MDedge Emergency Medicine

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

LOS ANGELES – When a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) has a cardioembolic stroke, the best blood thinner to start may be a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), possibly beginning 7-10 days after the index stroke, according to an analysis of 90-day, observational outcomes data from nearly 1,300 patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analysis also suggested that the use of “bridging” anticoagulant treatment by injection before a patient with atrial fibrillation (AFib) starts a daily oral anticoagulant regimen following a cardioembolic stroke is not a good idea. Patients who received bridging anticoagulation had a nearly threefold higher rate of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage than did patients who did not, and their bridging treatment failed to protect them from recurrent ischemic events, Shadi Yaghi, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association. The bridging regimens delivered either heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin.

Based on the findings, “it seems reasonable to avoid bridging unless absolutely necessary, to initiate a DOAC unless it’s contraindicated, and to start the DOAC on day 7-10 following the stroke in most patients,” said Dr. Yaghi, a vascular neurologist and director of stroke research at NYU Langone Health in New York.

“It’s been hard to develop a broad guideline on when to start oral anticoagulation” after a cardioembolic stroke in AFib patients. The best time “depends on a lot of variables and how the patient responded to acute treatment,” commented Alexis Simpkins, MD, a vascular and stroke neurologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “You want to start treatment before the patient has another stroke, but not so soon that the treatment causes symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation.”

Dr. Yaghi’s suggestion, based on his findings, to start treatment for most patients with a DOAC 7-10 days after their index stroke “shows consistency” with the prevailing guideline recommendation from the AHA/American Stroke Association to start oral anticoagulation in this patient population 4-14 days after the index stroke (Stroke. 2018 March;49[3]:e46-e99), she noted.

A recent article reviewed the uncertainty about the best time to start oral anticoagulation in AFib patients after a cardioembolic stroke and the subtle differences that distinguish various international medical groups that, like the ASA, have made recommendations (Lancet Neurol. 2019 Jan 1;18[1]:117-26). According to this review, a major limitation of these various recommendations has been the lack of actual evidence collected from AFib patients who began receiving a DOAC shortly after a cardioembolic stroke, although the article added that several studies in progress are collecting these data.

The study reported by Dr. Yaghi pooled data collected from 2,084 recent AFib patients with a cardioembolic stroke treated at any of eight comprehensive U.S. stroke centers. They excluded patients who died from causes unrelated to the primary endpoint, those who did not receive an anticoagulant or had incomplete data, and patients lost to follow-up, leaving 1,289 evaluable patients. During their 90-day follow-up, 10% of the patients had an ischemic event, a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or an extracranial hemorrhage.

The study’s primary analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of recurrent ischemic events, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, or both based on when oral anticoagulant treatment began: 0-3 days, 4-14 days, or more than 14 days after the index stroke.

The investigators then subdivided patients into the subgroup that started treatment with a DOAC and the subgroup that started treatment with warfarin and also further subdivided the 4-14 day time window for starting treatment. Results of this analysis showed that patients who received a DOAC and began this treatment 7-10 days after their stroke had a 50% cut in their 90-day events compared with other patients, a difference that fell just short of statistical significance at P = .07. All the other combinations of oral anticoagulant and time of treatment initiation analyzed showed neutral effects that never came near statistical significance.

Secondary data analyses also showed that both patients with a history of a stroke prior to their index stroke and patients with ipsilateral atherosclerosis came close to having a statistically significant increased rate of a subsequent ischemic event during 90-day follow-up. Furthermore, women, patients with a history of hyperlipidemia, and patients who developed hemorrhagic transformation of their index stroke all had significantly increased rates of developing a symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage during 90-day follow-up. When the endpoint was limited to recurrent ischemic events only, patients who received a DOAC were 50% less likely to have an event than were patients treated with warfarin, a statistically significant difference.

Although starting a DOAC 7-10 days after the index stroke seems reasonable based on this analysis, the question needs a prospective, randomized study to create an appropriate evidence base, Dr. Yaghi said.

Dr. Yaghi disclosed a financial relationship with Medtronic. Dr. Simpkins had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yaghi S et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb;51(suppl 1):A119.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

koakes@mdedge.com

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

koakes@mdedge.com

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

The White House Coronavirus Task Force appeared at a press briefing March 2 to provide updates about testing strategies and public health coordination to address the current outbreak of the coronavirus COVID-19. Speaking at the briefing, led by Vice President Mike Pence, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield, MD, said, “Working with our public health partners we continue to be able to identify new community cases and use our public health efforts to aggressively confirm, isolate, and do contact tracking.” Calling state, local, tribal, and territorial public health departments “the backbone of the public health system in our country,” Dr. Redfield noted that he expected many more confirmed COVID-19 cases to emerge.

At least some of the expected increase in confirmed cases of COVID-19 will occur because of expanded testing capacity, noted several of the task force members. On Feb. 29, the Food and Drug Administration issued a new policy to expedite the process for some laboratories to develop new diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV2, the virus that is causing the current outbreak of COVID-19.

Highly qualified laboratories, including both those run by public agencies and private labs, are now authorized to begin using their own validated test for the virus as long as they submit an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Food and Drug Administration within 15 days of notifying the agency of validation.

“To effectively respond to the COVID-19 outbreak, rapid detection of cases and contacts, appropriate clinical management and infection control, and implementation of community mitigation efforts are critical. This can best be achieved with wide availability of testing capabilities in health care settings, reference and commercial laboratories, and at the point of care,” the agency wrote in a press announcement of the expedited test expansion.

On Feb. 4, the Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services declared a coronavirus public health emergency. The FDA was then authorized to allow individual laboratories with validated coronavirus tests to begin testing samples immediately. The goal is a more rapid and expanded testing capacity in the United States.

“The global emergence of COVID-19 is concerning, and we appreciate the efforts of the FDA to help bring more testing capability to the U.S.,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), said in the press release.

The new guidance that permits the immediate use of clinical tests after individual development and validation, said the FDA, only applies to labs already certified to perform high complexity testing under Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Many governmental, academic, and private laboratories fall into this category, however.

“Under this policy, we expect certain laboratories who develop validated tests for coronavirus would begin using them right away prior to FDA review,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We believe this action will support laboratories across the country working on this urgent public health situation,” he added in the press release.

“By the end of this week, close to a million tests will be available,” FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD, said during the March 2 briefing.*

Updated criteria

The CDC is maintaining updated criteria for the virus testing on its website. Testing criteria are based both on clinical features and epidemiologic risk.

Individuals with less severe clinical features – those who have either fever or signs and symptoms of lower respiratory disease such as cough or shortness of breath, but who don’t require hospitalization – should be tested if they have high epidemiologic risk. “High risk” is defined by the CDC as any individual, including health care workers, who has had close contact with a person with confirmed COVID-19 within the past 2 weeks. For health care workers, testing can be considered even if they have relatively mild respiratory symptoms or have had contact with a person who is suspected, but not yet confirmed, to have coronavirus.

