User login
AHA: Heart health helps optimize breast cancer outcomes
Breast cancer outcomes rely on “coexisting cardiovascular health” at every step in the patient journey, the American Heart Association has said in its first-ever scientific statement on the matter.
The statement, published in Circulation provides a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease and breast cancer prevalence and shared risk factors, as well as current recommendations on avoiding the cardiotoxic effects of some cancer treatments and strategies to prevent or treat CVD in breast cancer patients.
Cardiovascular disease and breast cancer are two entities that are frequently intertwined, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.
“For any oncologic patient, it’s important to also consider their heart in the risk assessment because that also affects survival from the cancer,” said Dr. Mehta, the director of the Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an associate professor of medicine at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Mortality risk attributable to CVD is higher in breast cancer survivors than in women who have no history of breast cancer, according to evidence Dr. Mehta and her colleagues cite in the statement.
Breast cancer and CVD share a number of common and sometimes modifiable risk factors, including dietary patterns, physical activity, and being overweight or obese, and tobacco use. There is “growing awareness” that modifying those risk factors may help prevent some cases of breast cancer.
Even in patients who have a breast cancer diagnosis, “from a cardiology standpoint, lifestyle is going to be key,” said Dr. Mehta. She said breast cancer patients can be encouraged to follow AHA recommendations to aim for 150 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise weekly and to follow an “overall healthy dietary pattern” that limits saturated and trans fats, sodium, red meat, sweets, and sugar-sweetened beverages.
Although left ventricular systolic dysfunction is the most common cardiovascular side effect associated with chemotherapy, other manifestations of early or delayed cardiotoxicity can include heart failure, hypertension, thromboembolic disease, pulmonary hypertension, pericarditis, and myocardial ischemia, according to the AHA scientific statement.
A wide range of standard breast cancer treatments cause cardiovascular adverse effects, including taxanes such as paclitaxel, anthracyclines such as doxorubicin, and alkylating agents such as cisplatin and cyclophosphamide, as outlined in the statement.
Targeted HER-2–directed therapies, including trastuzumab and pertuzumab, are associated with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure, while emerging therapies, such as the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib and ribociclib, are associated with QTc prolongation, the statement also notes.
Current strategies for monitoring for cardiovascular toxicity, which typically involve myocardial strain imaging, assessing cardiac biomarkers, or a combination of imaging and biomarkers, are outlined in the report.
To mitigate the impact of cancer treatments on cardiovascular health, several oncologic strategies are useful, according to Dr. Mehta and colleagues.
In multiple clinical trials of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin or epirubicin, the iron-binding agent dexrazoxane reduced the combined endpoint of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction or development of heart failure, the authors said.
Likewise, clinical trial evidence has suggested cardiotoxicity associated with doxorubicin can be mitigated through administration via infusion as opposed to bolus and with longer versus shorter infusion durations, they continued.
Extreme cases or difficult-to-manage patients can be referred to a center that has an active program in cardio-oncology, a newer and rapidly expanding field, according to Dr. Mehta.
“That’s where there’s tight collaboration in terms of understanding the current treatments, and that’s also where research on how to best take care of these patients will be conducted,” she said.
Dr. Mehta reported no disclosures. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, and others.
SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2017 Jan 22. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000556.
Breast cancer outcomes rely on “coexisting cardiovascular health” at every step in the patient journey, the American Heart Association has said in its first-ever scientific statement on the matter.
The statement, published in Circulation provides a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease and breast cancer prevalence and shared risk factors, as well as current recommendations on avoiding the cardiotoxic effects of some cancer treatments and strategies to prevent or treat CVD in breast cancer patients.
Cardiovascular disease and breast cancer are two entities that are frequently intertwined, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.
“For any oncologic patient, it’s important to also consider their heart in the risk assessment because that also affects survival from the cancer,” said Dr. Mehta, the director of the Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an associate professor of medicine at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Mortality risk attributable to CVD is higher in breast cancer survivors than in women who have no history of breast cancer, according to evidence Dr. Mehta and her colleagues cite in the statement.
Breast cancer and CVD share a number of common and sometimes modifiable risk factors, including dietary patterns, physical activity, and being overweight or obese, and tobacco use. There is “growing awareness” that modifying those risk factors may help prevent some cases of breast cancer.
Even in patients who have a breast cancer diagnosis, “from a cardiology standpoint, lifestyle is going to be key,” said Dr. Mehta. She said breast cancer patients can be encouraged to follow AHA recommendations to aim for 150 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise weekly and to follow an “overall healthy dietary pattern” that limits saturated and trans fats, sodium, red meat, sweets, and sugar-sweetened beverages.
Although left ventricular systolic dysfunction is the most common cardiovascular side effect associated with chemotherapy, other manifestations of early or delayed cardiotoxicity can include heart failure, hypertension, thromboembolic disease, pulmonary hypertension, pericarditis, and myocardial ischemia, according to the AHA scientific statement.
A wide range of standard breast cancer treatments cause cardiovascular adverse effects, including taxanes such as paclitaxel, anthracyclines such as doxorubicin, and alkylating agents such as cisplatin and cyclophosphamide, as outlined in the statement.
Targeted HER-2–directed therapies, including trastuzumab and pertuzumab, are associated with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure, while emerging therapies, such as the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib and ribociclib, are associated with QTc prolongation, the statement also notes.
Current strategies for monitoring for cardiovascular toxicity, which typically involve myocardial strain imaging, assessing cardiac biomarkers, or a combination of imaging and biomarkers, are outlined in the report.
To mitigate the impact of cancer treatments on cardiovascular health, several oncologic strategies are useful, according to Dr. Mehta and colleagues.
In multiple clinical trials of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin or epirubicin, the iron-binding agent dexrazoxane reduced the combined endpoint of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction or development of heart failure, the authors said.
Likewise, clinical trial evidence has suggested cardiotoxicity associated with doxorubicin can be mitigated through administration via infusion as opposed to bolus and with longer versus shorter infusion durations, they continued.
Extreme cases or difficult-to-manage patients can be referred to a center that has an active program in cardio-oncology, a newer and rapidly expanding field, according to Dr. Mehta.
“That’s where there’s tight collaboration in terms of understanding the current treatments, and that’s also where research on how to best take care of these patients will be conducted,” she said.
Dr. Mehta reported no disclosures. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, and others.
SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2017 Jan 22. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000556.
Breast cancer outcomes rely on “coexisting cardiovascular health” at every step in the patient journey, the American Heart Association has said in its first-ever scientific statement on the matter.
The statement, published in Circulation provides a comprehensive overview of cardiovascular disease and breast cancer prevalence and shared risk factors, as well as current recommendations on avoiding the cardiotoxic effects of some cancer treatments and strategies to prevent or treat CVD in breast cancer patients.
Cardiovascular disease and breast cancer are two entities that are frequently intertwined, Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, chair of the statement writing group, said in an interview.
“For any oncologic patient, it’s important to also consider their heart in the risk assessment because that also affects survival from the cancer,” said Dr. Mehta, the director of the Women’s Cardiovascular Health Program and an associate professor of medicine at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
Mortality risk attributable to CVD is higher in breast cancer survivors than in women who have no history of breast cancer, according to evidence Dr. Mehta and her colleagues cite in the statement.
Breast cancer and CVD share a number of common and sometimes modifiable risk factors, including dietary patterns, physical activity, and being overweight or obese, and tobacco use. There is “growing awareness” that modifying those risk factors may help prevent some cases of breast cancer.
Even in patients who have a breast cancer diagnosis, “from a cardiology standpoint, lifestyle is going to be key,” said Dr. Mehta. She said breast cancer patients can be encouraged to follow AHA recommendations to aim for 150 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise weekly and to follow an “overall healthy dietary pattern” that limits saturated and trans fats, sodium, red meat, sweets, and sugar-sweetened beverages.
Although left ventricular systolic dysfunction is the most common cardiovascular side effect associated with chemotherapy, other manifestations of early or delayed cardiotoxicity can include heart failure, hypertension, thromboembolic disease, pulmonary hypertension, pericarditis, and myocardial ischemia, according to the AHA scientific statement.
A wide range of standard breast cancer treatments cause cardiovascular adverse effects, including taxanes such as paclitaxel, anthracyclines such as doxorubicin, and alkylating agents such as cisplatin and cyclophosphamide, as outlined in the statement.
Targeted HER-2–directed therapies, including trastuzumab and pertuzumab, are associated with left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure, while emerging therapies, such as the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors palbociclib and ribociclib, are associated with QTc prolongation, the statement also notes.
Current strategies for monitoring for cardiovascular toxicity, which typically involve myocardial strain imaging, assessing cardiac biomarkers, or a combination of imaging and biomarkers, are outlined in the report.
To mitigate the impact of cancer treatments on cardiovascular health, several oncologic strategies are useful, according to Dr. Mehta and colleagues.
In multiple clinical trials of breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin or epirubicin, the iron-binding agent dexrazoxane reduced the combined endpoint of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction or development of heart failure, the authors said.
Likewise, clinical trial evidence has suggested cardiotoxicity associated with doxorubicin can be mitigated through administration via infusion as opposed to bolus and with longer versus shorter infusion durations, they continued.
Extreme cases or difficult-to-manage patients can be referred to a center that has an active program in cardio-oncology, a newer and rapidly expanding field, according to Dr. Mehta.
“That’s where there’s tight collaboration in terms of understanding the current treatments, and that’s also where research on how to best take care of these patients will be conducted,” she said.
Dr. Mehta reported no disclosures. Coauthors reported disclosures related to Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Roche, Novartis, and others.
SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2017 Jan 22. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000556.
FROM CIRCULATION
Learn ‘four Ds’ approach to heart failure in diabetes
LOS ANGELES – , such as lung cancer, because diabetes makes the pathophysiology of heart failure worse, according to Mark Kearney, MD.
“Diabetes amplifies the neurohormonal response to heart failure, so it drives progressive heart failure and increases the risk for sudden death,” Dr. Kearney said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “As left ventricular function goes down, patients with diabetes have heightened activation of the renin angiotensin system. They have increased left ventricular hypertrophy, and they have increased sympathetic nervous system activation.”
Dr. Kearney, a cardiologist who directs the Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine at Leeds (England) University, offered a “four Ds” framework that clinicians can use to improve prognosis in these patients.
1. Use a loop diuretic to control symptoms. “If the patient has fluid retention, it’s important to get them out of congestive cardiac syndrome as quickly as possible,” he said.
2. Disease modification with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors, to the maximal dose tolerated. “These are still the mainstays of treatment for patients with heart failure, and they’re even more important in patients with diabetes and heart failure,” he said.
3. Consider device therapy, including defibrillators and resynchronization therapy.4. Optimize diabetes management.
“If you keep these things in your mind as you see a patient with heart failure and diabetes, it will give you a guide to approaching these patients,” said Dr. Kearney, who is also research lead for heart failure services at the University of Leeds. “When I see patients, I’ll check for edema right away. If they have it, I’ll increase the diuretic, and I’ll think about the different steps in the treatment pathway.”
He described heart failure due to systolic dysfunction as a reduction in cardiac output that doesn’t meet the demands of the body, the endpoint of a whole range of insults to the left ventricle.
“The most common cause today is ischemic heart disease; it used to be hypertension,” he said. “People over 40 have a one in five chance of developing heart failure, so it’s really important for all of us to improve outcomes in this terrible syndrome.”
According to a study of nearly 2,000 unselected patients conducted by Dr. Kearney and his associates, those with diabetes and heart failure are more likely to have ischemia, compared with those who have heart failure and no diabetes (75% vs. 58%, respectively), lower hemoglobin (13 g/dL vs. 13.7 g/dL), and worse renal function (eGFR of 51 mL/min per 1.732 m2 vs 57 mL/min per 1.732 m2) (Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2013 Jul;10[4]:330-6).
He added that type 2 diabetes is a sudden death risk equivalent to patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (Heart 2016 May 15;102[10]:735-40).
“So, if you have diabetes and the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines indication for a defibrillator, your risk of sudden death in 5 years is probably 50%,” Dr. Kearney said. “The best treatment in this case is a prophylactic defibrillator.”
ACE inhibitors are used to protect these patients against cardiac myocyte cell death and vasoconstriction, while beta-blockers are used to protect against the activation of the sympathetic nervous system.
“Often, patients don’t like taking beta-blockers because they say they make them feel tired – when in fact they don’t realize it’s their heart failure that’s making them feel tired,” Dr. Kearney said.
