CAD & Atherosclerosis

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

Aspirin may accelerate the progression of advanced cancers and lead to an earlier death as a result, new data from the ASPREE study suggest.

Sage Ross, Wikimedia Commons

The results showed that patients 65 years and older who started taking daily low-dose aspirin had a 19% higher chance of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer, a 22% higher chance of being diagnosed with a stage 4 tumor, and a 31% increased risk of death from stage 4 cancer, when compared with patients who took a placebo.

John J. McNeil, MBBS, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues detailed these findings in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“If confirmed, the clinical implications of these findings could be important for the use of aspirin in an older population,” the authors wrote.

When results of the ASPREE study were first reported in 2018, they “raised important concerns,” Ernest Hawk, MD, and Karen Colbert Maresso wrote in an editorial related to the current publication.

“Unlike ARRIVE, ASCEND, and nearly all prior primary prevention CVD [cardiovascular disease] trials of aspirin, ASPREE surprisingly demonstrated increased all-cause mortality in the aspirin group, which appeared to be driven largely by an increase in cancer-related deaths,” wrote the editorialists, who are both from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Even though the ASPREE investigators have now taken a deeper dive into their data, the findings “neither explain nor alleviate the concerns raised by the initial ASPREE report,” the editorialists noted.
 

ASPREE design and results

ASPREE is a multicenter, double-blind trial of 19,114 older adults living in Australia (n = 16,703) or the United States (n = 2,411). Most patients were 70 years or older at baseline. However, the U.S. group also included patients 65 years and older who were racial/ethnic minorities (n = 564).

Patients were randomized to receive 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin daily (n = 9,525) or matching placebo (n = 9,589) from March 2010 through December 2014.

At inclusion, all participants were free from cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability. A previous history of cancer was not used to exclude participants, and 19.1% of patients had cancer at randomization. Most patients (89%) had not used aspirin regularly before entering the trial.

At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, there were 981 incident cancer events in the aspirin-treated group and 952 in the placebo-treated group, with an overall incident cancer rate of 10.1%.

Of the 1,933 patients with newly diagnosed cancer, 65.7% had a localized cancer, 18.8% had a new metastatic cancer, 5.8% had metastatic disease from an existing cancer, and 9.7% had a new hematologic or lymphatic cancer.

A quarter of cancer patients (n = 495) died as a result of their malignancy, with 52 dying from a cancer they already had at randomization.

Aspirin was not associated with the risk of first incident cancer diagnosis or incident localized cancer diagnosis. The hazard ratios were 1.04 for all incident cancers (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.14) and 0.99 for incident localized cancers (95% CI, 0.89-1.11).

However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of metastatic cancer and cancer presenting at stage 4. The HR for metastatic cancer was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.43), and the HR for newly diagnosed stage 4 cancer was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.02-1.45).

Furthermore, “an increased progression to death was observed amongst those randomized to aspirin, regardless of whether the initial cancer presentation had been localized or metastatic,” the investigators wrote.

The HRs for death were 1.35 for all cancers (95% CI, 1.13-1.61), 1.47 for localized cancers (95% CI, 1.07-2.02), and 1.30 for metastatic cancers (95% CI, 1.03-1.63).

“Deaths were particularly high among those on aspirin who were diagnosed with advanced solid cancers,” study author Andrew Chan, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in a press statement.

Indeed, HRs for death in patients with solid tumors presenting at stage 3 and 4 were a respective 2.11 (95% CI, 1.03-4.33) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.04-1.64). This suggests a possible adverse effect of aspirin on the growth of cancers once they have already developed in older adults, Dr. Chan said.
 

Where does that leave aspirin for cancer prevention?

“Although these results suggest that we should be cautious about starting aspirin therapy in otherwise healthy older adults, this does not mean that individuals who are already taking aspirin – particularly if they began taking it at a younger age – should stop their aspirin regimen,” Dr. Chan said.

There are decades of data supporting the use of daily aspirin to prevent multiple cancer types, particularly colorectal cancer, in individuals under the age of 70 years. In a recent meta-analysis, for example, regular aspirin use was linked to a 27% reduced risk for colorectal cancer, a 33% reduced risk for squamous cell esophageal cancer, a 39% decreased risk for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia, a 36% decreased risk for stomach cancer, a 38% decreased risk for hepatobiliary tract cancer, and a 22% decreased risk for pancreatic cancer.

While these figures are mostly based on observational and case-control studies, it “reaffirms the fact that, overall, when you look at all of the ages, that there is still a benefit of aspirin for cancer,” John Cuzick, PhD, of Queen Mary University of London (England), said in an interview.

In fact, the meta-analysis goes as far as suggesting that perhaps the dose of aspirin being used is too low, with the authors noting that there was a 35% risk reduction in colorectal cancer with a dose of 325 mg daily. That’s a new finding, Dr. Cuzick said.

He noted that the ASPREE study largely consists of patients 70 years of age or older, and the authors “draw some conclusions which we can’t ignore about potential safety.”

One of the safety concerns is the increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, which is why Dr. Cuzick and colleagues previously recommended caution in the use of aspirin to prevent cancer in elderly patients. The group published a study in 2015 that suggested a benefit of taking aspirin daily for 5-10 years in patients aged 50-65 years, but the risk/benefit ratio was unclear for patients 70 years and older.

The ASPREE data now add to those uncertainties and suggest “there may be some side effects that we do not understand,” Dr. Cuzick said.

“I’m still optimistic that aspirin is going to be important for cancer prevention, but probably focusing on ages 50-70,” he added. “[The ASPREE data] reinforce the caution that we have to take in terms of trying to understand what the side effects are and what’s going on at these older ages.”

Dr. Cuzick is currently leading the AsCaP Project, an international effort to better understand why aspirin might work in preventing some cancer types but not others. AsCaP is supported by Cancer Research UK and also includes Dr. Chan among the researchers attempting to find out which patients may benefit the most from aspirin and which may be at greater risk of adverse effects.

The ASPREE trial was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Cancer Institute, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Several ASPREE investigators disclosed financial relationships with Bayer Pharma. The editorialists had no conflicts of interest. Dr. Cuzick has been an advisory board member for Bayer in the past.

SOURCE: McNeil J et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Aug 11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djaa114.
 

The coronavirus may have quashed plans to socialize and stroll the canals of Amsterdam while at this year’s European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, but organizers are promising a historic digital experience that will “once again, be a celebration of discovery and ground-breaking science.”

“My message — if I have to choose only one thing why ESC 2020 will be a historic event — is that the physician working at the Cleveland Clinic, who was planning to attend this year in Amsterdam, as well as the colleague in a bush hospital in Uganda, who would have never have dreamed to be part of the ESC Congress, both will have for the first time the same access at the same time to knowledge shared at the worldwide leading cardiovascular meeting,” Marco Roffi, MD, co-chair of the scientific program, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Taking a page from the American College of Cardiology, which set the virtual bar early in the pandemic with its highly interactive ACC 2020, ESC is taking some 80 Hot Line, clinical practice guidelines, and special sessions live with question-and-answer interactions and panel discussions.

The latest COVID-19 research and four new guideline documents — including recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease — will be featured at the ESC Congress 2020, scheduled for August 29 to September 1.

Presentations will be shorter and sessions more focused, but more than 500 scientific and educational sessions will be streamed in addition to more than 4000 abstracts available live or on demand as full presentations or e-posters, said Roffi, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

To pull off the virtual event, a digital studio in Amsterdam will host hundreds of key opinion leaders, and ESC employed more than 1000 satellite studios around the world to gather contributions from scientists and experts with the help of 70 behind-the-scenes experts.

Nevertheless, a “strategic decision” was made to provide free access to the event and its content for 30 days — a strategy that has attracted some 58,000 registrants thus far, up from a record 32,000 attendees at last year’s congress in Paris, Roffi said.

“Obviously, the income will not be the same as a physical congress, but we felt there was too much at stake to make a compromise,” he said. “We believe we are the leaders in cardiovascular meetings in the physical ones and we want to keep this position even in the new era. And we believe this is the beginning of a new era in whatever form will be.”

Hot Line Sessions 1-3, Saturday (14:00 CEST)

The Hot Line sessions will feature 13 clinical trials and kick off with EMPEROR-Reduced, which compared the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) added to standard care in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without diabetes.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim already announced the trial met its composite primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization risk but the details will be important given the SGLT2 inhibitors› rapid shift beyond diabetes to HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Results presented at ESC 2019 from the landmark DAPA-HF trial led to the recent new indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for HFrEF in the absence of diabetes. New data will be released in a Sunday Hot Line session looking at the SGLT2 inhibitor among diabetic and nondiabetic CKD patients in DAPA-CKD, which was halted early because of overwhelming efficacy.

As the indication evolved, the SGLT2 inhibitors became truly cardiovascular disease drugs, Roffi said, “so all the cardiologists will have to become familiar with these agents.”

Hot Line 2 will look at the oral cardiac myosin inhibitor mavacamten as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous interventions to treat obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The first-in-class investigational agent is thought to reduce the hypercontractility characteristic of HCM by inhibiting excessive actin-myosin cross-bridges, and it showed promise in the recent phase 2 dose-finding MAVERICK HCM trial.

