Arrhythmias & EP

Further details from the phase 2b AZALEA trial with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos) show significant reductions in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, compared with rivaroxaban, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib); the risk of stroke was moderate to high.

The trial was stopped earlier this year because of an “overwhelming” reduction in bleeding with abelacimab in comparison to rivaroxaban. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month.

“Details of the bleeding results have now shown that the 150-mg dose of abelacimab, which is the dose being carried forward to phase 3 trials, was associated with a 67% reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, the primary endpoint of the study.”

In addition, major bleeding was reduced by 74%, and major gastrointestinal bleeding was reduced by 93%.

“We are seeing really profound reductions in bleeding with this agent vs. a NOAC [novel oral anticoagulant],” lead AZALEA investigator Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Major bleeding – effectively the type of bleeding that results in hospitalization – is reduced by more than two-thirds, and major GI bleeding – which is the most common type of bleeding experienced by AF patients on anticoagulants – is almost eliminated. This gives us real hope that we have finally found an anticoagulant that is remarkably safe and will allow us to use anticoagulation in our most vulnerable patients,” he said.

Dr. Ruff presented the full results from the AZALEA trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

He noted that AFib is one of the most common medical conditions in the world and that it confers an increased risk of stroke. Anticoagulants reduce this risk very effectively, and while the NOACS, such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are safer than warfarin, significant bleeding still occurs, and “shockingly,” he said, between 30% and 60% of patients are not prescribed an anticoagulant or discontinue treatment because of bleeding concerns.

“Clearly, we need safer anticoagulants to protect these patients. Factor XI inhibitors, of which abelacimab is one, have emerged as the most promising agents, as they are thought to provide precision anticoagulation,” Dr. Ruff said.

He explained that factor XI appears to be involved in the formation of thrombus, which blocks arteries and causes strokes and myocardial infarction (thrombosis), but not in the healing process of blood vessels after injury (hemostasis). So, it is believed that inhibiting factor XI should reduce thrombotic events without causing excess bleeding.

AZALEA, which is the largest and longest trial of a factor XI inhibitor to date, enrolled 1,287 adults with AF who were at moderate to high risk of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: oral rivaroxaban 20 mg daily; abelacimab 90 mg; or abelacimab 150 mg. Abelacimab was given monthly by injection.

Both doses of abelacimab inhibited factor XI almost completely; 97% inhibition was achieved with the 90-mg dose, and 99% inhibition was achieved with the 150-mg dose.

Results showed that after a median follow-up of 1.8 years, there was a clear reduction in all bleeding endpoints with both doses of abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.

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

Further details from the phase 2b AZALEA trial with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos) show significant reductions in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, compared with rivaroxaban, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib); the risk of stroke was moderate to high.

The trial was stopped earlier this year because of an “overwhelming” reduction in bleeding with abelacimab in comparison to rivaroxaban. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month.

“Details of the bleeding results have now shown that the 150-mg dose of abelacimab, which is the dose being carried forward to phase 3 trials, was associated with a 67% reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, the primary endpoint of the study.”

In addition, major bleeding was reduced by 74%, and major gastrointestinal bleeding was reduced by 93%.

“We are seeing really profound reductions in bleeding with this agent vs. a NOAC [novel oral anticoagulant],” lead AZALEA investigator Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Major bleeding – effectively the type of bleeding that results in hospitalization – is reduced by more than two-thirds, and major GI bleeding – which is the most common type of bleeding experienced by AF patients on anticoagulants – is almost eliminated. This gives us real hope that we have finally found an anticoagulant that is remarkably safe and will allow us to use anticoagulation in our most vulnerable patients,” he said.

Dr. Ruff presented the full results from the AZALEA trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

He noted that AFib is one of the most common medical conditions in the world and that it confers an increased risk of stroke. Anticoagulants reduce this risk very effectively, and while the NOACS, such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are safer than warfarin, significant bleeding still occurs, and “shockingly,” he said, between 30% and 60% of patients are not prescribed an anticoagulant or discontinue treatment because of bleeding concerns.

“Clearly, we need safer anticoagulants to protect these patients. Factor XI inhibitors, of which abelacimab is one, have emerged as the most promising agents, as they are thought to provide precision anticoagulation,” Dr. Ruff said.

He explained that factor XI appears to be involved in the formation of thrombus, which blocks arteries and causes strokes and myocardial infarction (thrombosis), but not in the healing process of blood vessels after injury (hemostasis). So, it is believed that inhibiting factor XI should reduce thrombotic events without causing excess bleeding.

AZALEA, which is the largest and longest trial of a factor XI inhibitor to date, enrolled 1,287 adults with AF who were at moderate to high risk of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: oral rivaroxaban 20 mg daily; abelacimab 90 mg; or abelacimab 150 mg. Abelacimab was given monthly by injection.

Both doses of abelacimab inhibited factor XI almost completely; 97% inhibition was achieved with the 90-mg dose, and 99% inhibition was achieved with the 150-mg dose.

Results showed that after a median follow-up of 1.8 years, there was a clear reduction in all bleeding endpoints with both doses of abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.

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

Further details from the phase 2b AZALEA trial with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos) show significant reductions in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, compared with rivaroxaban, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib); the risk of stroke was moderate to high.

The trial was stopped earlier this year because of an “overwhelming” reduction in bleeding with abelacimab in comparison to rivaroxaban. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month.

“Details of the bleeding results have now shown that the 150-mg dose of abelacimab, which is the dose being carried forward to phase 3 trials, was associated with a 67% reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, the primary endpoint of the study.”

In addition, major bleeding was reduced by 74%, and major gastrointestinal bleeding was reduced by 93%.