He and his associates examined the effect of different drugs doses on all-cause mortality at 5 years. They found that, among patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and no diabetes, ramipril conferred a 3% improvement in mortality per milligram. At the same time, the mortality among patients with diabetes and heart failure who did not receive a beta-blocker was about 7%.
However, the absolute gain from beta-blocker use in patients with diabetes and heart failure was three times that of patients without diabetes.
“So, every milligram you increase the dose by, there’s an associated improvement in risk,” Dr. Kearney said. “Over 5 years, comparing the lowest beta-blocker dose to the highest beta-blocker dose, it was 1 year of life gained. So, when I see my patients and they ask about side effects of beta-blockers, I now say to them, ‘The side effects actually make you live longer.’”
He concluded his remarks by noting that while he is not a diabetes expert, it’s clear that diabetes is intimately linked to the pathophysiology of heart failure.
“If you’re insulin resistant, you have hypertension, hyperglycemia, you have inflammation and bone marrow dysfunction – all of which can exacerbate left ventricle dysfunction,” he said. “You have a syndrome in which you have cardiac dysfunction and metabolic dysfunction that conspire to lead to worsening of left ventricular dysfunction.”
Dr. Kearney disclosed that he has been a speaker for Merck.
LOS ANGELES – , such as lung cancer, because diabetes makes the pathophysiology of heart failure worse, according to Mark Kearney, MD.
“Diabetes amplifies the neurohormonal response to heart failure, so it drives progressive heart failure and increases the risk for sudden death,” Dr. Kearney said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “As left ventricular function goes down, patients with diabetes have heightened activation of the renin angiotensin system. They have increased left ventricular hypertrophy, and they have increased sympathetic nervous system activation.”
Dr. Kearney, a cardiologist who directs the Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine at Leeds (England) University, offered a “four Ds” framework that clinicians can use to improve prognosis in these patients.
1. Use a loop diuretic to control symptoms. “If the patient has fluid retention, it’s important to get them out of congestive cardiac syndrome as quickly as possible,” he said.
2. Disease modification with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors, to the maximal dose tolerated. “These are still the mainstays of treatment for patients with heart failure, and they’re even more important in patients with diabetes and heart failure,” he said.
3. Consider device therapy, including defibrillators and resynchronization therapy.4. Optimize diabetes management.
“If you keep these things in your mind as you see a patient with heart failure and diabetes, it will give you a guide to approaching these patients,” said Dr. Kearney, who is also research lead for heart failure services at the University of Leeds. “When I see patients, I’ll check for edema right away. If they have it, I’ll increase the diuretic, and I’ll think about the different steps in the treatment pathway.”
He described heart failure due to systolic dysfunction as a reduction in cardiac output that doesn’t meet the demands of the body, the endpoint of a whole range of insults to the left ventricle.
“The most common cause today is ischemic heart disease; it used to be hypertension,” he said. “People over 40 have a one in five chance of developing heart failure, so it’s really important for all of us to improve outcomes in this terrible syndrome.”
According to a study of nearly 2,000 unselected patients conducted by Dr. Kearney and his associates, those with diabetes and heart failure are more likely to have ischemia, compared with those who have heart failure and no diabetes (75% vs. 58%, respectively), lower hemoglobin (13 g/dL vs. 13.7 g/dL), and worse renal function (eGFR of 51 mL/min per 1.732 m2 vs 57 mL/min per 1.732 m2) (Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2013 Jul;10[4]:330-6).
He added that type 2 diabetes is a sudden death risk equivalent to patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (Heart 2016 May 15;102[10]:735-40).
“So, if you have diabetes and the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines indication for a defibrillator, your risk of sudden death in 5 years is probably 50%,” Dr. Kearney said. “The best treatment in this case is a prophylactic defibrillator.”
ACE inhibitors are used to protect these patients against cardiac myocyte cell death and vasoconstriction, while beta-blockers are used to protect against the activation of the sympathetic nervous system.
“Often, patients don’t like taking beta-blockers because they say they make them feel tired – when in fact they don’t realize it’s their heart failure that’s making them feel tired,” Dr. Kearney said.
He and his associates examined the effect of different drugs doses on all-cause mortality at 5 years. They found that, among patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and no diabetes, ramipril conferred a 3% improvement in mortality per milligram. At the same time, the mortality among patients with diabetes and heart failure who did not receive a beta-blocker was about 7%.
However, the absolute gain from beta-blocker use in patients with diabetes and heart failure was three times that of patients without diabetes.
“So, every milligram you increase the dose by, there’s an associated improvement in risk,” Dr. Kearney said. “Over 5 years, comparing the lowest beta-blocker dose to the highest beta-blocker dose, it was 1 year of life gained. So, when I see my patients and they ask about side effects of beta-blockers, I now say to them, ‘The side effects actually make you live longer.’”
He concluded his remarks by noting that while he is not a diabetes expert, it’s clear that diabetes is intimately linked to the pathophysiology of heart failure.
“If you’re insulin resistant, you have hypertension, hyperglycemia, you have inflammation and bone marrow dysfunction – all of which can exacerbate left ventricle dysfunction,” he said. “You have a syndrome in which you have cardiac dysfunction and metabolic dysfunction that conspire to lead to worsening of left ventricular dysfunction.”
Dr. Kearney disclosed that he has been a speaker for Merck.
LOS ANGELES – , such as lung cancer, because diabetes makes the pathophysiology of heart failure worse, according to Mark Kearney, MD.
“Diabetes amplifies the neurohormonal response to heart failure, so it drives progressive heart failure and increases the risk for sudden death,” Dr. Kearney said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “As left ventricular function goes down, patients with diabetes have heightened activation of the renin angiotensin system. They have increased left ventricular hypertrophy, and they have increased sympathetic nervous system activation.”
Dr. Kearney, a cardiologist who directs the Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular & Metabolic Medicine at Leeds (England) University, offered a “four Ds” framework that clinicians can use to improve prognosis in these patients.
1. Use a loop diuretic to control symptoms. “If the patient has fluid retention, it’s important to get them out of congestive cardiac syndrome as quickly as possible,” he said.
2. Disease modification with beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors, to the maximal dose tolerated. “These are still the mainstays of treatment for patients with heart failure, and they’re even more important in patients with diabetes and heart failure,” he said.
3. Consider device therapy, including defibrillators and resynchronization therapy.4. Optimize diabetes management.
“If you keep these things in your mind as you see a patient with heart failure and diabetes, it will give you a guide to approaching these patients,” said Dr. Kearney, who is also research lead for heart failure services at the University of Leeds. “When I see patients, I’ll check for edema right away. If they have it, I’ll increase the diuretic, and I’ll think about the different steps in the treatment pathway.”
He described heart failure due to systolic dysfunction as a reduction in cardiac output that doesn’t meet the demands of the body, the endpoint of a whole range of insults to the left ventricle.
“The most common cause today is ischemic heart disease; it used to be hypertension,” he said. “People over 40 have a one in five chance of developing heart failure, so it’s really important for all of us to improve outcomes in this terrible syndrome.”
According to a study of nearly 2,000 unselected patients conducted by Dr. Kearney and his associates, those with diabetes and heart failure are more likely to have ischemia, compared with those who have heart failure and no diabetes (75% vs. 58%, respectively), lower hemoglobin (13 g/dL vs. 13.7 g/dL), and worse renal function (eGFR of 51 mL/min per 1.732 m2 vs 57 mL/min per 1.732 m2) (Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2013 Jul;10[4]:330-6).
He added that type 2 diabetes is a sudden death risk equivalent to patients with ischemic heart disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (Heart 2016 May 15;102[10]:735-40).
“So, if you have diabetes and the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines indication for a defibrillator, your risk of sudden death in 5 years is probably 50%,” Dr. Kearney said. “The best treatment in this case is a prophylactic defibrillator.”
ACE inhibitors are used to protect these patients against cardiac myocyte cell death and vasoconstriction, while beta-blockers are used to protect against the activation of the sympathetic nervous system.
“Often, patients don’t like taking beta-blockers because they say they make them feel tired – when in fact they don’t realize it’s their heart failure that’s making them feel tired,” Dr. Kearney said.
He and his associates examined the effect of different drugs doses on all-cause mortality at 5 years. They found that, among patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and no diabetes, ramipril conferred a 3% improvement in mortality per milligram. At the same time, the mortality among patients with diabetes and heart failure who did not receive a beta-blocker was about 7%.
However, the absolute gain from beta-blocker use in patients with diabetes and heart failure was three times that of patients without diabetes.
“So, every milligram you increase the dose by, there’s an associated improvement in risk,” Dr. Kearney said. “Over 5 years, comparing the lowest beta-blocker dose to the highest beta-blocker dose, it was 1 year of life gained. So, when I see my patients and they ask about side effects of beta-blockers, I now say to them, ‘The side effects actually make you live longer.’”
He concluded his remarks by noting that while he is not a diabetes expert, it’s clear that diabetes is intimately linked to the pathophysiology of heart failure.
“If you’re insulin resistant, you have hypertension, hyperglycemia, you have inflammation and bone marrow dysfunction – all of which can exacerbate left ventricle dysfunction,” he said. “You have a syndrome in which you have cardiac dysfunction and metabolic dysfunction that conspire to lead to worsening of left ventricular dysfunction.”
Dr. Kearney disclosed that he has been a speaker for Merck.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM WCIRDC 2017
Isolated severe tricuspid regurgitation: An emerging disease
SNOWMASS, COLO. – that’s treatable, provided affected patients are referred for surgery before the clinical course progresses to intractable right heart disease with cirrhosis and liver failure, Rick A. Nishimura, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“This is an emerging disease that you’re all going to see in your practices this year. You’ve got to know what to do with these patients. Get to them early,” urged Dr. Nishimura, professor of cardiovascular sciences and hypertension at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The medical textbooks don’t discuss isolated severe tricuspid regurgitation (ISTR) or its etiology. ISTR is a disorder of progressive right ventricular dilation and dysfunction whose etiology involves either longstanding atrial fibrillation or valvular disruption due to interference from a crossing lead of a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
“This is something different. These patients have a normal left heart and left heart valves and normal pressures, with no pulmonary hypertension. So it doesn’t fit into any of the textbook categories of tricuspid regurgitation,” the cardiologist said.
Moreover, the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on valvular heart disease don’t address ISTR, either. Physicians who attempt to apply the guidelines in deciding when to refer a patient with ISTR for surgery will oftentimes find they’ve waited too long and the patient has started to develop end-stage disease, according to Dr. Nishimura.
And he should know: He was lead author of the current ACC/AHA guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 10;63[22]:2438-88).
Decades ago, Eugene Braunwald, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, famously called the tricuspid valve “the forgotten valve.” The history of the Snowmass winter cardiology conference bears that out. During 2007-2017, the conference featured an average of 5.4 sessions per year on aortic valve disease, 4.5 sessions per year on mitral valve disease, and not a single session on tricuspid valve disease. But the tricuspid valve is forgotten no longer, Dr. Nishimura emphasized.
How ISTR presents
The affected patient has a history of either longstanding atrial fibrillation or a permanent pacemaker or ICD.
“This is something that 4 or 5 years ago people said didn’t exist. Our pacemaker people told me, ‘Nah, you can never get tricuspid regurgitation from our leads.’ Now it’s one of the leading causes of tricuspid regurgitation going to operation,” said Dr. Nishimura.
The presenting symptoms of ISTR are typically ascites, edema, and shortness of breath.
“Why should patients with a right heart problem get dyspnea? It turns out that when the right ventricle dilates it pushes the septum in, so the effective operative compliance of the left ventricle decreases and you actually see the pulmonary artery wedge pressure go up,” he explained.
On physical examination, the patient will have elevated jugular venous pressure with large V waves.
“This is a clue that something is going on. The patient will have neck veins jumping up to her ear lobes. The ear lobes are going to wiggle with every heart beat – boom, boom, boom. If you see that, you start to figure out what’s going on. You need nothing else,” Dr. Nishimura said.
The patient will likely also have a pulsatile enlarged liver and, even though this is valve disease, a murmur that’s either soft or inaudible.
Echocardiographic diagnosis
Echocardiography will show a dilated right ventricle and right atrium, a dilated inferior vena cava, and a normal left ventricle with no pulmonary hypertension. The classic sign of ISTR on continuous wave Doppler echocardiography is a dagger-shaped tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity signal of less than 2.5 meters/sec, which indicates the absence of pulmonary hypertension. This dagger shape occurs because the right atrial pressure equalizes the right ventricular pressure.
