Dr. Yang explained. “When the last European guidelines came out, there was only SPRINT. Now there are several more studies showing similar results.”
 

New Lifestyle Advice

The updated recommendation of 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week has been added as an alternative to the previous recommendation of at least 2.5 hours per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. This should be complemented with low- or moderate-intensity dynamic or isometric resistance training two to three times a week. 

It is also recommended that people with hypertension, but without moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease, increase potassium intake with salt substitutes or diets rich in fruits and vegetables.
 

Renal Denervation Included for First Time 

For the first time, the guidelines include the option of renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension — at medium- to high-volume centers — for patients with resistant hypertension that is uncontrolled despite a three-drug combination.

However, renal denervation is not recommended as a first-line treatment because of the lack of evidence of a benefit in cardiovascular outcomes. It is also not recommended for patients with highly impaired renal function or secondary causes of hypertension.

Dr. Yang said he approves of the inclusion of a frailty assessment in the new guidelines and less aggressive targets for people who are in poor health and older than age 85 years, but added that, “on the whole, they have less age-specific stratification than before, which is a significant change, and a good one in my view.” 

Again, this is like the American guidelines, which have no age cutoffs and a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all, with the caveat that clinical judgment may be needed for individuals who are institutionalized, he added.

Dr. Yang said he was not as keen on the requirement for a cardiovascular risk assessment to guide treatment decisions for people with a systolic BP in the 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg range, although this is also included in the current American guidelines.

“As a clinician, I think this complicates things a bit too much and, as such, will be a barrier to treatment. In my view, blood pressure treatment recommendations need to be as simple as possible, so I think we still have some work to do there,” he said.

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

LONDON — Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology.

For most treated patients, the new systolic blood pressure goal is a target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg, which is a move away from the previous two-step recommendation.

Although the updated guidelines, presented here at the ESC Congress, continue to define hypertension as a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg, there is a new category — elevated BP. This is defined as a systolic BP of 120 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg, and cardiovascular risk assessment is advised to guide treatment, particularly in patients with a BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg.

The guidelines also introduce new recommendations for lifestyle options to help lower BP, including changes to exercise advice and the addition of potassium supplementation. And for the first time, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for the use of renal denervation to treat hypertension in certain circumstances.

The guidelines were produced by an international panel, led by Bill McEvoy, MB BCh, from the University of Galway, Ireland, and Rhian Touyz, MB BCh, PhD, from McGill University in Montreal.
 

Three Categories of Blood Pressure

There are now three categories for BP classification — non-elevated (< 120/70 mm Hg), elevated (120 mm Hg to139 mm Hg/70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) — Dr. McEvoy reported during a session on the new guidelines here at ESC.

The emphasis on out-of-office BP measurement is stronger than in previous guidelines, but office measurement will still be used, he said.

All patients in the hypertension category qualify for treatment, whereas those in the new elevated BP category will be subject to cardiovascular risk stratification before a treatment decision is made.

Patients in the elevated BP category who also have moderate or severe chronic kidney disease, established cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia are among those considered at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as are patients with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher. In such patients with a confirmed BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg, after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, pharmacologic treatment is recommended.

“This new category of elevated blood pressure recognizes that people do not go from normal blood pressure to hypertensive overnight,” Dr. McEvoy said. “It is, in most cases, a steady gradient of change, and different subgroups of patients — for example, those at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease — could benefit from more intensive treatment before their blood pressure reaches the traditional threshold of hypertension.”
 

New Lower Target

The major change in target pressures in these guidelines is based on new clinical trial data that confirm that lower pressures lead to lower cardiovascular event rates, resulting in the new systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg for most patients receiving antihypertensive medications.

This systolic target represents a major change from previous European guidelines, Dr. McEvoy said, which have generally recommended that patients be treated to a target of less than 140/90 mm Hg and, only after that has been reached, then treated to a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg (a two-step approach).