Investigators are expected to flesh out details from the 251-patient phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, which reported functional and symptomatic gains with once-daily dosing in top-line results released by developer MyoKardia.

“This is really a revolutionary way to treat — hopefully successfully — this very complex disease,” Roffi said.

Rounding out the day is the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, which has been almost 10 years in the making and examined whether early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation can prevent adverse outcomes in patients with AF compared with usual care alone based on the ESC 2010 AF treatment guidelines.

Hot Line Sessions 4-6, Sunday (14:00 CEST)

Hot Line 4 features the ATPCI study examining the addition of the oral antianginal agent trimetazidine to standard of care in 6007 patients with angina after recent successful percutaneous coronary intervention.

Next up is POPULAR-TAVI looking at aspirin with or without clopidogrel in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

“This is a dilemma that we have every day in the cath lab when we perform a TAVI because we have in front of us patients who, by definition, are at high bleeding risk, are old, and have comorbidities such as renal insufficiencies,” Roffi said. “I like this very much because it’s a very practical study. Whatever the response will be of this study, it will impact clinical practice.”

Hot Line 6 is devoted to the PARALLAX trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) with individualized medical therapy in 2569 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. The primary outcomes are 12-week change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and 24-week change in 6-minute walk distance.

Hot Line Sessions 7-9, Monday (14:00 CEST)

The next day starts with the timely topic of inflammation with the LoDoCo2 trial, in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomized to low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo on top of optimal medical therapy. The primary composite endpoint is CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.

Additional colchicine data also will be presented in a late-breaking science session on Saturday that includes the Australian COPS trial in acute coronary syndromes and new analyses from COLCOT, which demonstrated a 23% reduction in the risk of first ischemic CV events following an MI but no mortality benefit. The low-cost anti-inflammatory drug is also being tested in the mammoth 6000-patient phase 3 Colchicine Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COLCORONA) trial, expected to be completed by the end of September.

Hot Line 8 switches gears with the open-label randomized HOME-PE trial comparing outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE) in 1975 select patients based on either the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score, featured in the most recent ESC acute PE guidelines, or the HESTIA criteria, developed in the HESTIA study. The event-driven primary end point is the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death at 30 days.

Last up on Monday is a new analysis on the effects of lowering blood pressure for prevention of CV events across various BP levels from the BPLTTC, which is the largest resource of patient-level randomized clinical trial data, at more than 350,000 patients.


Tuesday Hot Line Sessions 10-12 (14:00 CEST)

The final day of the Congress ends with bang, with the randomized BRACE-CORONA trial examining the effect of continuing or suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in 700 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Although several cardiovascular societies including ESC recommend continuation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in COVID-19 patients, randomized data are lacking and patients have been rattled by early observations suggesting that ACE2 upregulation from RAAS antagonists could increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19.

“BRACE-CORONA will answer the question that everybody’s been asking, whether or not you should continue ARBs and ACE inhibitors in COVID-19 patients. This is a randomized trial and we are all very excited about it,” Roffi said.

COVID-19 will also be discussed in a late-breaking science session on Sunday and in three industry Q&A sessions scattered over the 4 days.

Rounding out the last Hot Line session is IMPACT-AFib, a claims database analysis of early vs delayed educational interventions to improve oral anticoagulation use in a whopping 80,000 patients with AF, and REALITY, a much-needed cost-effectiveness analysis of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in 630 patients with acute MI and anemia.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The coronavirus may have quashed plans to socialize and stroll the canals of Amsterdam while at this year’s European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, but organizers are promising a historic digital experience that will “once again, be a celebration of discovery and ground-breaking science.”

“My message — if I have to choose only one thing why ESC 2020 will be a historic event — is that the physician working at the Cleveland Clinic, who was planning to attend this year in Amsterdam, as well as the colleague in a bush hospital in Uganda, who would have never have dreamed to be part of the ESC Congress, both will have for the first time the same access at the same time to knowledge shared at the worldwide leading cardiovascular meeting,” Marco Roffi, MD, co-chair of the scientific program, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Taking a page from the American College of Cardiology, which set the virtual bar early in the pandemic with its highly interactive ACC 2020, ESC is taking some 80 Hot Line, clinical practice guidelines, and special sessions live with question-and-answer interactions and panel discussions.

The latest COVID-19 research and four new guideline documents — including recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease — will be featured at the ESC Congress 2020, scheduled for August 29 to September 1.

Presentations will be shorter and sessions more focused, but more than 500 scientific and educational sessions will be streamed in addition to more than 4000 abstracts available live or on demand as full presentations or e-posters, said Roffi, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

To pull off the virtual event, a digital studio in Amsterdam will host hundreds of key opinion leaders, and ESC employed more than 1000 satellite studios around the world to gather contributions from scientists and experts with the help of 70 behind-the-scenes experts.

Nevertheless, a “strategic decision” was made to provide free access to the event and its content for 30 days — a strategy that has attracted some 58,000 registrants thus far, up from a record 32,000 attendees at last year’s congress in Paris, Roffi said.

“Obviously, the income will not be the same as a physical congress, but we felt there was too much at stake to make a compromise,” he said. “We believe we are the leaders in cardiovascular meetings in the physical ones and we want to keep this position even in the new era. And we believe this is the beginning of a new era in whatever form will be.”

Hot Line Sessions 1-3, Saturday (14:00 CEST)

The Hot Line sessions will feature 13 clinical trials and kick off with EMPEROR-Reduced, which compared the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) added to standard care in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without diabetes.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim already announced the trial met its composite primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization risk but the details will be important given the SGLT2 inhibitors› rapid shift beyond diabetes to HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Results presented at ESC 2019 from the landmark DAPA-HF trial led to the recent new indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for HFrEF in the absence of diabetes. New data will be released in a Sunday Hot Line session looking at the SGLT2 inhibitor among diabetic and nondiabetic CKD patients in DAPA-CKD, which was halted early because of overwhelming efficacy.

As the indication evolved, the SGLT2 inhibitors became truly cardiovascular disease drugs, Roffi said, “so all the cardiologists will have to become familiar with these agents.”

Hot Line 2 will look at the oral cardiac myosin inhibitor mavacamten as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous interventions to treat obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The first-in-class investigational agent is thought to reduce the hypercontractility characteristic of HCM by inhibiting excessive actin-myosin cross-bridges, and it showed promise in the recent phase 2 dose-finding MAVERICK HCM trial.

Investigators are expected to flesh out details from the 251-patient phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, which reported functional and symptomatic gains with once-daily dosing in top-line results released by developer MyoKardia.

“This is really a revolutionary way to treat — hopefully successfully — this very complex disease,” Roffi said.

Rounding out the day is the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, which has been almost 10 years in the making and examined whether early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation can prevent adverse outcomes in patients with AF compared with usual care alone based on the ESC 2010 AF treatment guidelines.

Hot Line Sessions 4-6, Sunday (14:00 CEST)

Hot Line 4 features the ATPCI study examining the addition of the oral antianginal agent trimetazidine to standard of care in 6007 patients with angina after recent successful percutaneous coronary intervention.

Next up is POPULAR-TAVI looking at aspirin with or without clopidogrel in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

“This is a dilemma that we have every day in the cath lab when we perform a TAVI because we have in front of us patients who, by definition, are at high bleeding risk, are old, and have comorbidities such as renal insufficiencies,” Roffi said. “I like this very much because it’s a very practical study. Whatever the response will be of this study, it will impact clinical practice.”

Hot Line 6 is devoted to the PARALLAX trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) with individualized medical therapy in 2569 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. The primary outcomes are 12-week change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and 24-week change in 6-minute walk distance.

Hot Line Sessions 7-9, Monday (14:00 CEST)

The next day starts with the timely topic of inflammation with the LoDoCo2 trial, in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomized to low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo on top of optimal medical therapy. The primary composite endpoint is CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.

Additional colchicine data also will be presented in a late-breaking science session on Saturday that includes the Australian COPS trial in acute coronary syndromes and new analyses from COLCOT, which demonstrated a 23% reduction in the risk of first ischemic CV events following an MI but no mortality benefit. The low-cost anti-inflammatory drug is also being tested in the mammoth 6000-patient phase 3 Colchicine Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COLCORONA) trial, expected to be completed by the end of September.

Hot Line 8 switches gears with the open-label randomized HOME-PE trial comparing outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE) in 1975 select patients based on either the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score, featured in the most recent ESC acute PE guidelines, or the HESTIA criteria, developed in the HESTIA study. The event-driven primary end point is the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death at 30 days.

Last up on Monday is a new analysis on the effects of lowering blood pressure for prevention of CV events across various BP levels from the BPLTTC, which is the largest resource of patient-level randomized clinical trial data, at more than 350,000 patients.


Tuesday Hot Line Sessions 10-12 (14:00 CEST)

The final day of the Congress ends with bang, with the randomized BRACE-CORONA trial examining the effect of continuing or suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in 700 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Although several cardiovascular societies including ESC recommend continuation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in COVID-19 patients, randomized data are lacking and patients have been rattled by early observations suggesting that ACE2 upregulation from RAAS antagonists could increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19.

“BRACE-CORONA will answer the question that everybody’s been asking, whether or not you should continue ARBs and ACE inhibitors in COVID-19 patients. This is a randomized trial and we are all very excited about it,” Roffi said.