In its testing guidance, the CDC recognizes that defining close contact is difficult. General guidelines are that individuals are considered to have been in close contact with a person who has COVID-19 if they were within about six feet of the person for a prolonged period, or cared for or have spent a prolonged amount of time in the same room or house as a person with confirmed COVID-19.

Individuals who have both fever and signs or symptoms of lower respiratory illness who require hospitalization should be tested if they have a history of travel from any affected geographic area within 14 days of the onset of their symptoms. The CDC now defines “affected geographic area” as any country or region that has at least a CDC Level 2 Travel Health Notice for COVID-19, so that the testing criteria themselves don’t need to be updated when new geographic areas are included in these alerts. As of March 3, China, Iran, Italy, Japan, and South Korea all have Level 2 or 3 travel alerts.

The CDC now recommends that any patient who has severe acute lower respiratory illness that requires hospitalization and doesn’t have an alternative diagnosis should be tested, even without any identified source of exposure.

“Despite seeing these new cases, the risk to the American people is low,” said the CDC’s Dr. Redfield. In response to a question from the press about how fast the coronavirus will spread across the United States, Dr. Redfield said, “From the beginning we’ve anticipated seeing community cases pop up.” He added that as these cases arise, testing and public health strategies will focus on unearthing linkages and contacts to learn how the virus is spreading. “We’ll use the public health strategies that we can to limit that transmission,” he said.

koakes@mdedge.com

*An earlier version of this article misattributed this quote.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

In a typical year, March marks the start of conference season, made all the more attractive by collegial gatherings and travel to warmer climes. But 2020 has already proven anything but typical as the number of novel coronavirus cases continues to increase around the globe. As a potential pandemic looms, these meetings – full of handshakes and crowded lecture halls – are also nirvana for opportunistic viruses. As are the airports, airplanes, and cabs required to get there.

So, as COVID-19 continues to spread, medical and scientific societies must make some difficult decisions. In Europe, at least a few societies have already suspended their upcoming meetings, while France has temporarily banned all gatherings over 5000 people.

In the United States, however, most medical conferences are moving forward as planned – at least for now. But one conference of 10,000 attendees, the American Physical Society annual meeting, which was scheduled for March 2-6 in Denver, was canceled the day before the meeting started. Although it’s not a medical conference, it speaks to the “rapidly escalating health concerns” that all conference organizers must grapple with.

APS Physics Meetings

@APSMeetings

Due to rapidly escalating health concerns relating to the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the 2020 APS March Meeting in Denver, CO, has been canceled. Please do not travel to Denver to attend the March Meeting. More information will follow shortly. #apsmarch

734 9:59 PM - Feb 29, 2020

Just one smaller medical meeting, the Ataxia Conference, which was scheduled for March 6-7 in Denver, has been canceled.

Most societies hosting these meetings have put out statements to their attendees saying that they’re monitoring the situation and will adapt as necessary. The United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, which is holding its annual meeting in Los Angeles this week, sent out an email beforehand asking international travelers to consider staying home. The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Global Health Conference, which is slated to have about 50,000 attendees from around the world, has declared itself a “handshake-free” conference but otherwise intends to move ahead as planned.

All of these conferences will be pushing forward without at least one prominent group of attendees. New York University’s Langone Health has removed its employees from the decision-making process and instead is taking a proactive stance: The health system just declared a 60-day (minimum) ban preventing employees from attending any meetings or conferences and from all domestic and international work-related travel.

Here’s what some of the societies have said to attendees about their intent to proceed or modify their plans:

• Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Boston, 3/8/20 - 3/11/20: Monitoring the situation and seeking input from local, state, and federal infectious-disease and public-health experts. Final decision expected by the evening of March 3.
• American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), Philadelphia, 3/13/20 - 3/16/20: Monitoring developments but no plans to cancel or postpone at this time.
• American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), Orlando, 3/24/20 - 3/28/20: Proceeding as planned.
• American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), Denver, 3/20/20 - 3/24/20: The AAD’s 2020 Annual Meeting is scheduled to take place as planned. The organization will increase the number of hand-sanitizing stations throughout the convention center, and it is adding a nursing station specifically designated for anyone with flu-like symptoms.
• American College of Cardiology (ACC), Chicago, 3/28/20 - 3/30/20: The organization is working with attendees, faculty, exhibitors, and other stakeholders in affected countries to ensure access to research and education from the meeting, but is otherwise proceeding as planned.
• Endocrine Society (ENDO), San Francisco, 3/28/20 - 3/31/20: ENDO 2020 will take place as scheduled, but this is an evolving situation worldwide. The society will continue to monitor and provide updates on its FAQ page.
• American College of Physicians Internal Medicine (ACP IM), Los Angeles, 4/23/20 - 4/25/20: ACP leadership is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and is actively working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure authoritative communication of safety updates and recommendations as the situation evolves.
• American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), San Diego, 4/24/20 - 4/29/20: At this time, there is no plan to cancel or postpone any scheduled AACR meetings. The organization is tracking all travel restrictions as well as information and guidance from the CDC and World Health Organization.
• American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Toronto, 4/25/20 - 5/1/20: The group is continuing to closely monitor the situation in Toronto and will provide updates as the situation warrants.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

koakes@mdedge.com

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

koakes@mdedge.com

As the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States emerges in Washington State, the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington State health officials provided the beginnings of a roadmap for how the region will address the rapidly evolving health crisis.

Health officials announced that four new cases were reported over the weekend in King County, Wash. There have now been 10 hospitalizations and 6 COVID-19 deaths at Evergreen Health, Kirkland, Wash. Of the deaths, five were King County residents and one was a resident of Snohomish County. Three patients died on March 1; all were in their 70s or 80s with comorbidities. Two had been residents of the Life Care senior residential facility that is at the center of the Kirkland outbreak. The number of cases in Washington now totals 18, with four cases in Snohomish County and the balance in neighboring King County.

Approximately 29 cases are under investigation with test results pending; a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) team is on-site.

Speaking at a news conference March 2, officials sought to strike a balance between giving the community a realistic appraisal of the likely scope of the COVID-19 outbreak and avoiding sparking a panic.

“This is a complex and unprecedented challenge nationally, globally, and locally. The vast majority of the infected have mild or moderate disease and do not need hospitalization,” said Jeffrey Duchin, MD, health officer and chief, Communicable Disease EPI/Immunization Section, Public Health, Seattle and King County, and a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. “On the other hand, it’s obvious that this infection can cause very serious disease in people who are older and have underlying health conditions. We expect cases to continue to increase. We are taking the situation extremely seriously; the risk for all of us becoming infected is increasing. ...There is the potential for many to become ill at the same time.”

Among the measures being taken immediately are the purchase by King County of a hotel to house individuals who require isolation and those who are convalescing from the virus. Officials are also placing a number of prefabricated stand-alone housing units on public grounds in Seattle, with the recognition that the area has a large transient and homeless community. The stand-alone units will house homeless individuals who need isolation, treatment, or recuperation but who aren’t ill enough to be hospitalized.