It’s also important to point the echo probe at the hepatic veins to spot another echocardiographic hallmark of ISTR: systolic reversal.
A thorough echo exam makes hemodynamic catheterization unnecessary in these patients, Dr. Nishimura added.
When to refer for tricuspid valve repair or replacement
The clinical course of ISTR is progressive, often rapidly so. It starts with elevated jugular venous pressure, then comes fatigue and shortness of breath, moving on to ascites and edema, then finally cirrhosis and renal failure. It’s a vicious cycle in which tricuspid regurgitation begets annular dilation, which causes chordal stretching and worsening tricuspid regurgitation, leading to further annular dilation.
Patients typically aren’t referred for surgery – and may not even present to a physician – until they’ve already developed end-stage disease. That’s probably why the outcomes of surgery for ISTR are so poor. Dr. Nishimura was senior investigator of a recent retrospective study of national trends and outcomes for ISTR surgery based on the National Inpatient Sample. The number of operations increased by 250% during a recent 10-year period, but the surgery is still rare: 290 operations in 2004, climbing to 780 nationwide in 2013.
In-hospital mortality remained steady over time at 8.8%, far higher than rates of in-hospital mortality for surgery for aortic and mitral valve disease, which today stand at 1%-2% or less. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality for tricuspid valve replacement in patients with ISTR was 1.9-fold greater than for valve repair (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 19;70[24]:2953-60).
“I think the reason the operative risk of valve surgery for ISTR is so high is that we’re waiting until patients have end-stage disease,” Dr. Nishimura said.
Indeed, he recommends referral for surgery as soon as the echocardiographic diagnosis of ISTR is made in a patient with huge neck veins.
“This will probably take the operative risk down by going to a time when the right ventricle can still recover,” he added.
In a patient with ISTR and pacemaker or defibrillator leads crossing the valve, tricuspid valve repair or replacement should be accompanied by exteriorization of the leads.
Dr. Nishimura reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – that’s treatable, provided affected patients are referred for surgery before the clinical course progresses to intractable right heart disease with cirrhosis and liver failure, Rick A. Nishimura, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“This is an emerging disease that you’re all going to see in your practices this year. You’ve got to know what to do with these patients. Get to them early,” urged Dr. Nishimura, professor of cardiovascular sciences and hypertension at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The medical textbooks don’t discuss isolated severe tricuspid regurgitation (ISTR) or its etiology. ISTR is a disorder of progressive right ventricular dilation and dysfunction whose etiology involves either longstanding atrial fibrillation or valvular disruption due to interference from a crossing lead of a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
“This is something different. These patients have a normal left heart and left heart valves and normal pressures, with no pulmonary hypertension. So it doesn’t fit into any of the textbook categories of tricuspid regurgitation,” the cardiologist said.
Moreover, the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on valvular heart disease don’t address ISTR, either. Physicians who attempt to apply the guidelines in deciding when to refer a patient with ISTR for surgery will oftentimes find they’ve waited too long and the patient has started to develop end-stage disease, according to Dr. Nishimura.
And he should know: He was lead author of the current ACC/AHA guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 10;63[22]:2438-88).
Decades ago, Eugene Braunwald, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, famously called the tricuspid valve “the forgotten valve.” The history of the Snowmass winter cardiology conference bears that out. During 2007-2017, the conference featured an average of 5.4 sessions per year on aortic valve disease, 4.5 sessions per year on mitral valve disease, and not a single session on tricuspid valve disease. But the tricuspid valve is forgotten no longer, Dr. Nishimura emphasized.
How ISTR presents
The affected patient has a history of either longstanding atrial fibrillation or a permanent pacemaker or ICD.
“This is something that 4 or 5 years ago people said didn’t exist. Our pacemaker people told me, ‘Nah, you can never get tricuspid regurgitation from our leads.’ Now it’s one of the leading causes of tricuspid regurgitation going to operation,” said Dr. Nishimura.
The presenting symptoms of ISTR are typically ascites, edema, and shortness of breath.
“Why should patients with a right heart problem get dyspnea? It turns out that when the right ventricle dilates it pushes the septum in, so the effective operative compliance of the left ventricle decreases and you actually see the pulmonary artery wedge pressure go up,” he explained.
On physical examination, the patient will have elevated jugular venous pressure with large V waves.
“This is a clue that something is going on. The patient will have neck veins jumping up to her ear lobes. The ear lobes are going to wiggle with every heart beat – boom, boom, boom. If you see that, you start to figure out what’s going on. You need nothing else,” Dr. Nishimura said.
The patient will likely also have a pulsatile enlarged liver and, even though this is valve disease, a murmur that’s either soft or inaudible.
Echocardiographic diagnosis
Echocardiography will show a dilated right ventricle and right atrium, a dilated inferior vena cava, and a normal left ventricle with no pulmonary hypertension. The classic sign of ISTR on continuous wave Doppler echocardiography is a dagger-shaped tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity signal of less than 2.5 meters/sec, which indicates the absence of pulmonary hypertension. This dagger shape occurs because the right atrial pressure equalizes the right ventricular pressure.
It’s also important to point the echo probe at the hepatic veins to spot another echocardiographic hallmark of ISTR: systolic reversal.
A thorough echo exam makes hemodynamic catheterization unnecessary in these patients, Dr. Nishimura added.
When to refer for tricuspid valve repair or replacement
The clinical course of ISTR is progressive, often rapidly so. It starts with elevated jugular venous pressure, then comes fatigue and shortness of breath, moving on to ascites and edema, then finally cirrhosis and renal failure. It’s a vicious cycle in which tricuspid regurgitation begets annular dilation, which causes chordal stretching and worsening tricuspid regurgitation, leading to further annular dilation.
Patients typically aren’t referred for surgery – and may not even present to a physician – until they’ve already developed end-stage disease. That’s probably why the outcomes of surgery for ISTR are so poor. Dr. Nishimura was senior investigator of a recent retrospective study of national trends and outcomes for ISTR surgery based on the National Inpatient Sample. The number of operations increased by 250% during a recent 10-year period, but the surgery is still rare: 290 operations in 2004, climbing to 780 nationwide in 2013.
In-hospital mortality remained steady over time at 8.8%, far higher than rates of in-hospital mortality for surgery for aortic and mitral valve disease, which today stand at 1%-2% or less. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality for tricuspid valve replacement in patients with ISTR was 1.9-fold greater than for valve repair (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 19;70[24]:2953-60).
“I think the reason the operative risk of valve surgery for ISTR is so high is that we’re waiting until patients have end-stage disease,” Dr. Nishimura said.
Indeed, he recommends referral for surgery as soon as the echocardiographic diagnosis of ISTR is made in a patient with huge neck veins.
“This will probably take the operative risk down by going to a time when the right ventricle can still recover,” he added.
In a patient with ISTR and pacemaker or defibrillator leads crossing the valve, tricuspid valve repair or replacement should be accompanied by exteriorization of the leads.
Dr. Nishimura reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
SNOWMASS, COLO. – that’s treatable, provided affected patients are referred for surgery before the clinical course progresses to intractable right heart disease with cirrhosis and liver failure, Rick A. Nishimura, MD, said at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass.
“This is an emerging disease that you’re all going to see in your practices this year. You’ve got to know what to do with these patients. Get to them early,” urged Dr. Nishimura, professor of cardiovascular sciences and hypertension at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
The medical textbooks don’t discuss isolated severe tricuspid regurgitation (ISTR) or its etiology. ISTR is a disorder of progressive right ventricular dilation and dysfunction whose etiology involves either longstanding atrial fibrillation or valvular disruption due to interference from a crossing lead of a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator.
“This is something different. These patients have a normal left heart and left heart valves and normal pressures, with no pulmonary hypertension. So it doesn’t fit into any of the textbook categories of tricuspid regurgitation,” the cardiologist said.
Moreover, the current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on valvular heart disease don’t address ISTR, either. Physicians who attempt to apply the guidelines in deciding when to refer a patient with ISTR for surgery will oftentimes find they’ve waited too long and the patient has started to develop end-stage disease, according to Dr. Nishimura.
And he should know: He was lead author of the current ACC/AHA guidelines (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 10;63[22]:2438-88).
Decades ago, Eugene Braunwald, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, famously called the tricuspid valve “the forgotten valve.” The history of the Snowmass winter cardiology conference bears that out. During 2007-2017, the conference featured an average of 5.4 sessions per year on aortic valve disease, 4.5 sessions per year on mitral valve disease, and not a single session on tricuspid valve disease. But the tricuspid valve is forgotten no longer, Dr. Nishimura emphasized.
How ISTR presents
The affected patient has a history of either longstanding atrial fibrillation or a permanent pacemaker or ICD.
“This is something that 4 or 5 years ago people said didn’t exist. Our pacemaker people told me, ‘Nah, you can never get tricuspid regurgitation from our leads.’ Now it’s one of the leading causes of tricuspid regurgitation going to operation,” said Dr. Nishimura.
The presenting symptoms of ISTR are typically ascites, edema, and shortness of breath.
“Why should patients with a right heart problem get dyspnea? It turns out that when the right ventricle dilates it pushes the septum in, so the effective operative compliance of the left ventricle decreases and you actually see the pulmonary artery wedge pressure go up,” he explained.
On physical examination, the patient will have elevated jugular venous pressure with large V waves.
“This is a clue that something is going on. The patient will have neck veins jumping up to her ear lobes. The ear lobes are going to wiggle with every heart beat – boom, boom, boom. If you see that, you start to figure out what’s going on. You need nothing else,” Dr. Nishimura said.
The patient will likely also have a pulsatile enlarged liver and, even though this is valve disease, a murmur that’s either soft or inaudible.
Echocardiographic diagnosis
Echocardiography will show a dilated right ventricle and right atrium, a dilated inferior vena cava, and a normal left ventricle with no pulmonary hypertension. The classic sign of ISTR on continuous wave Doppler echocardiography is a dagger-shaped tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity signal of less than 2.5 meters/sec, which indicates the absence of pulmonary hypertension. This dagger shape occurs because the right atrial pressure equalizes the right ventricular pressure.
It’s also important to point the echo probe at the hepatic veins to spot another echocardiographic hallmark of ISTR: systolic reversal.
A thorough echo exam makes hemodynamic catheterization unnecessary in these patients, Dr. Nishimura added.
When to refer for tricuspid valve repair or replacement
The clinical course of ISTR is progressive, often rapidly so. It starts with elevated jugular venous pressure, then comes fatigue and shortness of breath, moving on to ascites and edema, then finally cirrhosis and renal failure. It’s a vicious cycle in which tricuspid regurgitation begets annular dilation, which causes chordal stretching and worsening tricuspid regurgitation, leading to further annular dilation.
Patients typically aren’t referred for surgery – and may not even present to a physician – until they’ve already developed end-stage disease. That’s probably why the outcomes of surgery for ISTR are so poor. Dr. Nishimura was senior investigator of a recent retrospective study of national trends and outcomes for ISTR surgery based on the National Inpatient Sample. The number of operations increased by 250% during a recent 10-year period, but the surgery is still rare: 290 operations in 2004, climbing to 780 nationwide in 2013.
In-hospital mortality remained steady over time at 8.8%, far higher than rates of in-hospital mortality for surgery for aortic and mitral valve disease, which today stand at 1%-2% or less. The adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality for tricuspid valve replacement in patients with ISTR was 1.9-fold greater than for valve repair (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 19;70[24]:2953-60).
“I think the reason the operative risk of valve surgery for ISTR is so high is that we’re waiting until patients have end-stage disease,” Dr. Nishimura said.
Indeed, he recommends referral for surgery as soon as the echocardiographic diagnosis of ISTR is made in a patient with huge neck veins.
“This will probably take the operative risk down by going to a time when the right ventricle can still recover,” he added.
In a patient with ISTR and pacemaker or defibrillator leads crossing the valve, tricuspid valve repair or replacement should be accompanied by exteriorization of the leads.
Dr. Nishimura reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE CARDIOVASCULAR CONFERENCE AT SNOWMASS
CMS clinical trials raise cardiac mortality
Nearly 2 years ago I speculated in this column that health planners or health economists would attempt to manipulate the patterns of patient care to influence the cost and/or quality of clinical care. At that time I suggested that, in that event, the intervention should be managed as we have with drug or device trials to ensure the authenticity and accuracy and most of all assuring the safety of the patient. Furthermore, the design should be incorporated in the intervention, that equipoise be present in the arms of the trial and that a safety monitoring board be in place to alert investigators when and if patient safety is threatened. Patient consent should also be obtained.