COVID-19 will also be discussed in a late-breaking science session on Sunday and in three industry Q&A sessions scattered over the 4 days.

Rounding out the last Hot Line session is IMPACT-AFib, a claims database analysis of early vs delayed educational interventions to improve oral anticoagulation use in a whopping 80,000 patients with AF, and REALITY, a much-needed cost-effectiveness analysis of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in 630 patients with acute MI and anemia.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The coronavirus may have quashed plans to socialize and stroll the canals of Amsterdam while at this year’s European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress, but organizers are promising a historic digital experience that will “once again, be a celebration of discovery and ground-breaking science.”

“My message — if I have to choose only one thing why ESC 2020 will be a historic event — is that the physician working at the Cleveland Clinic, who was planning to attend this year in Amsterdam, as well as the colleague in a bush hospital in Uganda, who would have never have dreamed to be part of the ESC Congress, both will have for the first time the same access at the same time to knowledge shared at the worldwide leading cardiovascular meeting,” Marco Roffi, MD, co-chair of the scientific program, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

Taking a page from the American College of Cardiology, which set the virtual bar early in the pandemic with its highly interactive ACC 2020, ESC is taking some 80 Hot Line, clinical practice guidelines, and special sessions live with question-and-answer interactions and panel discussions.

The latest COVID-19 research and four new guideline documents — including recommendations on atrial fibrillation (AF), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease, and adult congenital heart disease — will be featured at the ESC Congress 2020, scheduled for August 29 to September 1.

Presentations will be shorter and sessions more focused, but more than 500 scientific and educational sessions will be streamed in addition to more than 4000 abstracts available live or on demand as full presentations or e-posters, said Roffi, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.

To pull off the virtual event, a digital studio in Amsterdam will host hundreds of key opinion leaders, and ESC employed more than 1000 satellite studios around the world to gather contributions from scientists and experts with the help of 70 behind-the-scenes experts.

Nevertheless, a “strategic decision” was made to provide free access to the event and its content for 30 days — a strategy that has attracted some 58,000 registrants thus far, up from a record 32,000 attendees at last year’s congress in Paris, Roffi said.

“Obviously, the income will not be the same as a physical congress, but we felt there was too much at stake to make a compromise,” he said. “We believe we are the leaders in cardiovascular meetings in the physical ones and we want to keep this position even in the new era. And we believe this is the beginning of a new era in whatever form will be.”

Hot Line Sessions 1-3, Saturday (14:00 CEST)

The Hot Line sessions will feature 13 clinical trials and kick off with EMPEROR-Reduced, which compared the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) added to standard care in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without diabetes.

Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim already announced the trial met its composite primary endpoint of reducing cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization risk but the details will be important given the SGLT2 inhibitors› rapid shift beyond diabetes to HF and chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Results presented at ESC 2019 from the landmark DAPA-HF trial led to the recent new indication for dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) for HFrEF in the absence of diabetes. New data will be released in a Sunday Hot Line session looking at the SGLT2 inhibitor among diabetic and nondiabetic CKD patients in DAPA-CKD, which was halted early because of overwhelming efficacy.

As the indication evolved, the SGLT2 inhibitors became truly cardiovascular disease drugs, Roffi said, “so all the cardiologists will have to become familiar with these agents.”

Hot Line 2 will look at the oral cardiac myosin inhibitor mavacamten as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous interventions to treat obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The first-in-class investigational agent is thought to reduce the hypercontractility characteristic of HCM by inhibiting excessive actin-myosin cross-bridges, and it showed promise in the recent phase 2 dose-finding MAVERICK HCM trial.

Investigators are expected to flesh out details from the 251-patient phase 3 EXPLORER-HCM trial, which reported functional and symptomatic gains with once-daily dosing in top-line results released by developer MyoKardia.

“This is really a revolutionary way to treat — hopefully successfully — this very complex disease,” Roffi said.

Rounding out the day is the EAST-AFNET 4 trial, which has been almost 10 years in the making and examined whether early rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation can prevent adverse outcomes in patients with AF compared with usual care alone based on the ESC 2010 AF treatment guidelines.

Hot Line Sessions 4-6, Sunday (14:00 CEST)

Hot Line 4 features the ATPCI study examining the addition of the oral antianginal agent trimetazidine to standard of care in 6007 patients with angina after recent successful percutaneous coronary intervention.

Next up is POPULAR-TAVI looking at aspirin with or without clopidogrel in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

“This is a dilemma that we have every day in the cath lab when we perform a TAVI because we have in front of us patients who, by definition, are at high bleeding risk, are old, and have comorbidities such as renal insufficiencies,” Roffi said. “I like this very much because it’s a very practical study. Whatever the response will be of this study, it will impact clinical practice.”

Hot Line 6 is devoted to the PARALLAX trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto, Novartis) with individualized medical therapy in 2569 heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients. The primary outcomes are 12-week change in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and 24-week change in 6-minute walk distance.

Hot Line Sessions 7-9, Monday (14:00 CEST)

The next day starts with the timely topic of inflammation with the LoDoCo2 trial, in which 5522 patients with stable coronary artery disease were randomized to low-dose colchicine 0.5 mg daily or placebo on top of optimal medical therapy. The primary composite endpoint is CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization.

Additional colchicine data also will be presented in a late-breaking science session on Saturday that includes the Australian COPS trial in acute coronary syndromes and new analyses from COLCOT, which demonstrated a 23% reduction in the risk of first ischemic CV events following an MI but no mortality benefit. The low-cost anti-inflammatory drug is also being tested in the mammoth 6000-patient phase 3 Colchicine Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COLCORONA) trial, expected to be completed by the end of September.

Hot Line 8 switches gears with the open-label randomized HOME-PE trial comparing outpatient management of pulmonary embolism (PE) in 1975 select patients based on either the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score, featured in the most recent ESC acute PE guidelines, or the HESTIA criteria, developed in the HESTIA study. The event-driven primary end point is the composite of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death at 30 days.

Last up on Monday is a new analysis on the effects of lowering blood pressure for prevention of CV events across various BP levels from the BPLTTC, which is the largest resource of patient-level randomized clinical trial data, at more than 350,000 patients.


Tuesday Hot Line Sessions 10-12 (14:00 CEST)

The final day of the Congress ends with bang, with the randomized BRACE-CORONA trial examining the effect of continuing or suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in 700 patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Although several cardiovascular societies including ESC recommend continuation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) antagonists in COVID-19 patients, randomized data are lacking and patients have been rattled by early observations suggesting that ACE2 upregulation from RAAS antagonists could increase the risk of developing severe COVID-19.

“BRACE-CORONA will answer the question that everybody’s been asking, whether or not you should continue ARBs and ACE inhibitors in COVID-19 patients. This is a randomized trial and we are all very excited about it,” Roffi said.

COVID-19 will also be discussed in a late-breaking science session on Sunday and in three industry Q&A sessions scattered over the 4 days.

Rounding out the last Hot Line session is IMPACT-AFib, a claims database analysis of early vs delayed educational interventions to improve oral anticoagulation use in a whopping 80,000 patients with AF, and REALITY, a much-needed cost-effectiveness analysis of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in 630 patients with acute MI and anemia.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The beneficial effect on all-cause mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery observed at 4 and 5 years in women with complex coronary disease seen in the SYNTAX trial is gone at 10 years.

If anything, the results suggest a mortality benefit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) mainly for men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02) and not for women (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51) in the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study.

The sex-treatment interaction for all-cause mortality was significant at 5 years (P = .025) but not at 10 years (P = .952).

“I’m becoming very humble with trials because I’m not expecting the convergence of the curve. I was expecting like a surge, a further divergence,” senior author Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, said in an interview. “You could say, at the end of the day, everybody dies. And that’s the life expectancy factor.”

Although female patients had slightly lower anatomic SYNTAX scores at randomization (27.0 vs. 29.2), they were on average 4 years older than men (mean age, 68 years) and had higher prevalence rates of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, he noted. “The other explanation is that we know that the bypass graft, the saphenous bypass graft, became vulnerable around 7 years; that’s probably the half-life.”

Overall, mortality in both men and women tended to be lower after CABG than after PCI, although the differences were not statistically significant, the authors reported August 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 1,800-patient SYNTAX trial showed no difference in all-cause mortality at 5 years between CABG and PCI, although CABG was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and more favorable results among those with complex, three-vessel disease.

The findings were confirmed in 10-year follow-up reported last year from SYNTAXES, which analyzed only all-cause mortality.

Female sex, however, was an independent predictor of mortality with PCI at 4-years follow-up (HR, 2.87) in SYNTAX and led to sex being incorporated into the SYNTAX II score to help guide revascularization decisions. Notably, this interaction for all-cause mortality has not been seen in other studies.

Treatment effect by sex

In the new prespecified subgroup analysis, women had a higher crude rate of all-cause mortality at 10 years than men (32.8% vs. 24.7%; log-rank P = .002). This held true whether women were in the PCI group (33.0% vs. 27.0%; log-rank P = .053) or the CABG group (32.5% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .017).