Dr. Duchin said that testing capacity is ramping up rapidly in Washington State: The state lab can now accommodate up to about 200 tests daily, and expects to be able to do up to 1,000 daily soon. The University of Washington’s testing capacity will come online March 2 or 3 as a testing facility with similar initial and future peak testing capacities.

The testing strategy will continue to include very ill individuals with pneumonia or other respiratory illness of unknown etiology, but will also expand to include less ill people. This shift is being made in accordance with a shift in CDC guidelines, because of increased testing capacity, and to provide a better picture of the severity, scope, geography, and timing of the current COVID-19 outbreak in the greater Seattle area.

No school closures or cancellation of gatherings are currently recommended by public health authorities. There are currently no COVID-19 cases in Washington schools. The expectation is that any recommendations regarding closures will be re-evaluated as the outbreak progresses.

Repeatedly, officials asked the general public to employ basic measures such as handwashing and avoidance of touching the face, and to spare masks for the ill and for those who care for them. “The vast majority of people will not have serious illness. In turn we need to do everything we can to help those health care workers. I’m asking the public to do things like save the masks for our health care workers. …We need assets for our front-line health care workers and also for those who may be needing them,” said King County Health Department director Patty Hayes, RN, MN.

Courtesy King County Public Health Department

Now is also the time for households to initiate basic emergency preparedness measures, such as having adequate food and medication, and to make arrangements for childcare in the event of school closures, said several officials.

“We can decrease the impact on our health care system by reducing our individual risk. We are making individual- and community-level recommendations to limit the spread of disease. These are very similar to what we recommend for influenza,” said Dr. Duchin.

Ettore Palazzo, MD, chief medical and quality officer at EvergreenHealth, gave a sense of how the hospital is coping with being Ground Zero for COVID-19 in the United States. “We have made adjustments for airborne precautions,” he said, including transforming the entire critical care unit to a negative pressure unit. “We have these capabilities in other parts of the hospital as well.” Staff are working hard, but thus far staffing has kept pace with demand, he said, but all are feeling the strain already.

Dr. Duchin made the point that Washington is relatively well equipped to handle the increasingly likely scenario of a large spike in coronavirus cases, since it’s part of the Northwest Healthcare Response Network. The network is planning for sharing resources such as staff, respirators, and intensive care unit beds as circumstances warrant.

“What you just heard illustrates the challenge of this disease,” said Dr. Duchin, summing up. “The public health service and clinical health care delivery systems don’t have the capacity to track down every case in the community. I’m guessing we will see more cases of coronavirus than we see of influenza. At some point we will be shifting from counting every case” to focusing on outbreaks and the critically ill in hospitals, he said.

“We are still trying to contain the outbreak, but we are at the same time pivoting to a more community-based approach,” similar to the approach with influenza, said Dr. Duchin.

• A man in his 50s, who was hospitalized and died at EvergreenHealth.

koakes@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Thermal injury of a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is notorious as a relatively common and problematic complication of the procedure, but two new approaches showed promise for substantially cutting the risk of esophageal thermal injury and the potential for the most severe damage: perforation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

One of these innovations is intensive esophageal cooling with a commercially marketed, fluid-chilled catheter placed in a patient’s esophagus during radiofrequency catheter ablation that keeps the inner surface of the esophagus at 4°C. This approach cut the incidence of periprocedural episodes of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal injury from 20% among controls to 3% in patients who had esophageal cooling in a randomized study with 120 patients, Mark M. Gallagher, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. The same device can also maintain a temperature on the inner surface of the esophagus of 42 ° C in patients undergoing cryoablation of atrial fibrillation, noted Dr. Gallagher, a cardiac electrophysiologist at St. George’s University Hospitals in London.

A second approach to cutting esophageal damage focuses on modifying the energy delivery with a radiofrequency ablation method known as high-power short-duration (HPSD). As the name says, this strategy uses a relatively high level of radiofrequency energy, 50 watts in the reported experience, for the brief interval of about 7 seconds, ideally delivering an overall Ablation Index of at least 350 but below 360, said Thomas Deneke, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor, and cochief of cardiology at the Heart Center in Bad Neustadt, Germany.

Dr. Deneke and his associates in Bad Neustadt began using this HPSD approach in mid-2019, and by early 2020 they had data from 179 patients who underwent first-time catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AFib), all of whom had undergone routine esophageal endoscopy 1-3 days after their treatment. Eight patients (4%) showed evidence of endoscopically detected esophageal lesions (EDEL), including three patients (2%) with an actual esophageal ulcer, and one (0.6%) who developed a perforation that healed after 52 days, Dr. Deneke reported. An additional 55 patients underwent a redo catheter ablation procedure using the HPSD method during this period, and in that group follow-up endoscopy in all patients showed EDEL in two patients (4%). In contrast, during Jan. 2012–May 2019, the same German center treated 2,102 patients who had a first radiofrequency catheter ablation using convention energy levels and treatment times, which resulted in 291 patients having an EDEL (14%), including 94 (4%) with an ulcer, and six patients (0.3%) with an esophageal perforation, he said.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

His center’s recent safety experience with HPSD radiofrequncy ablation, compared with the historical controls, suggests that this technique can produce a substantial reduction in esophageal thermal injury, but HPSD has not completely eliminated the risk and hence there is need for continued alertness for this potential complication Dr. Deneke concluded. The HPSD method is also limited by having “a very narrow window” between efficacy at an Ablation Index of 350 and safety when the index remains below 360, he added.

The randomized study that Dr. Gallagher ran at St. George’s followed an analysis he and his associates recently published that suggested efficacy using esophageal cooling in prior reports when the data combined in a meta-analysis (J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Nov 22. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00661-5). They also concluded that the clinical setting required a temperature control device with an enhanced capacity for rapid cooling, which prior studies had lacked. So they turned to a Food and Drug Administration–approved catheter designed for placement in the esophagus for the purpose of either whole-body cooling or warming.

The study randomized a total of 187 patients, but collected follow-up endoscopy at 5-7 days after the ablation procedure on 120 patients, of whom 60 received esophageal cooling and 60 did not. The types of ablations performed on patients in the two study arms were similar, and use of esophageal cooling had no impact on treatment duration or efficacy, either acute and longer term, Dr. Gallagher reported.

Cooling had a marked and statistically significant impact on endoscopically detected thermal injury. Although two patients in the group that underwent cooling had injuries, in one of these cases the injury involved a protocol violation: Radiofrequency ablation mistakenly occurred after the cooling device shut off, and it was during this period when the injury happened. In the second case of thermal injury, blinded scoring judged the injury as grade 2 in severity – an erosion of less than 5 mm – on a nine-item scale that ranged from zero to grade 6, the most severe level denoting a fistula. By contrast, among the 12 patients with thermal injury in the nonprotected subgroup, one patient had a grade 5a lesion denoting a deep ulcer, one had a 4b denoting a superficial ulcer with a clot, and four had a 4a lesion defined as a clean superficial ulcer.

“This is really effective. It’s the first study to show reduced damage without affecting ablation efficacy,” Dr. Gallagher said. He plans to now use this method of esophageal protection routinely for his AFib ablation patients who pay privately, and for patients insured under the national U.K. system once this coverage is approved. Dr. Deneke expressed his interest in also using this approach to esophageal protection, but noted that currently he did not have access to the cooling catheter that Dr. Gallagher used because of regulatory constraints.