Beginning in 2012, CMS, using claims data from 2008 to 2012, penalized hospitals if they did not achieve acceptable readmission rates. At the same time, the agency established the Hospital Admission Reduction Program to monitor 30-day mortality and standardize readmission data. The recent data indicate that the incentives did achieve some decrease in rehospitalization but this was associated with a 16.5% relative increase in 30-day mortality. It was of particular concern that in the previous decade there had been a progressive decrease in 30-day mortality (Circulation 2014;130:966-75). The increase in 30-day mortality observed in the 4-year observational period appears to have interrupted the progressive decrease in 30-day mortality, which would have decreased to 30% if not impacted by the plan.
My previous concerns with this type of social experimentation and manipulation of health care was carried out, and as far as I can tell, continues without any oversight and little insight into the possible risks of this process. A better designed study would have provided better understanding of these results and might have mitigated the adverse effects and mortality events. It is suggested that some hospitals actually gamed the system to their economic advantage. In addition, no oversight board was or is in place as we have with drug trials to allow monitors to become aware of adverse events before there any further loss of life occurs.
I would agree that a randomized trial in this environment would be difficult to achieve. Obtaining consent from thousands of patients would also be difficult. Nevertheless, .
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
Nearly 2 years ago I speculated in this column that health planners or health economists would attempt to manipulate the patterns of patient care to influence the cost and/or quality of clinical care. At that time I suggested that, in that event, the intervention should be managed as we have with drug or device trials to ensure the authenticity and accuracy and most of all assuring the safety of the patient. Furthermore, the design should be incorporated in the intervention, that equipoise be present in the arms of the trial and that a safety monitoring board be in place to alert investigators when and if patient safety is threatened. Patient consent should also be obtained.
Beginning in 2012, CMS, using claims data from 2008 to 2012, penalized hospitals if they did not achieve acceptable readmission rates. At the same time, the agency established the Hospital Admission Reduction Program to monitor 30-day mortality and standardize readmission data. The recent data indicate that the incentives did achieve some decrease in rehospitalization but this was associated with a 16.5% relative increase in 30-day mortality. It was of particular concern that in the previous decade there had been a progressive decrease in 30-day mortality (Circulation 2014;130:966-75). The increase in 30-day mortality observed in the 4-year observational period appears to have interrupted the progressive decrease in 30-day mortality, which would have decreased to 30% if not impacted by the plan.
My previous concerns with this type of social experimentation and manipulation of health care was carried out, and as far as I can tell, continues without any oversight and little insight into the possible risks of this process. A better designed study would have provided better understanding of these results and might have mitigated the adverse effects and mortality events. It is suggested that some hospitals actually gamed the system to their economic advantage. In addition, no oversight board was or is in place as we have with drug trials to allow monitors to become aware of adverse events before there any further loss of life occurs.
I would agree that a randomized trial in this environment would be difficult to achieve. Obtaining consent from thousands of patients would also be difficult. Nevertheless, .
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
Nearly 2 years ago I speculated in this column that health planners or health economists would attempt to manipulate the patterns of patient care to influence the cost and/or quality of clinical care. At that time I suggested that, in that event, the intervention should be managed as we have with drug or device trials to ensure the authenticity and accuracy and most of all assuring the safety of the patient. Furthermore, the design should be incorporated in the intervention, that equipoise be present in the arms of the trial and that a safety monitoring board be in place to alert investigators when and if patient safety is threatened. Patient consent should also be obtained.
Beginning in 2012, CMS, using claims data from 2008 to 2012, penalized hospitals if they did not achieve acceptable readmission rates. At the same time, the agency established the Hospital Admission Reduction Program to monitor 30-day mortality and standardize readmission data. The recent data indicate that the incentives did achieve some decrease in rehospitalization but this was associated with a 16.5% relative increase in 30-day mortality. It was of particular concern that in the previous decade there had been a progressive decrease in 30-day mortality (Circulation 2014;130:966-75). The increase in 30-day mortality observed in the 4-year observational period appears to have interrupted the progressive decrease in 30-day mortality, which would have decreased to 30% if not impacted by the plan.
My previous concerns with this type of social experimentation and manipulation of health care was carried out, and as far as I can tell, continues without any oversight and little insight into the possible risks of this process. A better designed study would have provided better understanding of these results and might have mitigated the adverse effects and mortality events. It is suggested that some hospitals actually gamed the system to their economic advantage. In addition, no oversight board was or is in place as we have with drug trials to allow monitors to become aware of adverse events before there any further loss of life occurs.
I would agree that a randomized trial in this environment would be difficult to achieve. Obtaining consent from thousands of patients would also be difficult. Nevertheless, .
Dr. Goldstein, medical editor of Cardiology News, is professor of medicine at Wayne State University and division head emeritus of cardiovascular medicine at Henry Ford Hospital, both in Detroit. He is on data safety monitoring committees for the National Institutes of Health and several pharmaceutical companies.
ACC guidance addresses newer HFrEF options
It might be prudent to , according to a new expert consensus document from the American College of Cardiology on managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
“While rising natriuretic peptide concentrations are correlated with adverse outcomes, this relationship can be confounded with the use of sacubitril/valsartan. Due to neprilysin inhibition, concentrations of BNP rise in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and tend not to return to baseline despite chronic therapy. In contrast, NT-proBNP concentrations typically decrease, as NT-proBNP is not a substrate for neprilysin,” explained authors led by heart failure pathway writing committee chairman Clyde W. Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.025).
Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) “can feel overwhelming, and many opportunities to improve patient outcomes are being missed; hopefully, this Expert Consensus Decision Pathway may streamline care to realize best possible patient outcomes,” the authors wrote.
The 10 issues and their detailed answers address therapeutic options, adherence, treatment barriers, drug costs, special populations, and palliative care. The document is full of tables and figures of treatment algorithms, drug doses, and other matters.
There’s a good deal of advice about using two newer HFrEF options: sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine (Corlanor). Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ANRI), is a switch agent for patients who tolerate but remain symptomatic on ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Moving over to sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization and death.
Switching from an ACEI requires a 36-hour washout period to avoid angdioedema; no washout is needed for ARB switches. Sacubitril/valsartan doses can be increased every 2-4 weeks to allow time for adjustment to vasodilatory effects. In one study, gradual titration over about 6 weeks maximized attainment of target dosages. As with ACEIs and ARBs, titration might require lowering loop diuretic doses, with careful attention paid to potassium concentrations.
“The committee is aware that clinicians may occasionally consider initiating ANRI in patients who have not previously been treated with an ACEI or ARB. To be explicitly clear, no predicate data supports this approach,” but it “might be considered” if patients are well informed of the risks, including angioedema and hypotension, the committee wrote.
Ivabradine is for patients whose resting heart rate is at or above 70 bpm despite maximal beta-blocker treatment. “It is important to emphasize that ivabradine is indicated only for patients in sinus rhythm, not in those with atrial fibrillation, patients who are 100% atrially paced, or unstable patients. From a safety standpoint, patients treated with ivabradine had more bradycardia and developed more atrial fibrillation as well as transient blurring of vision,” according to the consensus document.
Turning to wireless implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring, another newer approach, the group noted that, compared with standard care, it reduced hospitalization and led to more frequent adjustment of diuretic doses, suggesting a benefit “in well-selected patients with recurrent congestion. … The impact on mortality is unknown.”
“For a number of reasons,” hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate “is often neglected in eligible patients. However, given the benefits of this combination (43% relative reduction in mortality and 33% relative reduction in HF hospitalization), African-American patients should receive these drugs once target or maximally tolerated doses of beta-blocker and ACEI/ ARB/ARNI are achieved. This is especially important for those patients with [New York Heart Association] class III to IV symptoms,” the committee members said.
Regarding treatment adherence, the group noted that “monetary incentives or other rewards for adherence to medications may be cost saving for highly efficacious and inexpensive drugs such as beta-blockers.”
The work was supported by the ACC with no industry funding. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Yancy C et. al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.025
It might be prudent to , according to a new expert consensus document from the American College of Cardiology on managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
“While rising natriuretic peptide concentrations are correlated with adverse outcomes, this relationship can be confounded with the use of sacubitril/valsartan. Due to neprilysin inhibition, concentrations of BNP rise in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and tend not to return to baseline despite chronic therapy. In contrast, NT-proBNP concentrations typically decrease, as NT-proBNP is not a substrate for neprilysin,” explained authors led by heart failure pathway writing committee chairman Clyde W. Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.025).
Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) “can feel overwhelming, and many opportunities to improve patient outcomes are being missed; hopefully, this Expert Consensus Decision Pathway may streamline care to realize best possible patient outcomes,” the authors wrote.
The 10 issues and their detailed answers address therapeutic options, adherence, treatment barriers, drug costs, special populations, and palliative care. The document is full of tables and figures of treatment algorithms, drug doses, and other matters.
There’s a good deal of advice about using two newer HFrEF options: sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine (Corlanor). Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ANRI), is a switch agent for patients who tolerate but remain symptomatic on ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Moving over to sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization and death.
Switching from an ACEI requires a 36-hour washout period to avoid angdioedema; no washout is needed for ARB switches. Sacubitril/valsartan doses can be increased every 2-4 weeks to allow time for adjustment to vasodilatory effects. In one study, gradual titration over about 6 weeks maximized attainment of target dosages. As with ACEIs and ARBs, titration might require lowering loop diuretic doses, with careful attention paid to potassium concentrations.
“The committee is aware that clinicians may occasionally consider initiating ANRI in patients who have not previously been treated with an ACEI or ARB. To be explicitly clear, no predicate data supports this approach,” but it “might be considered” if patients are well informed of the risks, including angioedema and hypotension, the committee wrote.
Ivabradine is for patients whose resting heart rate is at or above 70 bpm despite maximal beta-blocker treatment. “It is important to emphasize that ivabradine is indicated only for patients in sinus rhythm, not in those with atrial fibrillation, patients who are 100% atrially paced, or unstable patients. From a safety standpoint, patients treated with ivabradine had more bradycardia and developed more atrial fibrillation as well as transient blurring of vision,” according to the consensus document.
Turning to wireless implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring, another newer approach, the group noted that, compared with standard care, it reduced hospitalization and led to more frequent adjustment of diuretic doses, suggesting a benefit “in well-selected patients with recurrent congestion. … The impact on mortality is unknown.”
“For a number of reasons,” hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate “is often neglected in eligible patients. However, given the benefits of this combination (43% relative reduction in mortality and 33% relative reduction in HF hospitalization), African-American patients should receive these drugs once target or maximally tolerated doses of beta-blocker and ACEI/ ARB/ARNI are achieved. This is especially important for those patients with [New York Heart Association] class III to IV symptoms,” the committee members said.
Regarding treatment adherence, the group noted that “monetary incentives or other rewards for adherence to medications may be cost saving for highly efficacious and inexpensive drugs such as beta-blockers.”
The work was supported by the ACC with no industry funding. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Yancy C et. al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.025
It might be prudent to , according to a new expert consensus document from the American College of Cardiology on managing heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
“While rising natriuretic peptide concentrations are correlated with adverse outcomes, this relationship can be confounded with the use of sacubitril/valsartan. Due to neprilysin inhibition, concentrations of BNP rise in patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and tend not to return to baseline despite chronic therapy. In contrast, NT-proBNP concentrations typically decrease, as NT-proBNP is not a substrate for neprilysin,” explained authors led by heart failure pathway writing committee chairman Clyde W. Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University in Chicago (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.025).
Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) “can feel overwhelming, and many opportunities to improve patient outcomes are being missed; hopefully, this Expert Consensus Decision Pathway may streamline care to realize best possible patient outcomes,” the authors wrote.
The 10 issues and their detailed answers address therapeutic options, adherence, treatment barriers, drug costs, special populations, and palliative care. The document is full of tables and figures of treatment algorithms, drug doses, and other matters.
There’s a good deal of advice about using two newer HFrEF options: sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine (Corlanor). Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ANRI), is a switch agent for patients who tolerate but remain symptomatic on ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). Moving over to sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization and death.