In women, the mortality rate was significantly higher with PCI than with CABG at 5 years, but was no longer different at 10 years (33.0% vs. 32.5%; log-rank P = .601). This was largely caused by an uptick in deaths between 5 and 10 years in those treated with CABG, compared with PCI.

In men, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG at 5 years, but tended to be higher with PCI at 10 years (27.0% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .082).

Asked about the possible late benefit for CABG in men, Dr. Serruys replied: “Of course, everyone had made a hypothesis – ‘let’s look at the use of internal mammary arteries in these patients, etc.’ – but I must be honest, we don’t have an explanation so far.”

Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, said with just 402 women and using a no-longer-available, first-generation (Taxus) stent, the findings are, unfortunately, not informative.

“For me, it would be important for these investigators to share their data for women so we can do a patient-based analysis to better figure out the differential between first-generation stents and how well we’re doing,” Dr. Mehran said.

“What’s really important is to have a study where you actually collect female-specific risk factors that are never, ever looked at, [such as] age at menopause or having had pregnancy-related complications, that predispose these women to more of an atherosclerotic risk. And, even so, to better understand their anatomy and what suits them better,” she said. “I just don’t think we know enough or have put enough effort into understanding the biology that is sex specific and different for men and women.”
 

Revising SYNTAX II score

Given the lack of a sex-treatment interaction in the analysis, Dr. Serruys and colleagues suggest that the SYNTAX II score “should be reevaluated for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 10 years.”

Lending further support to this is the fact that SYNTAX II score was similar between women who died at 5-10 years and those who died in the first 5 years after CABG (31.8 vs. 31.6).

“The authors rightfully ask whether the SYNTAX II score should be revised to remove female sex, and given the current study result this appears warranted,” Arnold H. Seto, MD, MPA, Long Beach (Calif.) Veterans Administration Hospital, said in a related editorial.

He pointed out that women in SYNTAXES treated with CABG tended to have a survival time 0.51 years longer than women treated with PCI (P = .07). Nonetheless, the lack of confirmation for a sex-specific treatment interaction in any other study – EXCEL, FREEDOM, BEST, PRECOMBAT, BARI, or MASS – strongly suggests that the interaction seen in SYNTAX is likely a “type 1 error.”

Rather than focusing on early mortality, which may represent relatively rare events that are susceptible to chance, Dr. Seto suggested “other endpoints such years of life saved, quality adjusted life-years, and MACE may better capture the benefits of different revascularization decisions, even if they have a higher risk for bias.”

A new risk model, SYNTAX score 2020, has been developed and will be published imminently, Dr. Serruys said in an interview.

The SYNTAX Extended Survival study was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. The SYNTAX trial, during 0- to 5-years of follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Both sponsors had no role in study design or data collection, analyses, and interpretation, nor were they involved in the decision to publish the final manuscript. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seto reported research grants from Philips and Acist, and honoraria from Terumo, Getinge, Boston Scientific, General Electric, and Janssen.

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

The beneficial effect on all-cause mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery observed at 4 and 5 years in women with complex coronary disease seen in the SYNTAX trial is gone at 10 years.

If anything, the results suggest a mortality benefit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) mainly for men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02) and not for women (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51) in the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study.

The sex-treatment interaction for all-cause mortality was significant at 5 years (P = .025) but not at 10 years (P = .952).

“I’m becoming very humble with trials because I’m not expecting the convergence of the curve. I was expecting like a surge, a further divergence,” senior author Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, said in an interview. “You could say, at the end of the day, everybody dies. And that’s the life expectancy factor.”

Although female patients had slightly lower anatomic SYNTAX scores at randomization (27.0 vs. 29.2), they were on average 4 years older than men (mean age, 68 years) and had higher prevalence rates of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, he noted. “The other explanation is that we know that the bypass graft, the saphenous bypass graft, became vulnerable around 7 years; that’s probably the half-life.”

Overall, mortality in both men and women tended to be lower after CABG than after PCI, although the differences were not statistically significant, the authors reported August 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 1,800-patient SYNTAX trial showed no difference in all-cause mortality at 5 years between CABG and PCI, although CABG was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and more favorable results among those with complex, three-vessel disease.

The findings were confirmed in 10-year follow-up reported last year from SYNTAXES, which analyzed only all-cause mortality.

Female sex, however, was an independent predictor of mortality with PCI at 4-years follow-up (HR, 2.87) in SYNTAX and led to sex being incorporated into the SYNTAX II score to help guide revascularization decisions. Notably, this interaction for all-cause mortality has not been seen in other studies.

Treatment effect by sex

In the new prespecified subgroup analysis, women had a higher crude rate of all-cause mortality at 10 years than men (32.8% vs. 24.7%; log-rank P = .002). This held true whether women were in the PCI group (33.0% vs. 27.0%; log-rank P = .053) or the CABG group (32.5% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .017).

In women, the mortality rate was significantly higher with PCI than with CABG at 5 years, but was no longer different at 10 years (33.0% vs. 32.5%; log-rank P = .601). This was largely caused by an uptick in deaths between 5 and 10 years in those treated with CABG, compared with PCI.

In men, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG at 5 years, but tended to be higher with PCI at 10 years (27.0% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .082).

Asked about the possible late benefit for CABG in men, Dr. Serruys replied: “Of course, everyone had made a hypothesis – ‘let’s look at the use of internal mammary arteries in these patients, etc.’ – but I must be honest, we don’t have an explanation so far.”

Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, said with just 402 women and using a no-longer-available, first-generation (Taxus) stent, the findings are, unfortunately, not informative.

“For me, it would be important for these investigators to share their data for women so we can do a patient-based analysis to better figure out the differential between first-generation stents and how well we’re doing,” Dr. Mehran said.

“What’s really important is to have a study where you actually collect female-specific risk factors that are never, ever looked at, [such as] age at menopause or having had pregnancy-related complications, that predispose these women to more of an atherosclerotic risk. And, even so, to better understand their anatomy and what suits them better,” she said. “I just don’t think we know enough or have put enough effort into understanding the biology that is sex specific and different for men and women.”
 

Revising SYNTAX II score

Given the lack of a sex-treatment interaction in the analysis, Dr. Serruys and colleagues suggest that the SYNTAX II score “should be reevaluated for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 10 years.”

Lending further support to this is the fact that SYNTAX II score was similar between women who died at 5-10 years and those who died in the first 5 years after CABG (31.8 vs. 31.6).

“The authors rightfully ask whether the SYNTAX II score should be revised to remove female sex, and given the current study result this appears warranted,” Arnold H. Seto, MD, MPA, Long Beach (Calif.) Veterans Administration Hospital, said in a related editorial.

He pointed out that women in SYNTAXES treated with CABG tended to have a survival time 0.51 years longer than women treated with PCI (P = .07). Nonetheless, the lack of confirmation for a sex-specific treatment interaction in any other study – EXCEL, FREEDOM, BEST, PRECOMBAT, BARI, or MASS – strongly suggests that the interaction seen in SYNTAX is likely a “type 1 error.”

Rather than focusing on early mortality, which may represent relatively rare events that are susceptible to chance, Dr. Seto suggested “other endpoints such years of life saved, quality adjusted life-years, and MACE may better capture the benefits of different revascularization decisions, even if they have a higher risk for bias.”

A new risk model, SYNTAX score 2020, has been developed and will be published imminently, Dr. Serruys said in an interview.

The SYNTAX Extended Survival study was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. The SYNTAX trial, during 0- to 5-years of follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Both sponsors had no role in study design or data collection, analyses, and interpretation, nor were they involved in the decision to publish the final manuscript. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seto reported research grants from Philips and Acist, and honoraria from Terumo, Getinge, Boston Scientific, General Electric, and Janssen.

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

The beneficial effect on all-cause mortality of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery observed at 4 and 5 years in women with complex coronary disease seen in the SYNTAX trial is gone at 10 years.

If anything, the results suggest a mortality benefit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) mainly for men (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02) and not for women (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.51) in the SYNTAX Extended Survival (SYNTAXES) study.

The sex-treatment interaction for all-cause mortality was significant at 5 years (P = .025) but not at 10 years (P = .952).

“I’m becoming very humble with trials because I’m not expecting the convergence of the curve. I was expecting like a surge, a further divergence,” senior author Patrick Serruys, MD, PhD, National University of Ireland, Galway, said in an interview. “You could say, at the end of the day, everybody dies. And that’s the life expectancy factor.”

Although female patients had slightly lower anatomic SYNTAX scores at randomization (27.0 vs. 29.2), they were on average 4 years older than men (mean age, 68 years) and had higher prevalence rates of diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease, he noted. “The other explanation is that we know that the bypass graft, the saphenous bypass graft, became vulnerable around 7 years; that’s probably the half-life.”

Overall, mortality in both men and women tended to be lower after CABG than after PCI, although the differences were not statistically significant, the authors reported August 17 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The 1,800-patient SYNTAX trial showed no difference in all-cause mortality at 5 years between CABG and PCI, although CABG was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and more favorable results among those with complex, three-vessel disease.

The findings were confirmed in 10-year follow-up reported last year from SYNTAXES, which analyzed only all-cause mortality.

Female sex, however, was an independent predictor of mortality with PCI at 4-years follow-up (HR, 2.87) in SYNTAX and led to sex being incorporated into the SYNTAX II score to help guide revascularization decisions. Notably, this interaction for all-cause mortality has not been seen in other studies.