The esophageal cooling study was sponsored by Attune Medical, which markets the cooling device. Dr. Gallagher has received research funding from Attune Medical, and has received honoraria as a speaker on behalf of Biosense Webster and Medtronic. Dr. Deneke has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific, and his institution has received research funding from Biosense Webster and Securus/Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Some instances of unprofessional behavior by medical trainees are universally deemed egregious and worthy of discipline — for example, looking up a friend’s medical data after HIPAA training.

Conversely, some professionalism lapses may be widely thought of as a teaching and consoling moment, such as the human error involved in forgetting a scheduled repositioning of a patient.

But between the extremes is a vast gray area. To deal with those cases appropriately, Jason Wasserman, PhD, and colleagues propose a new framework by which to judge each infraction.

The framework draws from “just culture” concepts used to evaluate medical errors, Wasserman, associate professor of biomedical science at Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine in Rochester, Michigan, told Medscape Medical News. Such an approach takes into account the environment in which the error was made, the knowledge and intent of the person making the error, and the severity and consequences of the infraction so that trainees and institutions can learn from mistakes.

“Trainees by definition are not going to fully get it,” he explained. “By definition they’re not going to fully achieve professional expectations. So how can we respond to the things we need to respond to, but do it in a way that’s educational?”

Wasserman and coauthors’ framework for remediation, which they published February 20 in The New England Journal of Medicine, takes into account several questions: Was the expectation clear? Were there factors beyond the trainees› control? What were the trainees› intentions and did they understand the consequences? Did the person genuinely believe the action was inconsequential?

An example requiring discipline, the authors say, would be using a crib sheet during an exam. In that case the intent is clear, there is no defensible belief that the action is inconsequential, and there is a clear understanding the action is wrong.

But a response of “affirm, support, and advise” is more appropriate, for example, when a student’s alarm doesn’t go off after a power outage and they miss a mandatory meeting.

Wasserman points out that this framework won’t cover all situations.

“This is not an algorithm for answering your questions about what to do,” he said. “It’s an architecture for clarifying the discussion about that. It can really tease out all the threads that need to be considered to best respond to and correct the professionalism lapse, but do it in a way that is developmentally appropriate.”
 

A Core Competency

For two decades, professionalism has been considered a core competency of medical education. In 1999, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties formalized it as such. In 2013, the Association of American Medical Colleges formally required related professionalism competencies.

However, identifying lapses has operated largely on an “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” basis, leading to widely varying remediation practices judged by a small number of faculty members or administrators.

The ideas outlined by Wasserman and colleagues are “a terrific application of the ‘just-culture’ framework,” according to Nicole Treadway, MD, a first-year primary care resident at Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

At Emory, discussions of professionalism start from day 1 of medical school and the subject is revisited throughout training in small groups, Treadway told Medscape Medical News.

But, she said, as the authors point out, definitions of unprofessionalism are not always clear and the examples the authors put forward help put lapses in context.

The framework also allows for looking at mistakes in light of the stress trainees encounter and the greater chance of making a professionalism error in those situations, she noted.

In her own work, she says, because she is juggling both inpatient and outpatient care, she is finding it is easy to get behind on correspondence or communicating lab results or having follow-up conversations.

Those delays could be seen as lapses in professionalism, but under this framework, there may be system solutions or training opportunities to consider.

“We do need this organizational architecture, and I think it could serve us well in really helping us identify and appropriately respond to what we see regarding professionalism,” she said.

Framework Helps Standardize Thinking

She said having a universal framework also helps because while standards of professionalism are easier to monitor in a single medical school, when students scatter to other hospitals for clinical training, those hospitals may have different professionalism standards.

Wasserman agrees, saying, “This could be easily adopted in any environment where people deal with professionalism lapses. I don’t even think it’s necessarily relegated to trainees. It’s a great way to think about any kind of lapses, just as hospitals think about medical errors.”

He said the next step is presenting the framework at various medical schools for feedback and research to see whether the framework improves processes.

Potential criticism, he said, might come from those who say such a construct avoids punishing students who make errors.

“There will always be people who say we’re pandering to medical students whenever we worry about the learning environment,” he said. “There are old-school purists who say when people screw up you should punish them.”

But he adds healthcare broadly has moved past that thinking.

“People recognized 20 years ago or more from the standpoint of improving healthcare systems and safety that is a bad strategy. You’ll never get error-free humans working in your system, and what you have to do is consider how the system is functioning and think about ways to optimize the system so people can be their best within it.”

Wasserman and Treadway have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Acute kidney injury (AKI), a potentially modifiable risk factor in some cases, predicts increased mortality within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve transplantation (TAVR), according to an analysis of a U.S. registry presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“After adjustment, there are higher rates of all-cause mortality regardless of the severity of AKI,” reported Howard M. Julien, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Relative to the absence of AKI (stage 0), the hazard ratio for death at 1 year was more than threefold greater (HR, 3.26), even for those with stage 1 AKI. When unadjusted for covariates, it remained more than twice as high (HR, 2.67; P less than .001), Dr. Julien reported.

For stage 3 AKI, the unadjusted risk was more than nine times higher and remained roughly seven times greater after adjustment (HR, 7.04; P less than .001). Stage 2 AKI was linked with an adjusted risk of about the same magnitude.

Drawn from the National Cardiovascular TAVR Registry, which is maintained jointly by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology, data were analyzed on more than 100,000 TAVRs performed during 2012-2018. A subset of TAVRs performed between January 2016 and June 2018 served as a source of trends in what Dr. Julien described as the “modern era” of this procedure.

The incidence of AKI overall was about 10%, but rates were higher at the earliest time point in the analysis and fell modestly over the study period for all three stages. In a logistic regression analysis, the factors associated with the greatest odds ratio of developing AKI in patients following TAVR were conversion to open heart surgery (OR, 10.84, P less than .001), nonfemoral access (OR, 2.33; P less than .001), anemia (OR, 1.90; P less than .001), general versus moderate sedation (OR, 1.62; P less than .001), diabetes (OR, 1.61; P less than .001), and cardiogenic shock within 24 hours (OR, 1.60; P less than .023).

Other factors with a significant but lower relative risk association with AKI included a high contrast volume (OR, 1.004; P less than .001), use of a self-expanding valve (HR, 1.22; P = .009), severe lung disease (OR, 1.21; P = .043) and prior peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.20; P = .043).

“The message from these data is that there appears to be a cluster of patients who are unstable at the time of their procedure and are more likely to develop the most severe forms of AKI,” Dr. Julien reported.

The higher rate of AKI in patients who have diabetes is “not surprising,” but several of the factors associated with AKI are potentially modifiable. This includes choices in regard to sedation and arterial access. The value of modifying the amount of contrast is less clear, because the volume of contrast was no longer significant after an adjustment with multivariate analysis.