Switching from an ACEI requires a 36-hour washout period to avoid angdioedema; no washout is needed for ARB switches. Sacubitril/valsartan doses can be increased every 2-4 weeks to allow time for adjustment to vasodilatory effects. In one study, gradual titration over about 6 weeks maximized attainment of target dosages. As with ACEIs and ARBs, titration might require lowering loop diuretic doses, with careful attention paid to potassium concentrations.
“The committee is aware that clinicians may occasionally consider initiating ANRI in patients who have not previously been treated with an ACEI or ARB. To be explicitly clear, no predicate data supports this approach,” but it “might be considered” if patients are well informed of the risks, including angioedema and hypotension, the committee wrote.
Ivabradine is for patients whose resting heart rate is at or above 70 bpm despite maximal beta-blocker treatment. “It is important to emphasize that ivabradine is indicated only for patients in sinus rhythm, not in those with atrial fibrillation, patients who are 100% atrially paced, or unstable patients. From a safety standpoint, patients treated with ivabradine had more bradycardia and developed more atrial fibrillation as well as transient blurring of vision,” according to the consensus document.
Turning to wireless implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitoring, another newer approach, the group noted that, compared with standard care, it reduced hospitalization and led to more frequent adjustment of diuretic doses, suggesting a benefit “in well-selected patients with recurrent congestion. … The impact on mortality is unknown.”
“For a number of reasons,” hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate “is often neglected in eligible patients. However, given the benefits of this combination (43% relative reduction in mortality and 33% relative reduction in HF hospitalization), African-American patients should receive these drugs once target or maximally tolerated doses of beta-blocker and ACEI/ ARB/ARNI are achieved. This is especially important for those patients with [New York Heart Association] class III to IV symptoms,” the committee members said.
Regarding treatment adherence, the group noted that “monetary incentives or other rewards for adherence to medications may be cost saving for highly efficacious and inexpensive drugs such as beta-blockers.”
The work was supported by the ACC with no industry funding. Dr. Yancy had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Yancy C et. al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.025
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Pulmonary hypertension treatment gets under the skin
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients with moderate, stable disease can benefit from an implantable drug delivery system, based on data from a review of 60 adults with successful implantations. The findings were published in the December issue of CHEST.
“A fully implanted system offers patients the hope of returning to more normal activities such as bathing, swimming, and reduced risk of infections from externalized central venous catheter contamination or reduced subcutaneous pain from subcutaneous infusion,” wrote Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues (Chest. 2017 June 3. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.188).
In the DelIVery Trial, clinicians at 10 locations in the United States placed a fully implantable delivery system in adults aged 18 years and older with stable PAH who were previously receiving treprostinil via an external pump at an average dose of 71 ng/kg per min.
All 60 patients were successfully implanted with a system consisting of a drug infusion pump placed in an abdominal pocket and an intravascular catheter linking the implanted pump to the superior vena cava.
“The location of the pump pocket was determined in partnership with the patient and was based on consideration of clothing styles, belt line and subcutaneous fat depth,” the researchers noted.
Procedure-related complications deemed clinically significant included one atrial fibrillation, two incidences of pneumothorax, two infections unrelated to catheter placement, and three catheter dislocations (two in the same patient). The most common patient complaints were expected implant site pain in 83% and bruising in 17%.
The findings were limited by the small number of patients, but the researchers identified several factors that contributed to the success of the procedure, including selecting patients who have shown response to treprostinil and are motivated to comply with pump refill visits, performing the procedure at centers with a high volume of PAH patients, keeping the procedure consistent for each patient, and using the same implant team in each case. “The implant procedure was successfully performed with a low complication rate by clinicians with a diverse range of specialty training,” the researchers added.
Patients reported satisfaction with the implant system at 6 weeks and 6 months, and said they spent an average of 75% less time managing their delivery system, according to previously published data on the patients’ perspective (CHEST 2016;150[1]:27-34).
Medtronic sponsored the study. The lead author, Dr. Waxman, had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors reported relationships with companies including Medtronic, Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, Merck, and United Therapeutics.
The development of an implantable therapy for pulmonary hypertension could expand the use of treprostinil, a demonstrated effective treatment for PAH that has been limited in its use because of a range of side effects when given intravenously, orally, subcutaneously, or by inhalation, Joel A. Wirth, MD, FCCP, and Harold I. Palevsky, MD, FCCP, wrote in an editorial.
The use of an intravenous pump and catheter infusion system for stable PAH patients could help them return more quickly to normal activities and curb the risk of catheter-related infections, they said. “Having the potential to remove some of the burden and risk incumbent with an external delivery system may reduce several of the overall barriers to continuous intravenous prostanoid acceptance by both patients and providers,” they noted (Chest. 2017 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.07.006).
Clinicians must be educated to perform the implant procedure itself, and care centers must be trained in identifying patient management issues and refilling the pump reservoir as needed, Dr. Wirth and Dr. Palevsky emphasized. Patients must be educated in what to expect, including how to monitor the pump and track the need for refills, they said. Although the pump is not appropriate for patients with severe PAH, “a planned staged approach of transitioning PAH patients from IV therapy to a less complex system could lend itself to employing prostanoid use earlier and for less severely affected PAH patients,” they said.
Dr. Wirth is affiliated with Tufts University, Boston. Dr. Palevsky is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Both Dr. Wirth and Dr. Palevsky disclosed serving as consultants and as principal investigators for United Therapeutics.
The development of an implantable therapy for pulmonary hypertension could expand the use of treprostinil, a demonstrated effective treatment for PAH that has been limited in its use because of a range of side effects when given intravenously, orally, subcutaneously, or by inhalation, Joel A. Wirth, MD, FCCP, and Harold I. Palevsky, MD, FCCP, wrote in an editorial.
The use of an intravenous pump and catheter infusion system for stable PAH patients could help them return more quickly to normal activities and curb the risk of catheter-related infections, they said. “Having the potential to remove some of the burden and risk incumbent with an external delivery system may reduce several of the overall barriers to continuous intravenous prostanoid acceptance by both patients and providers,” they noted (Chest. 2017 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.07.006).
Clinicians must be educated to perform the implant procedure itself, and care centers must be trained in identifying patient management issues and refilling the pump reservoir as needed, Dr. Wirth and Dr. Palevsky emphasized. Patients must be educated in what to expect, including how to monitor the pump and track the need for refills, they said. Although the pump is not appropriate for patients with severe PAH, “a planned staged approach of transitioning PAH patients from IV therapy to a less complex system could lend itself to employing prostanoid use earlier and for less severely affected PAH patients,” they said.
Dr. Wirth is affiliated with Tufts University, Boston. Dr. Palevsky is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Both Dr. Wirth and Dr. Palevsky disclosed serving as consultants and as principal investigators for United Therapeutics.
The development of an implantable therapy for pulmonary hypertension could expand the use of treprostinil, a demonstrated effective treatment for PAH that has been limited in its use because of a range of side effects when given intravenously, orally, subcutaneously, or by inhalation, Joel A. Wirth, MD, FCCP, and Harold I. Palevsky, MD, FCCP, wrote in an editorial.
The use of an intravenous pump and catheter infusion system for stable PAH patients could help them return more quickly to normal activities and curb the risk of catheter-related infections, they said. “Having the potential to remove some of the burden and risk incumbent with an external delivery system may reduce several of the overall barriers to continuous intravenous prostanoid acceptance by both patients and providers,” they noted (Chest. 2017 Dec 6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.07.006).
Clinicians must be educated to perform the implant procedure itself, and care centers must be trained in identifying patient management issues and refilling the pump reservoir as needed, Dr. Wirth and Dr. Palevsky emphasized. Patients must be educated in what to expect, including how to monitor the pump and track the need for refills, they said. Although the pump is not appropriate for patients with severe PAH, “a planned staged approach of transitioning PAH patients from IV therapy to a less complex system could lend itself to employing prostanoid use earlier and for less severely affected PAH patients,” they said.
Dr. Wirth is affiliated with Tufts University, Boston. Dr. Palevsky is affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Both Dr. Wirth and Dr. Palevsky disclosed serving as consultants and as principal investigators for United Therapeutics.
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients with moderate, stable disease can benefit from an implantable drug delivery system, based on data from a review of 60 adults with successful implantations. The findings were published in the December issue of CHEST.
“A fully implanted system offers patients the hope of returning to more normal activities such as bathing, swimming, and reduced risk of infections from externalized central venous catheter contamination or reduced subcutaneous pain from subcutaneous infusion,” wrote Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues (Chest. 2017 June 3. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.188).
In the DelIVery Trial, clinicians at 10 locations in the United States placed a fully implantable delivery system in adults aged 18 years and older with stable PAH who were previously receiving treprostinil via an external pump at an average dose of 71 ng/kg per min.
All 60 patients were successfully implanted with a system consisting of a drug infusion pump placed in an abdominal pocket and an intravascular catheter linking the implanted pump to the superior vena cava.
“The location of the pump pocket was determined in partnership with the patient and was based on consideration of clothing styles, belt line and subcutaneous fat depth,” the researchers noted.
Procedure-related complications deemed clinically significant included one atrial fibrillation, two incidences of pneumothorax, two infections unrelated to catheter placement, and three catheter dislocations (two in the same patient). The most common patient complaints were expected implant site pain in 83% and bruising in 17%.
The findings were limited by the small number of patients, but the researchers identified several factors that contributed to the success of the procedure, including selecting patients who have shown response to treprostinil and are motivated to comply with pump refill visits, performing the procedure at centers with a high volume of PAH patients, keeping the procedure consistent for each patient, and using the same implant team in each case. “The implant procedure was successfully performed with a low complication rate by clinicians with a diverse range of specialty training,” the researchers added.
Patients reported satisfaction with the implant system at 6 weeks and 6 months, and said they spent an average of 75% less time managing their delivery system, according to previously published data on the patients’ perspective (CHEST 2016;150[1]:27-34).
Medtronic sponsored the study. The lead author, Dr. Waxman, had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors reported relationships with companies including Medtronic, Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, Merck, and United Therapeutics.
Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) patients with moderate, stable disease can benefit from an implantable drug delivery system, based on data from a review of 60 adults with successful implantations. The findings were published in the December issue of CHEST.
“A fully implanted system offers patients the hope of returning to more normal activities such as bathing, swimming, and reduced risk of infections from externalized central venous catheter contamination or reduced subcutaneous pain from subcutaneous infusion,” wrote Aaron B. Waxman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues (Chest. 2017 June 3. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.188).
In the DelIVery Trial, clinicians at 10 locations in the United States placed a fully implantable delivery system in adults aged 18 years and older with stable PAH who were previously receiving treprostinil via an external pump at an average dose of 71 ng/kg per min.
All 60 patients were successfully implanted with a system consisting of a drug infusion pump placed in an abdominal pocket and an intravascular catheter linking the implanted pump to the superior vena cava.
“The location of the pump pocket was determined in partnership with the patient and was based on consideration of clothing styles, belt line and subcutaneous fat depth,” the researchers noted.
Procedure-related complications deemed clinically significant included one atrial fibrillation, two incidences of pneumothorax, two infections unrelated to catheter placement, and three catheter dislocations (two in the same patient). The most common patient complaints were expected implant site pain in 83% and bruising in 17%.
The findings were limited by the small number of patients, but the researchers identified several factors that contributed to the success of the procedure, including selecting patients who have shown response to treprostinil and are motivated to comply with pump refill visits, performing the procedure at centers with a high volume of PAH patients, keeping the procedure consistent for each patient, and using the same implant team in each case. “The implant procedure was successfully performed with a low complication rate by clinicians with a diverse range of specialty training,” the researchers added.
Patients reported satisfaction with the implant system at 6 weeks and 6 months, and said they spent an average of 75% less time managing their delivery system, according to previously published data on the patients’ perspective (CHEST 2016;150[1]:27-34).
Medtronic sponsored the study. The lead author, Dr. Waxman, had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors reported relationships with companies including Medtronic, Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, Merck, and United Therapeutics.
FROM CHEST
Key clinical point: An implantable drug delivery system was successfully placed in 100% of adult PAH patients with no serious complications.
Major finding: The most common complaints among patients who received an implant system to deliver treprostinil were implant site pain (83%) and bruising (17%).
Data source: A multicenter, prospective study of 60 adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension who received implantable pumps to deliver treprostinil.
Disclosures: Medtronic sponsored the study. The lead author, Dr. Waxman, had no financial conflicts to disclose; several coauthors reported relationships with companies including Medtronic, Actelion, Bayer, Gilead, Merck, and United Therapeutics.