Treatment effect by sex

In the new prespecified subgroup analysis, women had a higher crude rate of all-cause mortality at 10 years than men (32.8% vs. 24.7%; log-rank P = .002). This held true whether women were in the PCI group (33.0% vs. 27.0%; log-rank P = .053) or the CABG group (32.5% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .017).

In women, the mortality rate was significantly higher with PCI than with CABG at 5 years, but was no longer different at 10 years (33.0% vs. 32.5%; log-rank P = .601). This was largely caused by an uptick in deaths between 5 and 10 years in those treated with CABG, compared with PCI.

In men, the mortality rate was similar between PCI and CABG at 5 years, but tended to be higher with PCI at 10 years (27.0% vs. 22.5%; log-rank P = .082).

Asked about the possible late benefit for CABG in men, Dr. Serruys replied: “Of course, everyone had made a hypothesis – ‘let’s look at the use of internal mammary arteries in these patients, etc.’ – but I must be honest, we don’t have an explanation so far.”

Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York City, said with just 402 women and using a no-longer-available, first-generation (Taxus) stent, the findings are, unfortunately, not informative.

“For me, it would be important for these investigators to share their data for women so we can do a patient-based analysis to better figure out the differential between first-generation stents and how well we’re doing,” Dr. Mehran said.

“What’s really important is to have a study where you actually collect female-specific risk factors that are never, ever looked at, [such as] age at menopause or having had pregnancy-related complications, that predispose these women to more of an atherosclerotic risk. And, even so, to better understand their anatomy and what suits them better,” she said. “I just don’t think we know enough or have put enough effort into understanding the biology that is sex specific and different for men and women.”
 

Revising SYNTAX II score

Given the lack of a sex-treatment interaction in the analysis, Dr. Serruys and colleagues suggest that the SYNTAX II score “should be reevaluated for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 10 years.”

Lending further support to this is the fact that SYNTAX II score was similar between women who died at 5-10 years and those who died in the first 5 years after CABG (31.8 vs. 31.6).

“The authors rightfully ask whether the SYNTAX II score should be revised to remove female sex, and given the current study result this appears warranted,” Arnold H. Seto, MD, MPA, Long Beach (Calif.) Veterans Administration Hospital, said in a related editorial.

He pointed out that women in SYNTAXES treated with CABG tended to have a survival time 0.51 years longer than women treated with PCI (P = .07). Nonetheless, the lack of confirmation for a sex-specific treatment interaction in any other study – EXCEL, FREEDOM, BEST, PRECOMBAT, BARI, or MASS – strongly suggests that the interaction seen in SYNTAX is likely a “type 1 error.”

Rather than focusing on early mortality, which may represent relatively rare events that are susceptible to chance, Dr. Seto suggested “other endpoints such years of life saved, quality adjusted life-years, and MACE may better capture the benefits of different revascularization decisions, even if they have a higher risk for bias.”

A new risk model, SYNTAX score 2020, has been developed and will be published imminently, Dr. Serruys said in an interview.

The SYNTAX Extended Survival study was supported by the German Foundation of Heart Research. The SYNTAX trial, during 0- to 5-years of follow-up, was funded by Boston Scientific. Both sponsors had no role in study design or data collection, analyses, and interpretation, nor were they involved in the decision to publish the final manuscript. Dr. Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow, outside the submitted work. Dr. Seto reported research grants from Philips and Acist, and honoraria from Terumo, Getinge, Boston Scientific, General Electric, and Janssen.

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

The brain’s reaction to stress may be an important contributor to chest pain in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), according to results of a cohort study.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

“Although more research is needed, these results may potentially shift the paradigm by which angina is evaluated by refocusing clinical evaluation and management of psychological stress as adjunct to traditional cardiac evaluations,” wrote Kasra Moazzami, MD, MPH, of Emory University in Atlanta, and his coauthors in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

To determine if an association exists between stress-induced frontal lobe activity and angina, the researchers launched a study of 148 patients with stable CAD. Their mean age was 62, 69% were male, and roughly 36% were Black. Angina symptoms were assessed at baseline and also after 2 years through the Seattle Angina Questionnaire’s angina frequency subscale.

As the patients underwent stress testing that included both speech and arithmetic stressors, they also received eight brain scans via high-resolution positron emission tomography (HR-PET) brain imaging. Two scans occurred during each of the two control and two stress conditions. Subsequent analysis of these images evaluated regional blood flow relative to total brain flow. Each patient also underwent myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) at rest, under stress conditions, and during conventional stress testing.

At baseline, patients who reported experiencing angina monthly (35) or daily/weekly (19) had higher rates of mental stress–induced ischemia, more common symptoms of depression and anxiety, and more use of antidepressants and nitrates. Patients reporting angina during stress testing with MPI had higher inferior frontal lobe activation (1.43), compared with patients without active chest pain (1.19; P = 0.03). Patients reporting angina during stress testing also had fewer years of education, higher Beck Depression Inventory scores, and higher posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist scores.
 

More angina correlates with more mental stress

At 2-year-follow-up, 28 (24%) of the 112 returning patients reported an increase in angina episodes. Those patients had a higher mean inferior frontal lobe activation with mental stress at baseline, compared with returning patients who reported a decrease in chest pain frequency (1.82 versus 0.92; P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle variables, any doubling in inferior frontal lobe activation led to an increase in angina frequency by 13.7 units at baseline (95% confidence interval, 6.3-21.7; P = .008) and 11.6 units during follow-up (95% CI, 4.1-19.2; P = .01). After relative importance analysis, the most important correlate of angina was found to be inferior frontal lobe activation at 36.5%, followed by Beck Depression Inventory score and PTSD checklist score.
 

‘It shows that the heart and brain are connected’

“Previous studies have linked mental stress with ischemia using nuclear stress testing. This study is unique in that it looked at brain activity associated with mental stress and was able to correlate that activity with angina,” said cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, of NYU Langone in New York City in an interview. “It shows that the heart and brain are connected.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including using standard stress-inducing protocols that did not account for or reflect any real-life stressors. In addition, although their methods are still considered clinically relevant, retrospectively collecting angina symptoms via questionnaire rather than a prospective diary could have led to incomplete responses.

Dr. Goldberg noted that additional research should include a more diverse population – women in particular were underrepresented in this study – while focusing on how interventions for stress can play a role in angina symptoms and brain activity.

That said, she added, “until there are more studies, it is important to consider mental stress in assessing angina symptoms in patients.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Moazzami K et al. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1161/circimaging.120.010710.

The brain’s reaction to stress may be an important contributor to chest pain in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), according to results of a cohort study.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

“Although more research is needed, these results may potentially shift the paradigm by which angina is evaluated by refocusing clinical evaluation and management of psychological stress as adjunct to traditional cardiac evaluations,” wrote Kasra Moazzami, MD, MPH, of Emory University in Atlanta, and his coauthors in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

To determine if an association exists between stress-induced frontal lobe activity and angina, the researchers launched a study of 148 patients with stable CAD. Their mean age was 62, 69% were male, and roughly 36% were Black. Angina symptoms were assessed at baseline and also after 2 years through the Seattle Angina Questionnaire’s angina frequency subscale.

As the patients underwent stress testing that included both speech and arithmetic stressors, they also received eight brain scans via high-resolution positron emission tomography (HR-PET) brain imaging. Two scans occurred during each of the two control and two stress conditions. Subsequent analysis of these images evaluated regional blood flow relative to total brain flow. Each patient also underwent myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) at rest, under stress conditions, and during conventional stress testing.

At baseline, patients who reported experiencing angina monthly (35) or daily/weekly (19) had higher rates of mental stress–induced ischemia, more common symptoms of depression and anxiety, and more use of antidepressants and nitrates. Patients reporting angina during stress testing with MPI had higher inferior frontal lobe activation (1.43), compared with patients without active chest pain (1.19; P = 0.03). Patients reporting angina during stress testing also had fewer years of education, higher Beck Depression Inventory scores, and higher posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist scores.
 

More angina correlates with more mental stress

At 2-year-follow-up, 28 (24%) of the 112 returning patients reported an increase in angina episodes. Those patients had a higher mean inferior frontal lobe activation with mental stress at baseline, compared with returning patients who reported a decrease in chest pain frequency (1.82 versus 0.92; P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle variables, any doubling in inferior frontal lobe activation led to an increase in angina frequency by 13.7 units at baseline (95% confidence interval, 6.3-21.7; P = .008) and 11.6 units during follow-up (95% CI, 4.1-19.2; P = .01). After relative importance analysis, the most important correlate of angina was found to be inferior frontal lobe activation at 36.5%, followed by Beck Depression Inventory score and PTSD checklist score.
 

‘It shows that the heart and brain are connected’

“Previous studies have linked mental stress with ischemia using nuclear stress testing. This study is unique in that it looked at brain activity associated with mental stress and was able to correlate that activity with angina,” said cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, of NYU Langone in New York City in an interview. “It shows that the heart and brain are connected.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including using standard stress-inducing protocols that did not account for or reflect any real-life stressors. In addition, although their methods are still considered clinically relevant, retrospectively collecting angina symptoms via questionnaire rather than a prospective diary could have led to incomplete responses.