“This change is driven by new trial evidence confirming that more intensive blood pressure treatment targets reduce cardiovascular outcomes across a broad spectrum of eligible patients,” Dr. McEvoy said.

There are, however, several caveats to this recommendation, including the requirement that treatment to this target be well tolerated; more lenient targets can be considered in people with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, those 85 years and older, and those with moderate to severe frailty or a limited life expectancy. For these patients, the guidelines recommend a target “that is as low as reasonably achievable.”
 

More in Line With US Guidelines

The new European guidelines are now more in line with the American guidelines, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, who is chair of the Hypertension Writing Group at the American College of Cardiology.

“These new European guidelines have thoughtfully used the latest study data to simplify recommendations for a specific lower blood pressure target. This is a step forward. There is now a greater alignment of European and US guidelines. This is good to reduce confusion and build consensus across the world,” he said.

Both sets of guidelines now recommend a BP target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for most people. 

“I think the Europeans have now embraced this more aggressive target because there are many more studies now showing that these lower blood pressure levels do lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events,” Dr. Yang explained. “When the last European guidelines came out, there was only SPRINT. Now there are several more studies showing similar results.”
 

New Lifestyle Advice

The updated recommendation of 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week has been added as an alternative to the previous recommendation of at least 2.5 hours per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. This should be complemented with low- or moderate-intensity dynamic or isometric resistance training two to three times a week. 

It is also recommended that people with hypertension, but without moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease, increase potassium intake with salt substitutes or diets rich in fruits and vegetables.
 

Renal Denervation Included for First Time 

For the first time, the guidelines include the option of renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension — at medium- to high-volume centers — for patients with resistant hypertension that is uncontrolled despite a three-drug combination.

However, renal denervation is not recommended as a first-line treatment because of the lack of evidence of a benefit in cardiovascular outcomes. It is also not recommended for patients with highly impaired renal function or secondary causes of hypertension.

Dr. Yang said he approves of the inclusion of a frailty assessment in the new guidelines and less aggressive targets for people who are in poor health and older than age 85 years, but added that, “on the whole, they have less age-specific stratification than before, which is a significant change, and a good one in my view.” 

Again, this is like the American guidelines, which have no age cutoffs and a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all, with the caveat that clinical judgment may be needed for individuals who are institutionalized, he added.

Dr. Yang said he was not as keen on the requirement for a cardiovascular risk assessment to guide treatment decisions for people with a systolic BP in the 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg range, although this is also included in the current American guidelines.

“As a clinician, I think this complicates things a bit too much and, as such, will be a barrier to treatment. In my view, blood pressure treatment recommendations need to be as simple as possible, so I think we still have some work to do there,” he said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Holly Wyatt, MD, had spent 20 years in UCHealth with no plans to leave. Her home, support system, and lifestyle were all rooted in Denver. But in 2020, The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) made the endocrinologist an offer she couldn’t resist.

The pay increase and a bump to full professorship weren’t enough to lure her across the country. But then UAB sweetened the deal with fewer clinic hours and paid time to create. “I didn’t have to fit into the typical ‘see patients 5 days a week, bill this many dollars,’ ” she said.

With no minimum billable hours, she could spend her time on clinical trials, designing programs, and recording podcasts. “When they offered that, I said, ‘Ooh, that’s enticing.’ ”

After a couple of visits to the campus, she began the job transition.

Doctors are looking for more than base pay. For many physicians, like Dr. Wyatt, non-salary incentives carry a lot of weight in the recruitment and job-hunting process.

“Some of the usual suspects are CME [continuing medical education] budget, signing bonuses, relocation assistance, loan repayment programs, and housing allowances,” said Jake Jorgovan, partner at Alpha Apex Group, a physician recruiting firm in Denver.

Post pandemic, doctors are vying for other benefits, perks that support their interests, work-life balance, and financial stability. “We’ve come across offers like sabbatical opportunities, paid time for research or personal projects, and even concierge services that handle things like grocery shopping or pet care,” said Mr. Jorgovan.