Phrenic-nerve stimulator maintains benefits for 18 months
TORONTO – The implanted phrenic-nerve stimulation device that received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval in October 2017 for treating central sleep apnea has now shown safety and efficacy out to 18 months of continuous use in 102 patients.
After 18 months of treatment with the Remede System, patients’ outcomes remained stable and patients continued to see the improvements they had experienced after 6 and 12 months of treatment. These improvements included significant average reductions from baseline in apnea-hypopnea index and central apnea index and significant increases in oxygenation and sleep quality, Andrew C. Kao, MD, said at the CHEST annual meeting.
“We were concerned that there would be a degradation of the benefit [over time]. We are very happy that the benefit was sustained,” said Dr. Kao, a heart failure cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Health System in Kansas City, Mo.
Dr. Kao did not report an 18-month follow-up for the study’s primary endpoint, the percentage of patients after 6 months on treatment who had at least a 50% reduction from baseline in their apnea-hypopnea index. His report focused on the 6-, 12-, and 18-month changes relative to baseline for five secondary outcomes: central sleep apnea index, apnea-hypopnea index, arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, and time spent in REM sleep. For all five of these outcomes, the 102 patients showed an average, statistically significant improvement compared with baseline after 6 months on treatment that persisted virtually unchanged at 12 and 18 months.
For example, average central sleep apnea index fell from 27 events/hour at baseline to 5 per hour at 6, 12, and 18 months. Average apnea-hypopnea index fell from 46 events/hour at baseline to about 25 per hour at 6, 12, and 18 months. The average percentage of sleep spent in REM sleep improved from 12% at baseline to about 15% at 6, 12, and 18 months.
During 18 months of treatment following device implantation, four of the 102 patients had a serious adverse event. One patient required lead repositioning to relieve discomfort and three had an interaction with an implanted cardiac device. The effects resolved in all four patients without long-term impact. An additional 16 patients had discomfort that required an unscheduled medical visit, but these were not classified as serious episodes, and in 14 of these patients the discomfort resolved.
The Remede System phrenic-nerve stimulator received FDA marketing approval for moderate to severe central sleep apnea based on 6-month efficacy and 12-month safety data (Lancet. 2016 Sept 3;388[10048]:974-82). The Pivotal Trial of the Remede System enrolled 151 patients with an apnea-hypopnea index of at least 20 events/hour, about half of whom had heart failure. All patients received a device implant: In the initial intervention group of 73 patients, researchers turned on the device 1 month after implantation, and in the 78 patients randomized to the initial control arm, the device remained off for the first 7 months and then went active. The researchers followed up with 46 patients drawn from both the original treatment arm and 56 patients from the original control arm, at which point the patients had been receiving 18 months of treatment.
The Remede System pivotal trial was sponsored by Respicardia, which markets the phrenic-verse stimulator. Dr. Kao’s institution, Saint Luke’s Health System, received grant support from Respicardia.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
TORONTO – The implanted phrenic-nerve stimulation device that received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval in October 2017 for treating central sleep apnea has now shown safety and efficacy out to 18 months of continuous use in 102 patients.
After 18 months of treatment with the Remede System, patients’ outcomes remained stable and patients continued to see the improvements they had experienced after 6 and 12 months of treatment. These improvements included significant average reductions from baseline in apnea-hypopnea index and central apnea index and significant increases in oxygenation and sleep quality, Andrew C. Kao, MD, said at the CHEST annual meeting.
“We were concerned that there would be a degradation of the benefit [over time]. We are very happy that the benefit was sustained,” said Dr. Kao, a heart failure cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Health System in Kansas City, Mo.
Dr. Kao did not report an 18-month follow-up for the study’s primary endpoint, the percentage of patients after 6 months on treatment who had at least a 50% reduction from baseline in their apnea-hypopnea index. His report focused on the 6-, 12-, and 18-month changes relative to baseline for five secondary outcomes: central sleep apnea index, apnea-hypopnea index, arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, and time spent in REM sleep. For all five of these outcomes, the 102 patients showed an average, statistically significant improvement compared with baseline after 6 months on treatment that persisted virtually unchanged at 12 and 18 months.
For example, average central sleep apnea index fell from 27 events/hour at baseline to 5 per hour at 6, 12, and 18 months. Average apnea-hypopnea index fell from 46 events/hour at baseline to about 25 per hour at 6, 12, and 18 months. The average percentage of sleep spent in REM sleep improved from 12% at baseline to about 15% at 6, 12, and 18 months.
During 18 months of treatment following device implantation, four of the 102 patients had a serious adverse event. One patient required lead repositioning to relieve discomfort and three had an interaction with an implanted cardiac device. The effects resolved in all four patients without long-term impact. An additional 16 patients had discomfort that required an unscheduled medical visit, but these were not classified as serious episodes, and in 14 of these patients the discomfort resolved.
The Remede System phrenic-nerve stimulator received FDA marketing approval for moderate to severe central sleep apnea based on 6-month efficacy and 12-month safety data (Lancet. 2016 Sept 3;388[10048]:974-82). The Pivotal Trial of the Remede System enrolled 151 patients with an apnea-hypopnea index of at least 20 events/hour, about half of whom had heart failure. All patients received a device implant: In the initial intervention group of 73 patients, researchers turned on the device 1 month after implantation, and in the 78 patients randomized to the initial control arm, the device remained off for the first 7 months and then went active. The researchers followed up with 46 patients drawn from both the original treatment arm and 56 patients from the original control arm, at which point the patients had been receiving 18 months of treatment.
The Remede System pivotal trial was sponsored by Respicardia, which markets the phrenic-verse stimulator. Dr. Kao’s institution, Saint Luke’s Health System, received grant support from Respicardia.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
TORONTO – The implanted phrenic-nerve stimulation device that received Food and Drug Administration marketing approval in October 2017 for treating central sleep apnea has now shown safety and efficacy out to 18 months of continuous use in 102 patients.
After 18 months of treatment with the Remede System, patients’ outcomes remained stable and patients continued to see the improvements they had experienced after 6 and 12 months of treatment. These improvements included significant average reductions from baseline in apnea-hypopnea index and central apnea index and significant increases in oxygenation and sleep quality, Andrew C. Kao, MD, said at the CHEST annual meeting.
“We were concerned that there would be a degradation of the benefit [over time]. We are very happy that the benefit was sustained,” said Dr. Kao, a heart failure cardiologist at Saint Luke’s Health System in Kansas City, Mo.
Dr. Kao did not report an 18-month follow-up for the study’s primary endpoint, the percentage of patients after 6 months on treatment who had at least a 50% reduction from baseline in their apnea-hypopnea index. His report focused on the 6-, 12-, and 18-month changes relative to baseline for five secondary outcomes: central sleep apnea index, apnea-hypopnea index, arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, and time spent in REM sleep. For all five of these outcomes, the 102 patients showed an average, statistically significant improvement compared with baseline after 6 months on treatment that persisted virtually unchanged at 12 and 18 months.
For example, average central sleep apnea index fell from 27 events/hour at baseline to 5 per hour at 6, 12, and 18 months. Average apnea-hypopnea index fell from 46 events/hour at baseline to about 25 per hour at 6, 12, and 18 months. The average percentage of sleep spent in REM sleep improved from 12% at baseline to about 15% at 6, 12, and 18 months.
During 18 months of treatment following device implantation, four of the 102 patients had a serious adverse event. One patient required lead repositioning to relieve discomfort and three had an interaction with an implanted cardiac device. The effects resolved in all four patients without long-term impact. An additional 16 patients had discomfort that required an unscheduled medical visit, but these were not classified as serious episodes, and in 14 of these patients the discomfort resolved.
The Remede System phrenic-nerve stimulator received FDA marketing approval for moderate to severe central sleep apnea based on 6-month efficacy and 12-month safety data (Lancet. 2016 Sept 3;388[10048]:974-82). The Pivotal Trial of the Remede System enrolled 151 patients with an apnea-hypopnea index of at least 20 events/hour, about half of whom had heart failure. All patients received a device implant: In the initial intervention group of 73 patients, researchers turned on the device 1 month after implantation, and in the 78 patients randomized to the initial control arm, the device remained off for the first 7 months and then went active. The researchers followed up with 46 patients drawn from both the original treatment arm and 56 patients from the original control arm, at which point the patients had been receiving 18 months of treatment.
The Remede System pivotal trial was sponsored by Respicardia, which markets the phrenic-verse stimulator. Dr. Kao’s institution, Saint Luke’s Health System, received grant support from Respicardia.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT CHEST 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Average central apnea index improved from 27 events/hour at baseline to 5 events/hour after 6, 12, and 18 months of treatment.
Data source: 102 patients enrolled in the Pivotal Trial of the remede System were followed for 18 months of treatment.
Disclosures: The remede System pivotal trial was sponsored by Respicardia, which markets the phrenic-verse stimulator. Dr. Kao’s institution, Saint Luke’s Health System, received grant support from Respicardia.
Empagliflozin’s heart failure benefits linked to volume drop
ANAHEIM, CALIF. – When results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out 2 years ago and showed a dramatic decrease in heart failure hospitalizations and deaths linked to treatment with the oral diabetes drug empagliflozin, some experts suggested that a completely hypothetical effect of empagliflozin on reducing fluid volume may have largely caused these unexpected clinical benefits.
New analyses of the trial results show this hypothesis may be at least partially correct.
Results from a post hoc analysis of data collected in Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) suggest that perhaps half the heart failure benefit was attributable to what appears to have been a roughly 7% drop in plasma volume in patients treated with empagliflozin (Jardiance), which began soon after treatment started and continued through the balance of the study, David Fitchett, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Markers of change in plasma volume were important mediators of the reduction in risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from heart failure,” said Dr Fitchett, a cardiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and a coinvestigator of EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
The analysis also showed that a “modest” effect from a reduction in uric acid might explain about 20%-25% of the observed heart failure benefit, he reported. In contrast, none of the traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors examined in the analysis – including lipids, blood pressure, obesity, and hemoglobin A1c – appeared to have any relationship to the heart failure effects of empagliflozin.
Dr. Fitchett and his associates assessed the possible impact of a list of potential mediators with a statistical method that performed an unadjusted, univariate analysis of the time-dependent change in each of several variables relative to the observed changes in heart failure outcomes.
This analysis showed that on-treatment changes in two markers of plasma volume, hematocrit and hemoglobin, each showed changes that appeared to mediate about half of the heart failure effects. A third marker of plasma volume, albumin level, appeared to mediate about a quarter of the heart failure effects.
The changes in both hematocrit and hemoglobin first appeared within a few weeks of treatment onset, and soon reached a plateau that remained sustained through the balance of the study. For example, during the first 12 weeks of treatment, the average hematocrit level rose from about 41% at baseline to about 44%. This 3% net rise corresponds to about a 7% drop in plasma volume, Dr. Fitchett said.
In addition to reflecting a potentially beneficial decrease in fluid volume, this effect would also boost the oxygen-carrying capacity of a patient’s blood that could be beneficial for patients with ischemic heart disease and those with reduced left ventricular function, he noted.
The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, which jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Fitchett has received honoraria from those companies and also from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Sanofi.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ANAHEIM, CALIF. – When results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out 2 years ago and showed a dramatic decrease in heart failure hospitalizations and deaths linked to treatment with the oral diabetes drug empagliflozin, some experts suggested that a completely hypothetical effect of empagliflozin on reducing fluid volume may have largely caused these unexpected clinical benefits.
New analyses of the trial results show this hypothesis may be at least partially correct.
Results from a post hoc analysis of data collected in Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) suggest that perhaps half the heart failure benefit was attributable to what appears to have been a roughly 7% drop in plasma volume in patients treated with empagliflozin (Jardiance), which began soon after treatment started and continued through the balance of the study, David Fitchett, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Markers of change in plasma volume were important mediators of the reduction in risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from heart failure,” said Dr Fitchett, a cardiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and a coinvestigator of EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
The analysis also showed that a “modest” effect from a reduction in uric acid might explain about 20%-25% of the observed heart failure benefit, he reported. In contrast, none of the traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors examined in the analysis – including lipids, blood pressure, obesity, and hemoglobin A1c – appeared to have any relationship to the heart failure effects of empagliflozin.
Dr. Fitchett and his associates assessed the possible impact of a list of potential mediators with a statistical method that performed an unadjusted, univariate analysis of the time-dependent change in each of several variables relative to the observed changes in heart failure outcomes.