Dr. Goldberg noted that additional research should include a more diverse population – women in particular were underrepresented in this study – while focusing on how interventions for stress can play a role in angina symptoms and brain activity.

That said, she added, “until there are more studies, it is important to consider mental stress in assessing angina symptoms in patients.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Moazzami K et al. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1161/circimaging.120.010710.

The brain’s reaction to stress may be an important contributor to chest pain in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), according to results of a cohort study.

Jana Blaková/Thinkstock

“Although more research is needed, these results may potentially shift the paradigm by which angina is evaluated by refocusing clinical evaluation and management of psychological stress as adjunct to traditional cardiac evaluations,” wrote Kasra Moazzami, MD, MPH, of Emory University in Atlanta, and his coauthors in Circulation: Cardiovascular Imaging.

To determine if an association exists between stress-induced frontal lobe activity and angina, the researchers launched a study of 148 patients with stable CAD. Their mean age was 62, 69% were male, and roughly 36% were Black. Angina symptoms were assessed at baseline and also after 2 years through the Seattle Angina Questionnaire’s angina frequency subscale.

As the patients underwent stress testing that included both speech and arithmetic stressors, they also received eight brain scans via high-resolution positron emission tomography (HR-PET) brain imaging. Two scans occurred during each of the two control and two stress conditions. Subsequent analysis of these images evaluated regional blood flow relative to total brain flow. Each patient also underwent myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) at rest, under stress conditions, and during conventional stress testing.

At baseline, patients who reported experiencing angina monthly (35) or daily/weekly (19) had higher rates of mental stress–induced ischemia, more common symptoms of depression and anxiety, and more use of antidepressants and nitrates. Patients reporting angina during stress testing with MPI had higher inferior frontal lobe activation (1.43), compared with patients without active chest pain (1.19; P = 0.03). Patients reporting angina during stress testing also had fewer years of education, higher Beck Depression Inventory scores, and higher posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) checklist scores.
 

More angina correlates with more mental stress

At 2-year-follow-up, 28 (24%) of the 112 returning patients reported an increase in angina episodes. Those patients had a higher mean inferior frontal lobe activation with mental stress at baseline, compared with returning patients who reported a decrease in chest pain frequency (1.82 versus 0.92; P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle variables, any doubling in inferior frontal lobe activation led to an increase in angina frequency by 13.7 units at baseline (95% confidence interval, 6.3-21.7; P = .008) and 11.6 units during follow-up (95% CI, 4.1-19.2; P = .01). After relative importance analysis, the most important correlate of angina was found to be inferior frontal lobe activation at 36.5%, followed by Beck Depression Inventory score and PTSD checklist score.
 

‘It shows that the heart and brain are connected’

“Previous studies have linked mental stress with ischemia using nuclear stress testing. This study is unique in that it looked at brain activity associated with mental stress and was able to correlate that activity with angina,” said cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, of NYU Langone in New York City in an interview. “It shows that the heart and brain are connected.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including using standard stress-inducing protocols that did not account for or reflect any real-life stressors. In addition, although their methods are still considered clinically relevant, retrospectively collecting angina symptoms via questionnaire rather than a prospective diary could have led to incomplete responses.

Dr. Goldberg noted that additional research should include a more diverse population – women in particular were underrepresented in this study – while focusing on how interventions for stress can play a role in angina symptoms and brain activity.

That said, she added, “until there are more studies, it is important to consider mental stress in assessing angina symptoms in patients.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Moazzami K et al. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1161/circimaging.120.010710.

Monogenic disorders with heart and vascular effects are each pretty rare in clinical practice but collectively can make up a fair proportion of the patients cardiologists see. Still, the diagnosis is missed more often than not, even when the clinical signs are there, suggests an observational study, supporting broader genetic testing in cardiovascular patients.

In a cohort of more than 8,000 patients referred for cardiac catheterization, diagnosis of such a monogenic cardiovascular disease (MCVD) was made in only 35% of those with one related gene variant and signs of phenotypic expression in the electronic health record.

The findings are novel for measuring the field’s “burden of missed diagnoses” in patients with MCVD, which “represent a missed opportunity that could be addressed by genetic screening,” contended the study report, published in the Aug. 18 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“The underrecognition of these diseases underscores the importance of including monogenic diseases in the treating physician’s differential diagnosis,” say the authors, led by Jawan W. Abdulrahim, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Diagnosis of MCVDs can be important, the group wrote, because many, including familial transthyretin amyloidosis (TTR) and other disorders that pose an increased risk for sudden death, have evidence-based treatment modalities available or are clinically actionable. “Identification of patients with MCVD variants” is also “important for cascade screening of family members who are at risk of inheriting the pathogenic mutations.”

“We tend to ignore these monogenic diseases because they are so rare individually but, in aggregate, monogenic diseases are actually quite common,” senior author Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, also of Duke University, said in an interview.

The results “support that the cardiology community over time adopt a genotype-forward approach,” one in which every patient presenting to a cardiovascular clinic is genotyped, she said.

One implication of such an approach, Dr. Shah agreed, is that “we would be able to pick these people up earlier in their disease, especially in the context of therapies that could improve certainly their progression, but even their survival.”

For now, she said, the study suggests that “these disorders are more frequent than perhaps all cardiologists are aware of, and we just need to keep our eyes open and know when to refer patients to a cardiovascular genetics clinic, which maybe has more time and can deal with all the nuances that go along with genetic testing.”

In the total cohort, 4.5% were found to carry a gene variant known or believed to cause such diseases. The most frequently represented conditions were familial TTR, hereditary hemochromatosis, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, and various cardiomyopathies.

Of those patients, 52 received a clinical diagnosis of the monogenic disorder after an EHR review. Of the 290 without such a diagnosis, two-thirds showed no evidence in their EHR of the variant’s phenotypic signs. But the records of the other third featured at least some signs that the disease had manifested clinically.

“These data serve as a reminder that monogenic Mendelian disease, including heart and vascular disease, varies in penetrance from individual to individual and may not always present with clinically detectable phenotypes,” noted an editorial accompanying the report.

They also “provide a compelling basis for expanding the role of targeted genetic testing in patients with more traditional forms of heart and vascular disease,” wrote Scott M. Damrauer, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and William S. Weintraub, MD, Medstar Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University, Washington.

“Based on the current report, the number needed to screen in a complex cardiovascular patient population to detect 1 case of undiagnosed monogenic cardiovascular disease is 85,” they wrote. “This places targeted genetic testing well within what is considered to be efficacious for most screening programs and in the range of that of other common cardiovascular diseases and cancers.”

Among the 342 patients with a variant predicting a single MCVD – in addition to the 52 who received a diagnosis – 193 had records with no indication of phenotypic expression and so did not receive a diagnosis.

But the 97 patients without a diagnosis who nevertheless had documented signs of some phenotypic expression were deemed, on the basis of extent of expression, to represent a possibly, probably, or definitely missed diagnosis.

Familial TTR made up about 45% of such potentially missed diagnoses, the report noted.

Broader screening of patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Shah speculated, “might actually be not only a clinically useful endeavor, but – when we think about the aggregate burden of these monogenic disorders – potentially even cost-effective.”

As the price of genetic sequencing drops, she said, “I think we’ll start to see even more health systems wanting to incorporate the genotype-forward approach.”

Dr. Shah reports serving as primary investigator for research sponsored by Verily Life Sciences and AstraZeneca. Dr. Abdulrahim reports no relevant relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Damrauer discloses receiving research support from RenalytixAI and consulting fees from Calico Labs. Dr. Weintraub had no relevant disclosures.

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

Monogenic disorders with heart and vascular effects are each pretty rare in clinical practice but collectively can make up a fair proportion of the patients cardiologists see. Still, the diagnosis is missed more often than not, even when the clinical signs are there, suggests an observational study, supporting broader genetic testing in cardiovascular patients.

In a cohort of more than 8,000 patients referred for cardiac catheterization, diagnosis of such a monogenic cardiovascular disease (MCVD) was made in only 35% of those with one related gene variant and signs of phenotypic expression in the electronic health record.

The findings are novel for measuring the field’s “burden of missed diagnoses” in patients with MCVD, which “represent a missed opportunity that could be addressed by genetic screening,” contended the study report, published in the Aug. 18 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“The underrecognition of these diseases underscores the importance of including monogenic diseases in the treating physician’s differential diagnosis,” say the authors, led by Jawan W. Abdulrahim, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Diagnosis of MCVDs can be important, the group wrote, because many, including familial transthyretin amyloidosis (TTR) and other disorders that pose an increased risk for sudden death, have evidence-based treatment modalities available or are clinically actionable. “Identification of patients with MCVD variants” is also “important for cascade screening of family members who are at risk of inheriting the pathogenic mutations.”

“We tend to ignore these monogenic diseases because they are so rare individually but, in aggregate, monogenic diseases are actually quite common,” senior author Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, also of Duke University, said in an interview.

The results “support that the cardiology community over time adopt a genotype-forward approach,” one in which every patient presenting to a cardiovascular clinic is genotyped, she said.

One implication of such an approach, Dr. Shah agreed, is that “we would be able to pick these people up earlier in their disease, especially in the context of therapies that could improve certainly their progression, but even their survival.”