In fact, all of these factors require validation. Dr. Julien warned that neither the cause of AKI nor its temporal relationship to TAVR could be consistently determined from the registry data. In addition, retrospective analyses always include the potential for unrecognized residual confounders.

Still, these data are useful for drawing attention to the fact that AKI is a common complication of TAVR and one that is associated with adverse outcomes, including reduced survival at 1 year.

“The factors taken from these data might be useful to help identify patients who are at risk of the most severe forms of AKI and, hopefully, lead to prevention strategies that take these characteristics into consideration,” Dr. Julien said.

Dr. Julien reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Acute kidney injury (AKI), a potentially modifiable risk factor in some cases, predicts increased mortality within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve transplantation (TAVR), according to an analysis of a U.S. registry presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“After adjustment, there are higher rates of all-cause mortality regardless of the severity of AKI,” reported Howard M. Julien, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Relative to the absence of AKI (stage 0), the hazard ratio for death at 1 year was more than threefold greater (HR, 3.26), even for those with stage 1 AKI. When unadjusted for covariates, it remained more than twice as high (HR, 2.67; P less than .001), Dr. Julien reported.

For stage 3 AKI, the unadjusted risk was more than nine times higher and remained roughly seven times greater after adjustment (HR, 7.04; P less than .001). Stage 2 AKI was linked with an adjusted risk of about the same magnitude.

Drawn from the National Cardiovascular TAVR Registry, which is maintained jointly by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology, data were analyzed on more than 100,000 TAVRs performed during 2012-2018. A subset of TAVRs performed between January 2016 and June 2018 served as a source of trends in what Dr. Julien described as the “modern era” of this procedure.

The incidence of AKI overall was about 10%, but rates were higher at the earliest time point in the analysis and fell modestly over the study period for all three stages. In a logistic regression analysis, the factors associated with the greatest odds ratio of developing AKI in patients following TAVR were conversion to open heart surgery (OR, 10.84, P less than .001), nonfemoral access (OR, 2.33; P less than .001), anemia (OR, 1.90; P less than .001), general versus moderate sedation (OR, 1.62; P less than .001), diabetes (OR, 1.61; P less than .001), and cardiogenic shock within 24 hours (OR, 1.60; P less than .023).

Other factors with a significant but lower relative risk association with AKI included a high contrast volume (OR, 1.004; P less than .001), use of a self-expanding valve (HR, 1.22; P = .009), severe lung disease (OR, 1.21; P = .043) and prior peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.20; P = .043).

“The message from these data is that there appears to be a cluster of patients who are unstable at the time of their procedure and are more likely to develop the most severe forms of AKI,” Dr. Julien reported.

The higher rate of AKI in patients who have diabetes is “not surprising,” but several of the factors associated with AKI are potentially modifiable. This includes choices in regard to sedation and arterial access. The value of modifying the amount of contrast is less clear, because the volume of contrast was no longer significant after an adjustment with multivariate analysis.

In fact, all of these factors require validation. Dr. Julien warned that neither the cause of AKI nor its temporal relationship to TAVR could be consistently determined from the registry data. In addition, retrospective analyses always include the potential for unrecognized residual confounders.

Still, these data are useful for drawing attention to the fact that AKI is a common complication of TAVR and one that is associated with adverse outcomes, including reduced survival at 1 year.

“The factors taken from these data might be useful to help identify patients who are at risk of the most severe forms of AKI and, hopefully, lead to prevention strategies that take these characteristics into consideration,” Dr. Julien said.

Dr. Julien reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Acute kidney injury (AKI), a potentially modifiable risk factor in some cases, predicts increased mortality within the first year after transcatheter aortic valve transplantation (TAVR), according to an analysis of a U.S. registry presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“After adjustment, there are higher rates of all-cause mortality regardless of the severity of AKI,” reported Howard M. Julien, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Relative to the absence of AKI (stage 0), the hazard ratio for death at 1 year was more than threefold greater (HR, 3.26), even for those with stage 1 AKI. When unadjusted for covariates, it remained more than twice as high (HR, 2.67; P less than .001), Dr. Julien reported.

For stage 3 AKI, the unadjusted risk was more than nine times higher and remained roughly seven times greater after adjustment (HR, 7.04; P less than .001). Stage 2 AKI was linked with an adjusted risk of about the same magnitude.

Drawn from the National Cardiovascular TAVR Registry, which is maintained jointly by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology, data were analyzed on more than 100,000 TAVRs performed during 2012-2018. A subset of TAVRs performed between January 2016 and June 2018 served as a source of trends in what Dr. Julien described as the “modern era” of this procedure.

The incidence of AKI overall was about 10%, but rates were higher at the earliest time point in the analysis and fell modestly over the study period for all three stages. In a logistic regression analysis, the factors associated with the greatest odds ratio of developing AKI in patients following TAVR were conversion to open heart surgery (OR, 10.84, P less than .001), nonfemoral access (OR, 2.33; P less than .001), anemia (OR, 1.90; P less than .001), general versus moderate sedation (OR, 1.62; P less than .001), diabetes (OR, 1.61; P less than .001), and cardiogenic shock within 24 hours (OR, 1.60; P less than .023).

Other factors with a significant but lower relative risk association with AKI included a high contrast volume (OR, 1.004; P less than .001), use of a self-expanding valve (HR, 1.22; P = .009), severe lung disease (OR, 1.21; P = .043) and prior peripheral artery disease (HR, 1.20; P = .043).

“The message from these data is that there appears to be a cluster of patients who are unstable at the time of their procedure and are more likely to develop the most severe forms of AKI,” Dr. Julien reported.

The higher rate of AKI in patients who have diabetes is “not surprising,” but several of the factors associated with AKI are potentially modifiable. This includes choices in regard to sedation and arterial access. The value of modifying the amount of contrast is less clear, because the volume of contrast was no longer significant after an adjustment with multivariate analysis.

In fact, all of these factors require validation. Dr. Julien warned that neither the cause of AKI nor its temporal relationship to TAVR could be consistently determined from the registry data. In addition, retrospective analyses always include the potential for unrecognized residual confounders.

Still, these data are useful for drawing attention to the fact that AKI is a common complication of TAVR and one that is associated with adverse outcomes, including reduced survival at 1 year.

“The factors taken from these data might be useful to help identify patients who are at risk of the most severe forms of AKI and, hopefully, lead to prevention strategies that take these characteristics into consideration,” Dr. Julien said.

Dr. Julien reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

ORLANDO – For critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, a strategy of no sedation resulted in a mortality rate that was not significantly different from a strategy of light sedation with interruption, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial.

The lack of sedation did significantly improve certain secondary endpoints, including a reduced number of thromboembolic events and preservation of physical function, according to Palle Toft, PhD, DMSc, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital.

However, the 90-day mortality rate was 42.4% in the no-sedation group versus 37.0% in the sedation group in the NONSEDA study, which was intended to test the hypothesis that mortality would be lower in the no-sedation group.