This analysis showed that on-treatment changes in two markers of plasma volume, hematocrit and hemoglobin, each showed changes that appeared to mediate about half of the heart failure effects. A third marker of plasma volume, albumin level, appeared to mediate about a quarter of the heart failure effects.
The changes in both hematocrit and hemoglobin first appeared within a few weeks of treatment onset, and soon reached a plateau that remained sustained through the balance of the study. For example, during the first 12 weeks of treatment, the average hematocrit level rose from about 41% at baseline to about 44%. This 3% net rise corresponds to about a 7% drop in plasma volume, Dr. Fitchett said.
In addition to reflecting a potentially beneficial decrease in fluid volume, this effect would also boost the oxygen-carrying capacity of a patient’s blood that could be beneficial for patients with ischemic heart disease and those with reduced left ventricular function, he noted.
The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, which jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Fitchett has received honoraria from those companies and also from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Sanofi.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ANAHEIM, CALIF. – When results from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial came out 2 years ago and showed a dramatic decrease in heart failure hospitalizations and deaths linked to treatment with the oral diabetes drug empagliflozin, some experts suggested that a completely hypothetical effect of empagliflozin on reducing fluid volume may have largely caused these unexpected clinical benefits.
New analyses of the trial results show this hypothesis may be at least partially correct.
Results from a post hoc analysis of data collected in Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) suggest that perhaps half the heart failure benefit was attributable to what appears to have been a roughly 7% drop in plasma volume in patients treated with empagliflozin (Jardiance), which began soon after treatment started and continued through the balance of the study, David Fitchett, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“Markers of change in plasma volume were important mediators of the reduction in risk of hospitalization for heart failure or death from heart failure,” said Dr Fitchett, a cardiologist at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto and a coinvestigator of EMPA-REG OUTCOME (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2117-28).
The analysis also showed that a “modest” effect from a reduction in uric acid might explain about 20%-25% of the observed heart failure benefit, he reported. In contrast, none of the traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors examined in the analysis – including lipids, blood pressure, obesity, and hemoglobin A1c – appeared to have any relationship to the heart failure effects of empagliflozin.
Dr. Fitchett and his associates assessed the possible impact of a list of potential mediators with a statistical method that performed an unadjusted, univariate analysis of the time-dependent change in each of several variables relative to the observed changes in heart failure outcomes.
This analysis showed that on-treatment changes in two markers of plasma volume, hematocrit and hemoglobin, each showed changes that appeared to mediate about half of the heart failure effects. A third marker of plasma volume, albumin level, appeared to mediate about a quarter of the heart failure effects.
The changes in both hematocrit and hemoglobin first appeared within a few weeks of treatment onset, and soon reached a plateau that remained sustained through the balance of the study. For example, during the first 12 weeks of treatment, the average hematocrit level rose from about 41% at baseline to about 44%. This 3% net rise corresponds to about a 7% drop in plasma volume, Dr. Fitchett said.
In addition to reflecting a potentially beneficial decrease in fluid volume, this effect would also boost the oxygen-carrying capacity of a patient’s blood that could be beneficial for patients with ischemic heart disease and those with reduced left ventricular function, he noted.
The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, which jointly market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Fitchett has received honoraria from those companies and also from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Sanofi.
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: About according to post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study.
Major finding: About half of the observed heart failure benefit was tied to a roughly 3% rise in average hematocrit level.
Data source: Post hoc analysis of data from the 7,028 patients enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.
Disclosures: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly, the two companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). Dr. Fitchett has received honoraria from those companies and also from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Sanofi.
Aim for BP a bit above SPRINT
ANAHEIM – If blood pressure isn’t measured the way it was in the SPRINT trial, it shouldn’t be treated all the way down to the SPRINT target of less than 120 mm Hg; it’s best to aim a little higher, according to investigators from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California.
SPRINT (the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) found that treating hypertension to below 120 mm Hg – as opposed to below 140 mm Hg – reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and death, but blood pressure wasn’t measured the way it usually is in standard practice. Among other differences, SPRINT subjects rested for 5 minutes beforehand, sometimes unobserved, and then three automated measurements were taken and averaged (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16).
In a review of 73,522 hypertensive patients, the Kaiser investigators found that those treated to a mean systolic BP (SBP) of 122 mm Hg – based on standard office measurement – actually had worse outcomes than did those treated to a mean of 132 mm Hg, with a greater incidence of cardiovascular events, hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, and other problems.
“The way SPRINT measured BP was systematically different than the BPs we rely on to treat patients in clinical practice. We think that, unless you are going to implement a SPRINT-like protocol, aiming for a slightly higher target of around a mean of 130-132 mm Hg will achieve optimal outcomes. You are likely achieving a SPRINT BP of around 120-125 mm Hg,” said Alan Go, MD, director of the comprehensive clinical research unit at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland.
Meanwhile, “if you [treat] to 120 mm Hg, you are probably getting around a SPRINT 114 mm Hg. That runs the risk of hypotension, which we did see. There is also the potential for coronary ischemia because you are no longer providing adequate coronary perfusion,” he said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
In their “SPRINT to translation” study, Dr. Go and his team reviewed Kaiser’s electronic medical records to identify patients with baseline BPs of 130-180 mm Hg who met SPRINT criteria and then evaluated how they fared over about 6 years of blood pressure management, with at least one BP taken every 6 months; 7,213 patients were treated to an SBP of 140-149 mm Hg and a mean of 143 mm Hg; 44,847 were treated to an SBP of 126-139 mm Hg and a mean of 132 mm Hg; and 21,462 were treated to 115-125 mm Hg and a mean of 122 mm Hg.
After extensive adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated to 140-149 mm Hg, versus those treated to 126-139 mm Hg, had a 70% increased risk of the composite outcome of acute MI, unstable angina, heart failure, stroke, and cardiovascular death, and a 28% increased risk of all-cause mortality. They also had an increased risk of acute kidney injury, electrolyte abnormalities, and other problems.
More surprisingly, patients treated to 115-125 mm Hg, again versus those treated to 126-139 mm Hg, also had an increased risk of the composite outcome of 9%. They had lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke, but higher rates of heart failure and cardiovascular death. There was also a 17% increased risk of acute kidney injury and a 51% increased risk of hypotension requiring ED or hospital treatment, as well as more electrolyte abnormalities.
The 115-125 mm Hg group also had a 48% increased risk of all-cause mortality. The magnitude of the increase suggests that low blood pressure was a secondary effect of terminal illness in some cases, but Dr. Go didn’t think that was the entire explanation.
The participants had a mean age of 70 years; 63% were women and 75% were white. As in SPRINT, patients with baseline heart failure, stroke, systolic dysfunction, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and cancer were among those excluded.
There was no external funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
ANAHEIM – If blood pressure isn’t measured the way it was in the SPRINT trial, it shouldn’t be treated all the way down to the SPRINT target of less than 120 mm Hg; it’s best to aim a little higher, according to investigators from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California.
SPRINT (the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) found that treating hypertension to below 120 mm Hg – as opposed to below 140 mm Hg – reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and death, but blood pressure wasn’t measured the way it usually is in standard practice. Among other differences, SPRINT subjects rested for 5 minutes beforehand, sometimes unobserved, and then three automated measurements were taken and averaged (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16).
In a review of 73,522 hypertensive patients, the Kaiser investigators found that those treated to a mean systolic BP (SBP) of 122 mm Hg – based on standard office measurement – actually had worse outcomes than did those treated to a mean of 132 mm Hg, with a greater incidence of cardiovascular events, hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, and other problems.
“The way SPRINT measured BP was systematically different than the BPs we rely on to treat patients in clinical practice. We think that, unless you are going to implement a SPRINT-like protocol, aiming for a slightly higher target of around a mean of 130-132 mm Hg will achieve optimal outcomes. You are likely achieving a SPRINT BP of around 120-125 mm Hg,” said Alan Go, MD, director of the comprehensive clinical research unit at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland.
Meanwhile, “if you [treat] to 120 mm Hg, you are probably getting around a SPRINT 114 mm Hg. That runs the risk of hypotension, which we did see. There is also the potential for coronary ischemia because you are no longer providing adequate coronary perfusion,” he said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
In their “SPRINT to translation” study, Dr. Go and his team reviewed Kaiser’s electronic medical records to identify patients with baseline BPs of 130-180 mm Hg who met SPRINT criteria and then evaluated how they fared over about 6 years of blood pressure management, with at least one BP taken every 6 months; 7,213 patients were treated to an SBP of 140-149 mm Hg and a mean of 143 mm Hg; 44,847 were treated to an SBP of 126-139 mm Hg and a mean of 132 mm Hg; and 21,462 were treated to 115-125 mm Hg and a mean of 122 mm Hg.
After extensive adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated to 140-149 mm Hg, versus those treated to 126-139 mm Hg, had a 70% increased risk of the composite outcome of acute MI, unstable angina, heart failure, stroke, and cardiovascular death, and a 28% increased risk of all-cause mortality. They also had an increased risk of acute kidney injury, electrolyte abnormalities, and other problems.
More surprisingly, patients treated to 115-125 mm Hg, again versus those treated to 126-139 mm Hg, also had an increased risk of the composite outcome of 9%. They had lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke, but higher rates of heart failure and cardiovascular death. There was also a 17% increased risk of acute kidney injury and a 51% increased risk of hypotension requiring ED or hospital treatment, as well as more electrolyte abnormalities.
The 115-125 mm Hg group also had a 48% increased risk of all-cause mortality. The magnitude of the increase suggests that low blood pressure was a secondary effect of terminal illness in some cases, but Dr. Go didn’t think that was the entire explanation.
The participants had a mean age of 70 years; 63% were women and 75% were white. As in SPRINT, patients with baseline heart failure, stroke, systolic dysfunction, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and cancer were among those excluded.
There was no external funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
ANAHEIM – If blood pressure isn’t measured the way it was in the SPRINT trial, it shouldn’t be treated all the way down to the SPRINT target of less than 120 mm Hg; it’s best to aim a little higher, according to investigators from Kaiser Permanente of Northern California.
SPRINT (the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) found that treating hypertension to below 120 mm Hg – as opposed to below 140 mm Hg – reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and death, but blood pressure wasn’t measured the way it usually is in standard practice. Among other differences, SPRINT subjects rested for 5 minutes beforehand, sometimes unobserved, and then three automated measurements were taken and averaged (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16).
In a review of 73,522 hypertensive patients, the Kaiser investigators found that those treated to a mean systolic BP (SBP) of 122 mm Hg – based on standard office measurement – actually had worse outcomes than did those treated to a mean of 132 mm Hg, with a greater incidence of cardiovascular events, hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, and other problems.
“The way SPRINT measured BP was systematically different than the BPs we rely on to treat patients in clinical practice. We think that, unless you are going to implement a SPRINT-like protocol, aiming for a slightly higher target of around a mean of 130-132 mm Hg will achieve optimal outcomes. You are likely achieving a SPRINT BP of around 120-125 mm Hg,” said Alan Go, MD, director of the comprehensive clinical research unit at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, Oakland.
Meanwhile, “if you [treat] to 120 mm Hg, you are probably getting around a SPRINT 114 mm Hg. That runs the risk of hypotension, which we did see. There is also the potential for coronary ischemia because you are no longer providing adequate coronary perfusion,” he said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
In their “SPRINT to translation” study, Dr. Go and his team reviewed Kaiser’s electronic medical records to identify patients with baseline BPs of 130-180 mm Hg who met SPRINT criteria and then evaluated how they fared over about 6 years of blood pressure management, with at least one BP taken every 6 months; 7,213 patients were treated to an SBP of 140-149 mm Hg and a mean of 143 mm Hg; 44,847 were treated to an SBP of 126-139 mm Hg and a mean of 132 mm Hg; and 21,462 were treated to 115-125 mm Hg and a mean of 122 mm Hg.
After extensive adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated to 140-149 mm Hg, versus those treated to 126-139 mm Hg, had a 70% increased risk of the composite outcome of acute MI, unstable angina, heart failure, stroke, and cardiovascular death, and a 28% increased risk of all-cause mortality. They also had an increased risk of acute kidney injury, electrolyte abnormalities, and other problems.
More surprisingly, patients treated to 115-125 mm Hg, again versus those treated to 126-139 mm Hg, also had an increased risk of the composite outcome of 9%. They had lower rates of MI and ischemic stroke, but higher rates of heart failure and cardiovascular death. There was also a 17% increased risk of acute kidney injury and a 51% increased risk of hypotension requiring ED or hospital treatment, as well as more electrolyte abnormalities.