Amid physician shortages, doctors have more bargaining power than ever.
 

Money Still Talks

Financial perks are still the premiere portion of a benefits package, according to Marc Adam, physician recruiter at MASC Medical, a medical recruitment firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

New data from the medical staffing company AMN Healthcare reported that the average signing bonus for physicians is $31,103. The average relocation allowance is $11,000, and the average CME allowance is $4000.

“CME budget and loan repayment programs are big because they directly impact career advancement and financial well-being,” Mr. Jorgovan said. He said that given the high cost of medical training, loan repayment help, especially, has become a huge deciding factor for clinicians. Employers have historically been hesitant to offer these kinds of long-term benefits because of the financial commitment and planning involved, but that’s changing.

Mr. Adam said that short-term financial perks, like relocation assistance and signing bonuses, tend to be more important for younger doctors. They’re not yet financially established, so the relocation support and bonus funds have more impact as they take on a new role, he said.

Mid- and late-career doctors, on the other hand, are less beholden to these types of bonuses. Mr. Adam has recruited established doctors from across the country to Florida, and he said that the relocation allowance and singing bonus didn’t even rank in their top five priorities. Similarly, in Birmingham, Dr. Wyatt recently reread her offer letter from UAB and was surprised to find a relocation stipend that she never used. “I had no idea,” she said.
 

Vying for Time

Mid- and late-career doctors who have a better financial safety net tend to seek benefits that boost their quality of life.

One of Mr. Adam’s recent job-searching clients was unwilling to compromise on priorities like specific location and a 4-day workweek.

Four-day workweeks, flexible scheduling, and options for remote work are increasingly popular, especially since the pandemic. Some physicians, like those in primary care, are looking for dedicated charting hours — paid days or half-days set aside for updating the electronic medical records. Other doctors are negotiating multistate telehealth licensing paid by their employer and work-from-home telehealth hours.

“Work life has been slowly increasing over the 14 years I’ve been doing this. And post COVID, the employer’s willingness to be flexible with those types of accommodations increased,” said Mr. Adam.

Priya Jaisinghani, MD, an endocrinologist and obesity medicine specialist in her second year of practice, NYU Langone Health, New York City, said work-life balance can be a priority for young doctors, too. After training in New York during the pandemic, Dr. Jaisinghani was all too aware of the risk for burnout. So she negotiated a 4-day workweek when she took her first job out of fellowship in 2022. “I was able to prioritize work-life balance from the start,” she said.
 

Support for the Career You Want

When Dr. Jaisinghani signed her first contract in 2022 with NYU, her move from New Jersey to New York wasn’t far enough to warrant a relocation allowance. “There was a signing bonus, sure,” she said. But what really grabbed her attention were perks like mentorship, access to trainees, and autonomy.

Perks that support long-term growth — like CME allowance, teaching opportunities, or access to leadership tracks — are especially important to young doctors. “After dedicating so many years to medical training, you want to look for some degree of autonomy in building your practice,” she said. NYU offered her that kind of freedom and support.

On top of personal growth, young physicians are looking for perks that will allow them to build the practice they want for their patients,Dr. Jaisinghani told this news organization. A lot of young doctors don’t know that they can negotiate for schedule preferences, office space, their own exam room, and dedicated support staff. However, they can and should because these factors influence their daily work life and patient experience.

Experienced doctors are also looking for perks that support the career they want. Recruitment experts say that doctors tend to look for opportunities that accommodate their interests. One of Mr. Jorgovan’s recent clients took a position because it offered a generous CME budget and dedicated research hours. Similarly, Dr. Wyatt at UAB moved because her contract included paid time to create.

“It really comes down to the need for balance — being able to keep learning while also having time for personal life and family,” Mr. Jorgovan said.
 

Making and Meeting Demand

Thanks to the rising demand, doctors have more power than ever to negotiate the perks they want and need.