For now, she said, the study suggests that “these disorders are more frequent than perhaps all cardiologists are aware of, and we just need to keep our eyes open and know when to refer patients to a cardiovascular genetics clinic, which maybe has more time and can deal with all the nuances that go along with genetic testing.”

In the total cohort, 4.5% were found to carry a gene variant known or believed to cause such diseases. The most frequently represented conditions were familial TTR, hereditary hemochromatosis, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, and various cardiomyopathies.

Of those patients, 52 received a clinical diagnosis of the monogenic disorder after an EHR review. Of the 290 without such a diagnosis, two-thirds showed no evidence in their EHR of the variant’s phenotypic signs. But the records of the other third featured at least some signs that the disease had manifested clinically.

“These data serve as a reminder that monogenic Mendelian disease, including heart and vascular disease, varies in penetrance from individual to individual and may not always present with clinically detectable phenotypes,” noted an editorial accompanying the report.

They also “provide a compelling basis for expanding the role of targeted genetic testing in patients with more traditional forms of heart and vascular disease,” wrote Scott M. Damrauer, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and William S. Weintraub, MD, Medstar Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University, Washington.

“Based on the current report, the number needed to screen in a complex cardiovascular patient population to detect 1 case of undiagnosed monogenic cardiovascular disease is 85,” they wrote. “This places targeted genetic testing well within what is considered to be efficacious for most screening programs and in the range of that of other common cardiovascular diseases and cancers.”

Among the 342 patients with a variant predicting a single MCVD – in addition to the 52 who received a diagnosis – 193 had records with no indication of phenotypic expression and so did not receive a diagnosis.

But the 97 patients without a diagnosis who nevertheless had documented signs of some phenotypic expression were deemed, on the basis of extent of expression, to represent a possibly, probably, or definitely missed diagnosis.

Familial TTR made up about 45% of such potentially missed diagnoses, the report noted.

Broader screening of patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Shah speculated, “might actually be not only a clinically useful endeavor, but – when we think about the aggregate burden of these monogenic disorders – potentially even cost-effective.”

As the price of genetic sequencing drops, she said, “I think we’ll start to see even more health systems wanting to incorporate the genotype-forward approach.”

Dr. Shah reports serving as primary investigator for research sponsored by Verily Life Sciences and AstraZeneca. Dr. Abdulrahim reports no relevant relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Damrauer discloses receiving research support from RenalytixAI and consulting fees from Calico Labs. Dr. Weintraub had no relevant disclosures.

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

Monogenic disorders with heart and vascular effects are each pretty rare in clinical practice but collectively can make up a fair proportion of the patients cardiologists see. Still, the diagnosis is missed more often than not, even when the clinical signs are there, suggests an observational study, supporting broader genetic testing in cardiovascular patients.

In a cohort of more than 8,000 patients referred for cardiac catheterization, diagnosis of such a monogenic cardiovascular disease (MCVD) was made in only 35% of those with one related gene variant and signs of phenotypic expression in the electronic health record.

The findings are novel for measuring the field’s “burden of missed diagnoses” in patients with MCVD, which “represent a missed opportunity that could be addressed by genetic screening,” contended the study report, published in the Aug. 18 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“The underrecognition of these diseases underscores the importance of including monogenic diseases in the treating physician’s differential diagnosis,” say the authors, led by Jawan W. Abdulrahim, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Diagnosis of MCVDs can be important, the group wrote, because many, including familial transthyretin amyloidosis (TTR) and other disorders that pose an increased risk for sudden death, have evidence-based treatment modalities available or are clinically actionable. “Identification of patients with MCVD variants” is also “important for cascade screening of family members who are at risk of inheriting the pathogenic mutations.”

“We tend to ignore these monogenic diseases because they are so rare individually but, in aggregate, monogenic diseases are actually quite common,” senior author Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, also of Duke University, said in an interview.

The results “support that the cardiology community over time adopt a genotype-forward approach,” one in which every patient presenting to a cardiovascular clinic is genotyped, she said.

One implication of such an approach, Dr. Shah agreed, is that “we would be able to pick these people up earlier in their disease, especially in the context of therapies that could improve certainly their progression, but even their survival.”

For now, she said, the study suggests that “these disorders are more frequent than perhaps all cardiologists are aware of, and we just need to keep our eyes open and know when to refer patients to a cardiovascular genetics clinic, which maybe has more time and can deal with all the nuances that go along with genetic testing.”

In the total cohort, 4.5% were found to carry a gene variant known or believed to cause such diseases. The most frequently represented conditions were familial TTR, hereditary hemochromatosis, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, and various cardiomyopathies.

Of those patients, 52 received a clinical diagnosis of the monogenic disorder after an EHR review. Of the 290 without such a diagnosis, two-thirds showed no evidence in their EHR of the variant’s phenotypic signs. But the records of the other third featured at least some signs that the disease had manifested clinically.

“These data serve as a reminder that monogenic Mendelian disease, including heart and vascular disease, varies in penetrance from individual to individual and may not always present with clinically detectable phenotypes,” noted an editorial accompanying the report.

They also “provide a compelling basis for expanding the role of targeted genetic testing in patients with more traditional forms of heart and vascular disease,” wrote Scott M. Damrauer, MD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and William S. Weintraub, MD, Medstar Washington Hospital Center and Georgetown University, Washington.

“Based on the current report, the number needed to screen in a complex cardiovascular patient population to detect 1 case of undiagnosed monogenic cardiovascular disease is 85,” they wrote. “This places targeted genetic testing well within what is considered to be efficacious for most screening programs and in the range of that of other common cardiovascular diseases and cancers.”

Among the 342 patients with a variant predicting a single MCVD – in addition to the 52 who received a diagnosis – 193 had records with no indication of phenotypic expression and so did not receive a diagnosis.

But the 97 patients without a diagnosis who nevertheless had documented signs of some phenotypic expression were deemed, on the basis of extent of expression, to represent a possibly, probably, or definitely missed diagnosis.

Familial TTR made up about 45% of such potentially missed diagnoses, the report noted.

Broader screening of patients with cardiovascular disease, Dr. Shah speculated, “might actually be not only a clinically useful endeavor, but – when we think about the aggregate burden of these monogenic disorders – potentially even cost-effective.”

As the price of genetic sequencing drops, she said, “I think we’ll start to see even more health systems wanting to incorporate the genotype-forward approach.”

Dr. Shah reports serving as primary investigator for research sponsored by Verily Life Sciences and AstraZeneca. Dr. Abdulrahim reports no relevant relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Damrauer discloses receiving research support from RenalytixAI and consulting fees from Calico Labs. Dr. Weintraub had no relevant disclosures.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.

American Heart Association

The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.

“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.

“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Competing demands

Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.

Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”

Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.

Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.

Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.

“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
 

Top picks

The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:

• Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
• Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
• Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
• Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
• Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
• Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
• Be brief.
• Be useful for chronic disease management.

Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
 

One size does not fit all

No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.

For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.

Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.

“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
 

‘Ideal platform’

“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.

EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.

The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”

They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.

Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.

The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”

Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.

American Heart Association

The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.

“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.

“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Competing demands

Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.

Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”

Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.

Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.

Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.

“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
 

Top picks

The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:

• Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
• Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
• Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
• Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
• Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
• Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
• Be brief.
• Be useful for chronic disease management.

Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
 

One size does not fit all

No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.

For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.

Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.

“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
 

‘Ideal platform’

“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.

EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.

The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”

They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.

Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.

The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”

Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.

American Heart Association

The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.

“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.

“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Competing demands

Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.

Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”

Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.

Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.

Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.

“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
 

Top picks

The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:

• Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
• Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
• Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
• Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
• Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
• Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
• Be brief.
• Be useful for chronic disease management.

Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
 

One size does not fit all

No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.

For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.

Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.

“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
 

‘Ideal platform’

“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.

EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.

The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”

They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.

Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.

The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”

Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Most interventional cardiologists still rely solely upon angiography in making revascularization decisions about intermediate stenoses in the setting of stable coronary artery disease – and in doing so they end up making the wrong call nearly 40% of the time, according to the results of an international survey presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

“We saw a strong tendency to visually overestimate the percent diameter stenosis,” reported Gabor G. Toth, MD, an interventional cardiologist at the Medical University of Graz (Austria).

The same tendency has been highlighted in numerous randomized trials and observational studies. That’s why both European and U.S. guidelines now strongly recommend invasive functional assessment, such as fractional-flow reserve (FFR) testing, in evaluating the significance of intermediate stenoses in the absence of noninvasive evidence of ischemia. The new survey findings point to an important disconnect between these guideline recommendations and current clinical practice, he noted.

Dr. Toth presented the results of the second web-based, international survey on interventional decision-making strategy sponsored by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. He contrasted the findings with those of the previously reported first international online survey, conducted 6 years earlier, for which he was first author (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Dec;7[6]:751-9).

The two surveys were identically designed. In both, participants answered questions that enabled investigators to place them into one of four categories based upon the extent of their experience in interventional cardiology. The participants were also presented with 5 angiograms of focal intermediate stenoses and asked to determine the stenosis significance of each lesion. No information on the functional significance of the stenoses was included; however, the respondents could request additional diagnostic information by “ordering” adjunctive invasive functional assessment tests, including FFR, quantitative coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography. Importantly, participating cardiologists were asked to make their decisions based upon best possible clinical practice in a hypothetical scenario where financial constraints had no role.