The 115-125 mm Hg group also had a 48% increased risk of all-cause mortality. The magnitude of the increase suggests that low blood pressure was a secondary effect of terminal illness in some cases, but Dr. Go didn’t think that was the entire explanation.
The participants had a mean age of 70 years; 63% were women and 75% were white. As in SPRINT, patients with baseline heart failure, stroke, systolic dysfunction, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and cancer were among those excluded.
There was no external funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Cardiovascular events were 9% more likely in patients treated to 115-125 mm Hg vs. those treated to 126-139 mm Hg.
Data source: Review of 73,522 hypertensive patients at Kaiser Permanente of Northern California
Disclosures: There was no external funding for the work, and the investigators had no disclosures.
Heart failure readmission penalties linked with rise in deaths
ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Evidence continues to mount that Medicare’s penalization of hospitals with excess heart failure readmissions has cut readmissions but at the apparent price of more deaths.
During the penalty phase of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which started in Oct. 2012, 30-day all-cause mortality following a heart failure hospitalization was 18% higher compared with the adjusted rate during 2006-2010, based on Medicare data from 2006-2014 that underwent “extensive” risk adjustment using prospectively-collected clinical data, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. During the same 2012-2014 period with imposed penalties, 30-day all-cause readmissions following an index heart failure hospitalization fell by a risk-adjusted 9% compared to the era just before the HRRP. Both the drop in readmissions and rise in deaths were statistically significant.
A similar pattern existed for the risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality rates during the year following the index hospitalization: readmissions fell by 8% compared with the time before the program but deaths rose by a relative 10%, also statistically significant differences.
“This is urgent and alarming. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to revamp the program to exclude heart failure patients and take steps to mitigate the damage,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview. He estimated that the uptick in mortality following heart failure hospitalizations is causing 5,000-10,000 excess annual deaths among U.S. heart failure patients that are directly attributable to the HRRP. Similar effects have not been seen for patients with an index hospitalization of pneumonia or acute MI, two other targets of the HRRP, he noted.
The HRRP “currently has penalties for readmissions that are 15-fold higher than for mortality. They need to penalize equally, and they need to get at the gaming that hospitals are doing” to shift outcomes away from readmissions even if it means more patients will die. Heart failure patients “who need hospitalization are being denied admission by hospitals out of fear of the readmissions penalty,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor and co-chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Seeing increased mortality linked with implementation of the penalty is completely unacceptable.”
Although a prior report used similar Medicare data from 2008-2014 to initially find this inverse association, that analysis relied entirely on administrative data collected in Medicare records to perform risk adjustments (JAMA. 2017 July 17;318[3]:270-8). The new analysis reported by Dr. Fonarow and his associates combined the Medicare data with detailed clinical records for the same patients collected by the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure program. The extensive clinical data that the researchers used for risk-adjustment allowed for a more reliable attribution to the HRRP of readmission and mortality differences between the two time periods. Despite the extensive risk adjustment “we see exactly the same result” as initially reported, Dr. Fonarow said.
The findings “remind us that it is very important to look at the unintended consequences” of interventions that might initially seem reasonable, commented Lynne Warner Stevenson, MD, professor and director of cardiomyopathy at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
Concurrent with the presentation at the meeting the results also appeared in an article published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 12;doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.4265).
A separate analysis of data collected in the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure during 2005-2009 showed that within the past decade the 5-year survival of U.S. hospitalized heart failure patients has remained dismally low, and similar regardless of whether patients had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, 46% of all heart failure patients in the analysis), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, also 46% of patients), or the in-between patients who had heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF, an ejection fraction of 41%-49%, in 8% of patients).
The results, from 39,982 patients, showed a 75% mortality rate during 5-years of follow-up, with similar mortality rates regardless of the patient’s ejection-fraction level, reported Dr. Fonarow and his associates in a separate poster. In every age group examined, patients with heart failure had dramatically reduced life expectancies compared with the general population. For example, among heart failure patients aged 65-69 years in the study, median survival was less than 4 years compared with a 19-year expected median survival for people in the general U.S. population in the same age range.
These very low survival rates of heart failure patients initially hospitalized for heart failure during the relatively recent era of 2005-2009 “is a call to action to prevent heart failure,” said Dr. Fonarow.
The poor prognosis most heart failure patients face should also spur aggressive treatment of HFrEF patients with all proven treatments, Dr. Fonarow said. It should also spur more effort to find effective treatments for HFpEF, which currently has no clearly-proven effective treatment.
These results also appeared in a report simultaneously published online (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 12;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.074).
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Evidence continues to mount that Medicare’s penalization of hospitals with excess heart failure readmissions has cut readmissions but at the apparent price of more deaths.
During the penalty phase of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which started in Oct. 2012, 30-day all-cause mortality following a heart failure hospitalization was 18% higher compared with the adjusted rate during 2006-2010, based on Medicare data from 2006-2014 that underwent “extensive” risk adjustment using prospectively-collected clinical data, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. During the same 2012-2014 period with imposed penalties, 30-day all-cause readmissions following an index heart failure hospitalization fell by a risk-adjusted 9% compared to the era just before the HRRP. Both the drop in readmissions and rise in deaths were statistically significant.
A similar pattern existed for the risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality rates during the year following the index hospitalization: readmissions fell by 8% compared with the time before the program but deaths rose by a relative 10%, also statistically significant differences.
“This is urgent and alarming. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to revamp the program to exclude heart failure patients and take steps to mitigate the damage,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview. He estimated that the uptick in mortality following heart failure hospitalizations is causing 5,000-10,000 excess annual deaths among U.S. heart failure patients that are directly attributable to the HRRP. Similar effects have not been seen for patients with an index hospitalization of pneumonia or acute MI, two other targets of the HRRP, he noted.
The HRRP “currently has penalties for readmissions that are 15-fold higher than for mortality. They need to penalize equally, and they need to get at the gaming that hospitals are doing” to shift outcomes away from readmissions even if it means more patients will die. Heart failure patients “who need hospitalization are being denied admission by hospitals out of fear of the readmissions penalty,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor and co-chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Seeing increased mortality linked with implementation of the penalty is completely unacceptable.”
Although a prior report used similar Medicare data from 2008-2014 to initially find this inverse association, that analysis relied entirely on administrative data collected in Medicare records to perform risk adjustments (JAMA. 2017 July 17;318[3]:270-8). The new analysis reported by Dr. Fonarow and his associates combined the Medicare data with detailed clinical records for the same patients collected by the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure program. The extensive clinical data that the researchers used for risk-adjustment allowed for a more reliable attribution to the HRRP of readmission and mortality differences between the two time periods. Despite the extensive risk adjustment “we see exactly the same result” as initially reported, Dr. Fonarow said.
The findings “remind us that it is very important to look at the unintended consequences” of interventions that might initially seem reasonable, commented Lynne Warner Stevenson, MD, professor and director of cardiomyopathy at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
Concurrent with the presentation at the meeting the results also appeared in an article published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 12;doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.4265).
A separate analysis of data collected in the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure during 2005-2009 showed that within the past decade the 5-year survival of U.S. hospitalized heart failure patients has remained dismally low, and similar regardless of whether patients had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, 46% of all heart failure patients in the analysis), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, also 46% of patients), or the in-between patients who had heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF, an ejection fraction of 41%-49%, in 8% of patients).
The results, from 39,982 patients, showed a 75% mortality rate during 5-years of follow-up, with similar mortality rates regardless of the patient’s ejection-fraction level, reported Dr. Fonarow and his associates in a separate poster. In every age group examined, patients with heart failure had dramatically reduced life expectancies compared with the general population. For example, among heart failure patients aged 65-69 years in the study, median survival was less than 4 years compared with a 19-year expected median survival for people in the general U.S. population in the same age range.
These very low survival rates of heart failure patients initially hospitalized for heart failure during the relatively recent era of 2005-2009 “is a call to action to prevent heart failure,” said Dr. Fonarow.
The poor prognosis most heart failure patients face should also spur aggressive treatment of HFrEF patients with all proven treatments, Dr. Fonarow said. It should also spur more effort to find effective treatments for HFpEF, which currently has no clearly-proven effective treatment.
These results also appeared in a report simultaneously published online (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 12;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.074).
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Evidence continues to mount that Medicare’s penalization of hospitals with excess heart failure readmissions has cut readmissions but at the apparent price of more deaths.
During the penalty phase of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), which started in Oct. 2012, 30-day all-cause mortality following a heart failure hospitalization was 18% higher compared with the adjusted rate during 2006-2010, based on Medicare data from 2006-2014 that underwent “extensive” risk adjustment using prospectively-collected clinical data, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. During the same 2012-2014 period with imposed penalties, 30-day all-cause readmissions following an index heart failure hospitalization fell by a risk-adjusted 9% compared to the era just before the HRRP. Both the drop in readmissions and rise in deaths were statistically significant.
A similar pattern existed for the risk-adjusted readmissions and mortality rates during the year following the index hospitalization: readmissions fell by 8% compared with the time before the program but deaths rose by a relative 10%, also statistically significant differences.
“This is urgent and alarming. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to revamp the program to exclude heart failure patients and take steps to mitigate the damage,” Dr. Fonarow said in an interview. He estimated that the uptick in mortality following heart failure hospitalizations is causing 5,000-10,000 excess annual deaths among U.S. heart failure patients that are directly attributable to the HRRP. Similar effects have not been seen for patients with an index hospitalization of pneumonia or acute MI, two other targets of the HRRP, he noted.
The HRRP “currently has penalties for readmissions that are 15-fold higher than for mortality. They need to penalize equally, and they need to get at the gaming that hospitals are doing” to shift outcomes away from readmissions even if it means more patients will die. Heart failure patients “who need hospitalization are being denied admission by hospitals out of fear of the readmissions penalty,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor and co-chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Seeing increased mortality linked with implementation of the penalty is completely unacceptable.”
Although a prior report used similar Medicare data from 2008-2014 to initially find this inverse association, that analysis relied entirely on administrative data collected in Medicare records to perform risk adjustments (JAMA. 2017 July 17;318[3]:270-8). The new analysis reported by Dr. Fonarow and his associates combined the Medicare data with detailed clinical records for the same patients collected by the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure program. The extensive clinical data that the researchers used for risk-adjustment allowed for a more reliable attribution to the HRRP of readmission and mortality differences between the two time periods. Despite the extensive risk adjustment “we see exactly the same result” as initially reported, Dr. Fonarow said.
The findings “remind us that it is very important to look at the unintended consequences” of interventions that might initially seem reasonable, commented Lynne Warner Stevenson, MD, professor and director of cardiomyopathy at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
Concurrent with the presentation at the meeting the results also appeared in an article published online (JAMA Cardiol. 2017 Nov 12;doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2017.4265).
A separate analysis of data collected in the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure during 2005-2009 showed that within the past decade the 5-year survival of U.S. hospitalized heart failure patients has remained dismally low, and similar regardless of whether patients had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, 46% of all heart failure patients in the analysis), heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, also 46% of patients), or the in-between patients who had heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF, an ejection fraction of 41%-49%, in 8% of patients).
The results, from 39,982 patients, showed a 75% mortality rate during 5-years of follow-up, with similar mortality rates regardless of the patient’s ejection-fraction level, reported Dr. Fonarow and his associates in a separate poster. In every age group examined, patients with heart failure had dramatically reduced life expectancies compared with the general population. For example, among heart failure patients aged 65-69 years in the study, median survival was less than 4 years compared with a 19-year expected median survival for people in the general U.S. population in the same age range.
These very low survival rates of heart failure patients initially hospitalized for heart failure during the relatively recent era of 2005-2009 “is a call to action to prevent heart failure,” said Dr. Fonarow.
The poor prognosis most heart failure patients face should also spur aggressive treatment of HFrEF patients with all proven treatments, Dr. Fonarow said. It should also spur more effort to find effective treatments for HFpEF, which currently has no clearly-proven effective treatment.
These results also appeared in a report simultaneously published online (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2017 Nov 12;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.08.074).
mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions fell by a relative 9% during the reduction program but relative mortality rose by 18%.
Data source: Review of 115,245 Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure treated at hospitals in the Get With the Guidelines--Heart Failure program.
Disclosures: Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant to Amgen, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis, and St. Jude. Dr. Stevenson has been a consultant to Abbott, has received travel support from St. Jude, and has received research funding and food from Novartis.