The existing physician shortage — driven by retiring doctors and an aging patient population — was only exacerbated by the pandemic. Now, a number of new market entries are further increasing competition for talent, according to AMN Healthcare’s report. Retail clinics, urgent care, telehealth companies, and private equity firms compete for the same doctors, driving up salaries and doctor bargaining power.

“Physicians were always in the driver’s seat, and their bargaining power has only increased,” Mr. Adam said. Healthcare systems, once reticent about flexible working arrangements or loan repayment, are reconsidering.

Even young doctors have more negotiating power than they realize, but they might need help. “It’s underrated to get a contracts lawyer as a young doctor, but I think it’s smart,” Dr. Jaisinghani said. They’re often more familiar with salaries in the area, flexibility options, and potential benefits, none of which doctors are taught in training, she said.

Mr. Adam said that the pandemic opened employers’ eyes to the fact that doctors have the bargaining power. There’s a stark need for their talent and a lot of public support for their service. So hiring managers are listening and are ready to offer “creative benefits to accommodate the market demand,” he said.

In her new position at UAB, Dr. Wyatt said that money will always matter. “When your salary is low, bumping that salary will make you happier.” But after a certain point, she said, other things become more important — like your time, the work you do, and the people you work with. Her perks at UAB offer more than money can. “I get up in the morning, and I’m excited — [the work] excites me,” she said.

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

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sitting at a patient’s bedside is one of the behaviors associated with better doctor-patient communication, patient satisfaction, and trust. During a busy day of consultations, however, it can be difficult for healthcare professionals to sit regularly with patients. Previous studies have revealed that hospital doctors sit during one out of every five meetings with patients.

A recent US study evaluated the impact of the practitioner’s seated position next to the patient on the quality of the doctor-patient interaction in an internal medicine department. This research involved a sample of 51 doctors (average age, 35 years; 51% men) and analyzed 125 clinical interviews (n = 125 patients; average age, 53 years; 55% men). Participants were not informed of the real objective of the study. The patient’s perception of medical care was also solicited.

The experimental protocol involved two distinct configurations. Either the chair was positioned near the bed (within 90 cm) before the doctor arrived or it remained visible in its usual place. Each meeting with a patient was randomized according to the chair location (intervention group: n = 60; control group: n = 65).

The primary criterion was the doctor’s binary decision to sit or not at a given moment during a meeting with a patient. Secondary criteria included patient satisfaction, time spent in the room, and the perception of time spent in the room by doctors and patients.

The chair’s location had no effect on the average duration of the interview, whether actual or estimated. When a chair was placed near the bed, the doctor sat in more than six out of 10 cases (63%), compared with fewer than one case out of 10 (8%) when the chair was less easily accessible (odds ratio, 20.7; 95% CI, 7.2-59.4; P < .001).

The chair arrangement did not lead to a significant difference in the average duration of presence in the room (10.6 min for both groups). Likewise, no notable difference was observed regarding the subjective estimation of this duration from the practitioners’ point of view (9.4 min vs 9.8 min) or from the patients’ point of view (13.1 min vs 13.5 min).

In the group in which the doctor sat to converse, patient satisfaction was significantly higher, with an overall difference of 3.9% (P = .02). Patients felt that the information provided was better (72% vs 52%; P =.03), and their confidence in the proposed care was also higher (58% vs 35%; P = .01). On the other hand, no significant difference appeared between the two groups regarding the information retained by the patient (doctor’s name and reason for hospitalization) or the doctor’s behavior.

The study authors acknowledged the study’s methodological limitations, which included a sample size that was lower than initially projected and the restriction to a single hospital setting. In addition, they noted that all patients were housed in individual rooms, which could be a source of bias. Despite these reservations, they suggested that even minimal environmental changes, such as the thoughtful placement of a chair, can significantly affect patients’ perceptions of the quality of care provided.
 

This story was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.