That 5.4 percentage point difference between arms in NONSEDA was not statistically significant (P = .65) in results of the study, presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and concurrently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yet that mortality trend is in the “opposite direction” of an earlier, single-center trial by Dr. Toft and colleagues, noted Claude Guérin, MD, PhD, in a related editorial that also appeared in the journal. In that earlier study, the reported hospital mortality rates were 36% for no sedation and 47% for sedation with daily interruption.

“The results from this trial [NONSEDA] are important because they arouse concern about omitting sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and reinforce the need to monitor sedation clinically, with the aim of discontinuing it as early as possible or at least interrupting it daily,” Dr. Guérin wrote in his editorial.

That said, the earlier, single-center trial was not statistically powered to show between-group differences in mortality, Dr. Toft and coauthors wrote in their journal article.

In his presentation, Dr. Toft emphasized that light sedation with a wake-up trial was “comparable” with no sedation with regard to mortality.

“I think my main message is that we have to individualize patient treatment,” Dr. Toft told attendees at a late-breaking literature session. “Many patients would benefit from nonsedation, and some would benefit by light sedation with a daily wake-up trial. We have to respect patient autonomy, and try to establish a two-way communication with patients in 2020.”

Sandra L. Kane-Gill, PharmD, treasurer of SCCM and assistant professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh, said that current SCCM guidelines recommend using light sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults.

“I think we should stay consistent with what the guidelines are saying,” Dr. Kane-Gill said in an interview. “How you do that may vary, but targeting light sedation is consistent with what the evidence is suggesting in those guidelines.”

The depth of sedation between the no-sedation group in the light sedation group in the present study was not as great as the investigators had anticipated, which may explain the lack of statistically significant difference in mortality, according to Dr. Kane-Gill.

According to the report, 38.4% of patients in the no-sedation group received medication for sedation during their ICU stay, while Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scores increased in both groups, indicating a more alert state in both groups.

The multicenter NONSEDA trial included 700 mechanically ventilated ICU patients randomized either to no sedation or to light sedation, such that the patient was arousable, with daily interruption.

Previous studies have shown that daily interruption of sedation reduced mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, and mortality in comparison with no interruption, the investigators noted.

While mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the no-sedation and light-sedation approaches, no sedation reduced thromboembolic events, Dr. Toft said at the meeting. The number of thrombolic events within 90 days was 10 (5%) in the sedation group and 1 (0.5%) in the no-sedation group (P less than .05), according to the reported data.

Likewise, several measures of physical function significantly improved in an a prior defined subgroup of 200 patients, he said. Those measures included hand grip at extubation and ICU discharge, as well as scores on the Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living.

Nonsedation might improve kidney function, based on other reported outcomes of the study, Dr. Toft said. The number of coma- and delirium-free days was 3.0 in the no-sedation group versus 1.0 in the sedation group (P less than .01), he added.

The benefits of no sedation may extend beyond objective changes in health outcomes, according to Dr. Toft. “The patients are able to communicate with the staff, they might be able to enjoy food, in the evening they can look at the television instead of being sedated – and they can be mobilized and they can write their opinion about the treatments to the doctor, and in this way, you have two-way communication,” he explained in his presentation.

Dr. Toft reported that he had no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Toft P et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906759.

ORLANDO – For critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, a strategy of no sedation resulted in a mortality rate that was not significantly different from a strategy of light sedation with interruption, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial.

The lack of sedation did significantly improve certain secondary endpoints, including a reduced number of thromboembolic events and preservation of physical function, according to Palle Toft, PhD, DMSc, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital.

However, the 90-day mortality rate was 42.4% in the no-sedation group versus 37.0% in the sedation group in the NONSEDA study, which was intended to test the hypothesis that mortality would be lower in the no-sedation group.

That 5.4 percentage point difference between arms in NONSEDA was not statistically significant (P = .65) in results of the study, presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and concurrently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yet that mortality trend is in the “opposite direction” of an earlier, single-center trial by Dr. Toft and colleagues, noted Claude Guérin, MD, PhD, in a related editorial that also appeared in the journal. In that earlier study, the reported hospital mortality rates were 36% for no sedation and 47% for sedation with daily interruption.

“The results from this trial [NONSEDA] are important because they arouse concern about omitting sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and reinforce the need to monitor sedation clinically, with the aim of discontinuing it as early as possible or at least interrupting it daily,” Dr. Guérin wrote in his editorial.

That said, the earlier, single-center trial was not statistically powered to show between-group differences in mortality, Dr. Toft and coauthors wrote in their journal article.

In his presentation, Dr. Toft emphasized that light sedation with a wake-up trial was “comparable” with no sedation with regard to mortality.

“I think my main message is that we have to individualize patient treatment,” Dr. Toft told attendees at a late-breaking literature session. “Many patients would benefit from nonsedation, and some would benefit by light sedation with a daily wake-up trial. We have to respect patient autonomy, and try to establish a two-way communication with patients in 2020.”

Sandra L. Kane-Gill, PharmD, treasurer of SCCM and assistant professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh, said that current SCCM guidelines recommend using light sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults.

“I think we should stay consistent with what the guidelines are saying,” Dr. Kane-Gill said in an interview. “How you do that may vary, but targeting light sedation is consistent with what the evidence is suggesting in those guidelines.”

The depth of sedation between the no-sedation group in the light sedation group in the present study was not as great as the investigators had anticipated, which may explain the lack of statistically significant difference in mortality, according to Dr. Kane-Gill.

According to the report, 38.4% of patients in the no-sedation group received medication for sedation during their ICU stay, while Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scores increased in both groups, indicating a more alert state in both groups.

The multicenter NONSEDA trial included 700 mechanically ventilated ICU patients randomized either to no sedation or to light sedation, such that the patient was arousable, with daily interruption.

Previous studies have shown that daily interruption of sedation reduced mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, and mortality in comparison with no interruption, the investigators noted.

While mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the no-sedation and light-sedation approaches, no sedation reduced thromboembolic events, Dr. Toft said at the meeting. The number of thrombolic events within 90 days was 10 (5%) in the sedation group and 1 (0.5%) in the no-sedation group (P less than .05), according to the reported data.

Likewise, several measures of physical function significantly improved in an a prior defined subgroup of 200 patients, he said. Those measures included hand grip at extubation and ICU discharge, as well as scores on the Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living.

Nonsedation might improve kidney function, based on other reported outcomes of the study, Dr. Toft said. The number of coma- and delirium-free days was 3.0 in the no-sedation group versus 1.0 in the sedation group (P less than .01), he added.

The benefits of no sedation may extend beyond objective changes in health outcomes, according to Dr. Toft. “The patients are able to communicate with the staff, they might be able to enjoy food, in the evening they can look at the television instead of being sedated – and they can be mobilized and they can write their opinion about the treatments to the doctor, and in this way, you have two-way communication,” he explained in his presentation.

Dr. Toft reported that he had no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Toft P et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906759.

ORLANDO – For critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, a strategy of no sedation resulted in a mortality rate that was not significantly different from a strategy of light sedation with interruption, according to results of a multicenter, randomized trial.

The lack of sedation did significantly improve certain secondary endpoints, including a reduced number of thromboembolic events and preservation of physical function, according to Palle Toft, PhD, DMSc, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital.