The second international survey was conducted during the latter half of 2019. The 334 interventional cardiologists who responded performed a total of 978 case evaluations including 2,054 coronary lesion assessments.

About 59% of all decisions were made solely on the basis of angiographic appearance without any information as to the functional significance of a given stenosis: Indeed, 13% of all stenoses were thereby declared to be “certainly” nonsignificant, and 46% were deemed “certainly” significant. In total, that figure was down significantly from the 71% rate in the first survey. In the first survey, 47% of decisions based upon angiographic appearance alone were discordant with FFR results known to the investigators, compared with a 39% discordance rate in the second survey.

Of the physician decisions made in the second survey, 10% involved a request for intravascular imaging, essentially unchanged from the 9% rate in the first survey. However, there was a significant increase over time in requests for invasive functional assessment tests: 25% in the first survey, rising to 31% in the second. This increase was entirely driven by additional requests for data on nonhyperemic pressure ratios; there was no difference in requests for FFR testing between the 2013 and 2019 surveys.

Clinician experience played an interesting role in decision-making: “Experience does not have an impact on the accuracy of angiographically based decisions, but experience does have an impact on understanding the need for adjunctive functional diagnostic testing,” Dr. Toth explained.

Indeed, 21% of decisions made by the least-experienced interventional cardiologists involved a request for adjunctive invasive functional assessment, compared with 24% of decisions by physicians in the third quartile of experience, 32% in the second, and 37% of decisions made by the most experienced clinicians.

Discussant Michael Haude, MD, PhD, said that “these results clearly show that eyeball angioguidance is still the dominant tool used in decision-making, and that this eyeball angioguidance continuously overestimates the stenosis when you compare the results to quantitative coronary angiography.

“These results, surprisingly for me, show a quite low uptake of the invasive functional assessments despite overwhelming scientific data leading to clear guideline-based recommendations. Why is this the case, even after financial constraints are ruled out? Probably because FFR is still a complex invasive procedure. Maybe, in the future, quantitative flow-ratio angiography [which requires no pressure wire] or CT-based FFR will be more popular,” said Dr. Haude, an interventional cardiologist at the Rheinland Clinic in Neuss, Germany.

He reported receiving research grants from Biotronik and serving as a paid consultant to that company as well as Cardiac Dimensions, Orbus Neich, and Philips. Dr. Toth reported having no financial conflicts regarding the international survey.

bjancin@mdedge.com

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

Adults who ate chocolate more than once a week or more than 3.5 times a month were significantly less likely to develop coronary artery disease than were those who ate less chocolate, according to data from a meta-analysis of more than 300,000 individuals.

Howard Shooter/Thinkstock

Consumption of chocolate has shown beneficial effects on blood pressure and endothelial function, wrote Chayakrit Krittanawong, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. “However, the potential benefit of increased chocolate consumption reducing coronary artery disease (CAD) risk is not known,” they said.

The investigators reviewed data from 5 decades of research, including six studies with a total of 336,289 individuals who reported chocolate consumption. The study participants experienced 14,043 cases of CAD, 4,667 myocardial infarctions, 2,735 cerebrovascular accidents, and 332 cases of heart failure over an average follow-up period of 8.78 years.

Overall, higher chocolate consumption (defined as more than once a week or more than 3.5 times a month) was significantly associated with a decreased CAD risk (pooled risk ratio, 0.94; P < .001) compared to eating no chocolate or eating chocolate less than once a week.

The cardioprotective effects of chocolate may be linked to several nutrients, the researchers noted. Chocolate’s flavenols (epicatechin, catechin, and procyanidins) have demonstrated an ability to reduce myocardial infarct size in an animal study and to reduce platelet aggregation and improve endothelial function in humans with and without CAD. In addition, methylxanthines have demonstrated beneficial effects on cardiovascular function, polyphenols have been shown to facilitate nitric oxide synthesis, and stearic acid has been associated with reduced mean platelet volume, they wrote.

“The benefits of nutrients in chocolate appear promising and chocolate consumption at least once a week may be beneficial for CAD prevention,” the researchers suggested, although they cautioned that the effects of supplemental calories and the impact of fats, milk, and sugar in commercial chocolate must be taken into account.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential dietary confounders such as total energy intake and the type of chocolate consumed (milk, dark, or white) and the relatively homogeneous study population, which included mainly individuals from Europe and the United States.

Additional long-term, double-blind, randomized trials are needed to identify the cardioprotective effects of chocolate, and “studies to determine the role of genetic potential and the beneficial effects of chocolate on CAD may be needed,” the researchers noted.

However, the current study results suggest that “consumption of chocolates at least once a week is associated with a reduction in the risk of CAD,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Krittanawong C et al. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1177/2047487320936787.

Adults who ate chocolate more than once a week or more than 3.5 times a month were significantly less likely to develop coronary artery disease than were those who ate less chocolate, according to data from a meta-analysis of more than 300,000 individuals.

Howard Shooter/Thinkstock

Consumption of chocolate has shown beneficial effects on blood pressure and endothelial function, wrote Chayakrit Krittanawong, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. “However, the potential benefit of increased chocolate consumption reducing coronary artery disease (CAD) risk is not known,” they said.

The investigators reviewed data from 5 decades of research, including six studies with a total of 336,289 individuals who reported chocolate consumption. The study participants experienced 14,043 cases of CAD, 4,667 myocardial infarctions, 2,735 cerebrovascular accidents, and 332 cases of heart failure over an average follow-up period of 8.78 years.

Overall, higher chocolate consumption (defined as more than once a week or more than 3.5 times a month) was significantly associated with a decreased CAD risk (pooled risk ratio, 0.94; P < .001) compared to eating no chocolate or eating chocolate less than once a week.

The cardioprotective effects of chocolate may be linked to several nutrients, the researchers noted. Chocolate’s flavenols (epicatechin, catechin, and procyanidins) have demonstrated an ability to reduce myocardial infarct size in an animal study and to reduce platelet aggregation and improve endothelial function in humans with and without CAD. In addition, methylxanthines have demonstrated beneficial effects on cardiovascular function, polyphenols have been shown to facilitate nitric oxide synthesis, and stearic acid has been associated with reduced mean platelet volume, they wrote.

“The benefits of nutrients in chocolate appear promising and chocolate consumption at least once a week may be beneficial for CAD prevention,” the researchers suggested, although they cautioned that the effects of supplemental calories and the impact of fats, milk, and sugar in commercial chocolate must be taken into account.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential dietary confounders such as total energy intake and the type of chocolate consumed (milk, dark, or white) and the relatively homogeneous study population, which included mainly individuals from Europe and the United States.

Additional long-term, double-blind, randomized trials are needed to identify the cardioprotective effects of chocolate, and “studies to determine the role of genetic potential and the beneficial effects of chocolate on CAD may be needed,” the researchers noted.

However, the current study results suggest that “consumption of chocolates at least once a week is associated with a reduction in the risk of CAD,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Krittanawong C et al. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1177/2047487320936787.

Adults who ate chocolate more than once a week or more than 3.5 times a month were significantly less likely to develop coronary artery disease than were those who ate less chocolate, according to data from a meta-analysis of more than 300,000 individuals.

Howard Shooter/Thinkstock

Consumption of chocolate has shown beneficial effects on blood pressure and endothelial function, wrote Chayakrit Krittanawong, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. “However, the potential benefit of increased chocolate consumption reducing coronary artery disease (CAD) risk is not known,” they said.

The investigators reviewed data from 5 decades of research, including six studies with a total of 336,289 individuals who reported chocolate consumption. The study participants experienced 14,043 cases of CAD, 4,667 myocardial infarctions, 2,735 cerebrovascular accidents, and 332 cases of heart failure over an average follow-up period of 8.78 years.

Overall, higher chocolate consumption (defined as more than once a week or more than 3.5 times a month) was significantly associated with a decreased CAD risk (pooled risk ratio, 0.94; P < .001) compared to eating no chocolate or eating chocolate less than once a week.

The cardioprotective effects of chocolate may be linked to several nutrients, the researchers noted. Chocolate’s flavenols (epicatechin, catechin, and procyanidins) have demonstrated an ability to reduce myocardial infarct size in an animal study and to reduce platelet aggregation and improve endothelial function in humans with and without CAD. In addition, methylxanthines have demonstrated beneficial effects on cardiovascular function, polyphenols have been shown to facilitate nitric oxide synthesis, and stearic acid has been associated with reduced mean platelet volume, they wrote.

“The benefits of nutrients in chocolate appear promising and chocolate consumption at least once a week may be beneficial for CAD prevention,” the researchers suggested, although they cautioned that the effects of supplemental calories and the impact of fats, milk, and sugar in commercial chocolate must be taken into account.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential dietary confounders such as total energy intake and the type of chocolate consumed (milk, dark, or white) and the relatively homogeneous study population, which included mainly individuals from Europe and the United States.

Additional long-term, double-blind, randomized trials are needed to identify the cardioprotective effects of chocolate, and “studies to determine the role of genetic potential and the beneficial effects of chocolate on CAD may be needed,” the researchers noted.

However, the current study results suggest that “consumption of chocolates at least once a week is associated with a reduction in the risk of CAD,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Krittanawong C et al. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1177/2047487320936787.