However, the 90-day mortality rate was 42.4% in the no-sedation group versus 37.0% in the sedation group in the NONSEDA study, which was intended to test the hypothesis that mortality would be lower in the no-sedation group.

That 5.4 percentage point difference between arms in NONSEDA was not statistically significant (P = .65) in results of the study, presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and concurrently published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Yet that mortality trend is in the “opposite direction” of an earlier, single-center trial by Dr. Toft and colleagues, noted Claude Guérin, MD, PhD, in a related editorial that also appeared in the journal. In that earlier study, the reported hospital mortality rates were 36% for no sedation and 47% for sedation with daily interruption.

“The results from this trial [NONSEDA] are important because they arouse concern about omitting sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and reinforce the need to monitor sedation clinically, with the aim of discontinuing it as early as possible or at least interrupting it daily,” Dr. Guérin wrote in his editorial.

That said, the earlier, single-center trial was not statistically powered to show between-group differences in mortality, Dr. Toft and coauthors wrote in their journal article.

In his presentation, Dr. Toft emphasized that light sedation with a wake-up trial was “comparable” with no sedation with regard to mortality.

“I think my main message is that we have to individualize patient treatment,” Dr. Toft told attendees at a late-breaking literature session. “Many patients would benefit from nonsedation, and some would benefit by light sedation with a daily wake-up trial. We have to respect patient autonomy, and try to establish a two-way communication with patients in 2020.”

Sandra L. Kane-Gill, PharmD, treasurer of SCCM and assistant professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh, said that current SCCM guidelines recommend using light sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults.

“I think we should stay consistent with what the guidelines are saying,” Dr. Kane-Gill said in an interview. “How you do that may vary, but targeting light sedation is consistent with what the evidence is suggesting in those guidelines.”

The depth of sedation between the no-sedation group in the light sedation group in the present study was not as great as the investigators had anticipated, which may explain the lack of statistically significant difference in mortality, according to Dr. Kane-Gill.

According to the report, 38.4% of patients in the no-sedation group received medication for sedation during their ICU stay, while Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scores increased in both groups, indicating a more alert state in both groups.

The multicenter NONSEDA trial included 700 mechanically ventilated ICU patients randomized either to no sedation or to light sedation, such that the patient was arousable, with daily interruption.

Previous studies have shown that daily interruption of sedation reduced mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, and mortality in comparison with no interruption, the investigators noted.

While mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between the no-sedation and light-sedation approaches, no sedation reduced thromboembolic events, Dr. Toft said at the meeting. The number of thrombolic events within 90 days was 10 (5%) in the sedation group and 1 (0.5%) in the no-sedation group (P less than .05), according to the reported data.

Likewise, several measures of physical function significantly improved in an a prior defined subgroup of 200 patients, he said. Those measures included hand grip at extubation and ICU discharge, as well as scores on the Barthel Index for Activities of Daily Living.

Nonsedation might improve kidney function, based on other reported outcomes of the study, Dr. Toft said. The number of coma- and delirium-free days was 3.0 in the no-sedation group versus 1.0 in the sedation group (P less than .01), he added.

The benefits of no sedation may extend beyond objective changes in health outcomes, according to Dr. Toft. “The patients are able to communicate with the staff, they might be able to enjoy food, in the evening they can look at the television instead of being sedated – and they can be mobilized and they can write their opinion about the treatments to the doctor, and in this way, you have two-way communication,” he explained in his presentation.

Dr. Toft reported that he had no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Toft P et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906759.

The first death in the United States from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Washington state man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, state health officials announced on Feb 29. At the same time, officials there are investigating a possible COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility.

Washington state officials reported two other presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, both of whom are associated with LifeCare of Kirkland, Washington. One is a woman in her 70s who is a resident at the facility and the other is a woman in her 40s who is a health care worker at the facility.

Additionally, many residents and staff members at the facility have reported respiratory symptoms, according to Jeff Duchin, MD, health officer for public health in Seattle and King County. Among the more than 100 residents at the facility, 27 have respiratory symptoms; while among the 180 staff members, 25 have reported symptoms.

Overall, these reports bring the total number of U.S. COVID-19 cases detected by the public health system to 22, though that number is expected to climb as these investigations continue.

The general risk to the American public is still low, including residents in long-term care facilities, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during the Feb. 29 press briefing. Older people are are higher risk, however, and long-term care facilities should emphasize handwashing and the early identification of individuals with symptoms.

Dr. Duchin added that health care workers who are sick should stay home and that visitors should be screened for symptoms, the same advice offered to limit the spread of influenza at long-term care facilities.

Whitehouse.gov

The CDC briefing comes after President Trump held his own press conference at the White House where he identified the person who had died as being a woman in her 50s who was medically at risk.

During that press conference, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the current pattern of disease with COVID-19 suggests that 75%-80% of patients will have mild illness and recover, while 15%-20% will require advanced medical care.

For the most part, the more serious cases will occur in those who are elderly or have underlying medical conditions. There is “no indication” that individuals who recover from the virus are becoming re-infected, Dr. Fauci said.

The administration also announced a series of actions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and responding to it. On March 2, President Trump will meet with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry at the White House to discuss vaccine development. The administration is also working to ensure an adequate supply of face masks. Vice President Mike Pence said there are currently more than 40 million masks available, but that the administration has received promises of 35 million more masks per month from manufacturers. Access to masks will be prioritized for high-risk health care workers, Vice President Pence said. “The average American does not need to go out and buy a mask,” he added.

Additionally, Vice President Pence announced new travel restrictions with Iran that would bar entry to the United States for any foreign national who visited Iran in the last 14 days. The federal government is also advising Americans not to travel to the regions in Italy and South Korea that have been most affected by COVID-19. The government is also working with officials in Italy and South Korea to conduct medical screening of anyone coming into the United States from those countries.

mschneider@mdedge.com

The first death in the United States from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Washington state man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, state health officials announced on Feb 29. At the same time, officials there are investigating a possible COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility.

Washington state officials reported two other presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, both of whom are associated with LifeCare of Kirkland, Washington. One is a woman in her 70s who is a resident at the facility and the other is a woman in her 40s who is a health care worker at the facility.

Additionally, many residents and staff members at the facility have reported respiratory symptoms, according to Jeff Duchin, MD, health officer for public health in Seattle and King County. Among the more than 100 residents at the facility, 27 have respiratory symptoms; while among the 180 staff members, 25 have reported symptoms.

Overall, these reports bring the total number of U.S. COVID-19 cases detected by the public health system to 22, though that number is expected to climb as these investigations continue.

The general risk to the American public is still low, including residents in long-term care facilities, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during the Feb. 29 press briefing. Older people are are higher risk, however, and long-term care facilities should emphasize handwashing and the early identification of individuals with symptoms.

Dr. Duchin added that health care workers who are sick should stay home and that visitors should be screened for symptoms, the same advice offered to limit the spread of influenza at long-term care facilities.

Whitehouse.gov

The CDC briefing comes after President Trump held his own press conference at the White House where he identified the person who had died as being a woman in her 50s who was medically at risk.

During that press conference, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the current pattern of disease with COVID-19 suggests that 75%-80% of patients will have mild illness and recover, while 15%-20% will require advanced medical care.

For the most part, the more serious cases will occur in those who are elderly or have underlying medical conditions. There is “no indication” that individuals who recover from the virus are becoming re-infected, Dr. Fauci said.

The administration also announced a series of actions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and responding to it. On March 2, President Trump will meet with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry at the White House to discuss vaccine development. The administration is also working to ensure an adequate supply of face masks. Vice President Mike Pence said there are currently more than 40 million masks available, but that the administration has received promises of 35 million more masks per month from manufacturers. Access to masks will be prioritized for high-risk health care workers, Vice President Pence said. “The average American does not need to go out and buy a mask,” he added.

Additionally, Vice President Pence announced new travel restrictions with Iran that would bar entry to the United States for any foreign national who visited Iran in the last 14 days. The federal government is also advising Americans not to travel to the regions in Italy and South Korea that have been most affected by COVID-19. The government is also working with officials in Italy and South Korea to conduct medical screening of anyone coming into the United States from those countries.

mschneider@mdedge.com

The first death in the United States from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was a Washington state man in his 50s who had underlying health conditions, state health officials announced on Feb 29. At the same time, officials there are investigating a possible COVID-19 outbreak at a long-term care facility.

Washington state officials reported two other presumptive positive cases of COVID-19, both of whom are associated with LifeCare of Kirkland, Washington. One is a woman in her 70s who is a resident at the facility and the other is a woman in her 40s who is a health care worker at the facility.

Additionally, many residents and staff members at the facility have reported respiratory symptoms, according to Jeff Duchin, MD, health officer for public health in Seattle and King County. Among the more than 100 residents at the facility, 27 have respiratory symptoms; while among the 180 staff members, 25 have reported symptoms.

Overall, these reports bring the total number of U.S. COVID-19 cases detected by the public health system to 22, though that number is expected to climb as these investigations continue.

The general risk to the American public is still low, including residents in long-term care facilities, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said during the Feb. 29 press briefing. Older people are are higher risk, however, and long-term care facilities should emphasize handwashing and the early identification of individuals with symptoms.

Dr. Duchin added that health care workers who are sick should stay home and that visitors should be screened for symptoms, the same advice offered to limit the spread of influenza at long-term care facilities.

Whitehouse.gov

The CDC briefing comes after President Trump held his own press conference at the White House where he identified the person who had died as being a woman in her 50s who was medically at risk.

During that press conference, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the current pattern of disease with COVID-19 suggests that 75%-80% of patients will have mild illness and recover, while 15%-20% will require advanced medical care.

For the most part, the more serious cases will occur in those who are elderly or have underlying medical conditions. There is “no indication” that individuals who recover from the virus are becoming re-infected, Dr. Fauci said.

The administration also announced a series of actions aimed at slowing the spread of the virus and responding to it. On March 2, President Trump will meet with leaders in the pharmaceutical industry at the White House to discuss vaccine development. The administration is also working to ensure an adequate supply of face masks. Vice President Mike Pence said there are currently more than 40 million masks available, but that the administration has received promises of 35 million more masks per month from manufacturers. Access to masks will be prioritized for high-risk health care workers, Vice President Pence said. “The average American does not need to go out and buy a mask,” he added.

Additionally, Vice President Pence announced new travel restrictions with Iran that would bar entry to the United States for any foreign national who visited Iran in the last 14 days. The federal government is also advising Americans not to travel to the regions in Italy and South Korea that have been most affected by COVID-19. The government is also working with officials in Italy and South Korea to conduct medical screening of anyone coming into the United States from those countries.

mschneider@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Following a percutaneous intervention with a second-generation drug-eluting stent, a judicious interruption of antiplatelet therapy for noncardiac surgery does not increase risk of net adverse clinical events, according to a large dataset presented at CRT 2020 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

Drawn from a multicenter registry in South Korea, it is likely that those in whom antiplatelet therapy was stopped during the perioperative period were at a lower relative risk, but the data remain reassuring, according to Jung-Sun Kim, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.

In the registry of patients with a second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) undergoing noncardiac surgery, “antiplatelet therapy was discontinued in almost half of the patients,” Dr. Kim reported. When these patients were compared with those who did not discontinue antiplatelet therapy, the data, called an “exploratory analysis,” suggested “no increased risk” of a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or major bleeding.

The retrospective analysis involved 3,582 percutaneous intervention (PCI) patients who had received a second-generation DES and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. In 1,750 of these patients, antiplatelet therapy was temporarily discontinued. The remaining 1,832 remained on some form of antiplatelet treatment, whether aspirin, a P2Y12 inhibitor, or dual-antiplatelet therapy.

There were no significant differences in crude rates between groups in rates at 30 days of a composite endpoint of MACE, major bleeding as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, or net adverse clinical events (NACE), a composite of adverse events that included MACE and major bleeding.

Relative risks for antiplatelet discontinuation remained generally low even after multiple stratifications performed to explore different variables, including the types of antiplatelet therapy being taken at the time of discontinuation, the types of noncardiac surgery performed, and the duration of discontinuation.

Of these variables, the interval of discontinuation appeared to be most relevant. Antiplatelet discontinuation of 3 days or less appeared to be associated with a higher risk of bleeding, although the difference did not reach significance. Discontinuations of 9 days or more were associated with increased risk of MACE, and this difference did reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 3.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-8.38).

“Discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy for a period of 4-8 days appears to be optimal,” Dr. Kim said.

In general, risk of MACE, major bleeding, or NACE could not be linked to type of surgery, with the exception of intra-abdominal surgery. For this procedure, there appeared to be a lower risk of MACE in those who discontinued relative to those who remained on antiplatelet therapy, Dr. Kim reported.

Importantly, because of the fact that the decision to stop antiplatelet treatment was made by treating physicians, the characteristics of those who discontinued or remained on antiplatelet therapy differed meaningfully. Specifically, those in the discontinuation group were younger and were less likely to have additional risks for thrombotic events such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease. In those who discontinued antiplatelets, the average time since PCI was 23 months versus 16 months in the continuation group.

In addition, “more of the patients underwent higher-risk surgeries in the discontinuation group,” Dr. Kim added.

Relative rates of MACE and NACE remained similar even after risk adjustment, but Dr. Kim advised that the data should be “interpreted cautiously” because of the retrospective nature of the analysis.

A panel of experts invited to comment on the presentation agreed. These data were considered reassuring for clinicians considering an interruption of antiplatelet therapy following PCI with a second-generation DES, but there was uncertainty about their value for defining which patients are the best candidates.

The decision to discontinue antiplatelet drugs for noncardiac surgery is an important and common dilemma, but these data might be best characterized as “a testament to Korean cardiologists making good decisions,” said David J. Moliterno, MD, chairman of the department of medicine at University of Kentucky Health Care, Lexington.

Dr. Kim reported no potential financial conflicts of interest.