“We are seeing really profound reductions in bleeding with this agent vs. a NOAC [novel oral anticoagulant],” lead AZALEA investigator Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Major bleeding – effectively the type of bleeding that results in hospitalization – is reduced by more than two-thirds, and major GI bleeding – which is the most common type of bleeding experienced by AF patients on anticoagulants – is almost eliminated. This gives us real hope that we have finally found an anticoagulant that is remarkably safe and will allow us to use anticoagulation in our most vulnerable patients,” he said.

Dr. Ruff presented the full results from the AZALEA trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

He noted that AFib is one of the most common medical conditions in the world and that it confers an increased risk of stroke. Anticoagulants reduce this risk very effectively, and while the NOACS, such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are safer than warfarin, significant bleeding still occurs, and “shockingly,” he said, between 30% and 60% of patients are not prescribed an anticoagulant or discontinue treatment because of bleeding concerns.

“Clearly, we need safer anticoagulants to protect these patients. Factor XI inhibitors, of which abelacimab is one, have emerged as the most promising agents, as they are thought to provide precision anticoagulation,” Dr. Ruff said.

He explained that factor XI appears to be involved in the formation of thrombus, which blocks arteries and causes strokes and myocardial infarction (thrombosis), but not in the healing process of blood vessels after injury (hemostasis). So, it is believed that inhibiting factor XI should reduce thrombotic events without causing excess bleeding.

AZALEA, which is the largest and longest trial of a factor XI inhibitor to date, enrolled 1,287 adults with AF who were at moderate to high risk of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: oral rivaroxaban 20 mg daily; abelacimab 90 mg; or abelacimab 150 mg. Abelacimab was given monthly by injection.

Both doses of abelacimab inhibited factor XI almost completely; 97% inhibition was achieved with the 90-mg dose, and 99% inhibition was achieved with the 150-mg dose.

Results showed that after a median follow-up of 1.8 years, there was a clear reduction in all bleeding endpoints with both doses of abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults with atrial fibrillation (AFib) are at increased risk for dementia, especially when AFib occurs before age 65 years, new research shows. Investigators note the findings highlight the importance of monitoring cognitive function in adults with AF.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective, population-based cohort study leveraged data from 433,746 UK Biobank participants (55% women), including 30,601 with AFib, who were followed for a median of 12.6 years
• Incident cases of dementia were determined through linkage from multiple databases.
• Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between age at onset of AFib and incident dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, new-onset dementia occurred in 5,898 participants (2,546 with Alzheimer’s disease [AD] and 1,211 with vascular dementia [VD]), of which, 1,031 had AFib (350 with AD; 320 with VD).
• Compared with participants without AFib, those with AFib had a 42% higher risk for all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; P < .001) and more than double the risk for VD (aHR, 2.06; P < .001), but no significantly higher risk for AD.
• Younger age at AFib onset was associated with higher risks for all-cause dementia, AD and VD, with aHRs per 10-year decrease of 1.23, 1.27, and 1.35, respectively (P < .001 for all).
• After propensity score matching, AFib onset before age 65 years had the highest risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.82; P < .001), followed by AF onset at age 65-74 years (aHR, 1.47; P < .001). Similar results were seen in AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that careful monitoring of cognitive function for patients with a younger [AFib] onset age, particularly those diagnosed with [AFib] before age 65 years, is important to attenuate the risk of subsequent dementia,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Wenya Zhang, with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the study was observational, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Despite the adjustment for many underlying confounders, residual unidentified confounders may still exist. The vast majority of participants were White. The analyses did not consider the potential impact of effective treatment of AFib on dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with atrial fibrillation (AFib) are at increased risk for dementia, especially when AFib occurs before age 65 years, new research shows. Investigators note the findings highlight the importance of monitoring cognitive function in adults with AF.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective, population-based cohort study leveraged data from 433,746 UK Biobank participants (55% women), including 30,601 with AFib, who were followed for a median of 12.6 years
• Incident cases of dementia were determined through linkage from multiple databases.
• Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between age at onset of AFib and incident dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, new-onset dementia occurred in 5,898 participants (2,546 with Alzheimer’s disease [AD] and 1,211 with vascular dementia [VD]), of which, 1,031 had AFib (350 with AD; 320 with VD).
• Compared with participants without AFib, those with AFib had a 42% higher risk for all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; P < .001) and more than double the risk for VD (aHR, 2.06; P < .001), but no significantly higher risk for AD.
• Younger age at AFib onset was associated with higher risks for all-cause dementia, AD and VD, with aHRs per 10-year decrease of 1.23, 1.27, and 1.35, respectively (P < .001 for all).
• After propensity score matching, AFib onset before age 65 years had the highest risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.82; P < .001), followed by AF onset at age 65-74 years (aHR, 1.47; P < .001). Similar results were seen in AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that careful monitoring of cognitive function for patients with a younger [AFib] onset age, particularly those diagnosed with [AFib] before age 65 years, is important to attenuate the risk of subsequent dementia,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Wenya Zhang, with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the study was observational, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Despite the adjustment for many underlying confounders, residual unidentified confounders may still exist. The vast majority of participants were White. The analyses did not consider the potential impact of effective treatment of AFib on dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with atrial fibrillation (AFib) are at increased risk for dementia, especially when AFib occurs before age 65 years, new research shows. Investigators note the findings highlight the importance of monitoring cognitive function in adults with AF.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective, population-based cohort study leveraged data from 433,746 UK Biobank participants (55% women), including 30,601 with AFib, who were followed for a median of 12.6 years
• Incident cases of dementia were determined through linkage from multiple databases.
• Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between age at onset of AFib and incident dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, new-onset dementia occurred in 5,898 participants (2,546 with Alzheimer’s disease [AD] and 1,211 with vascular dementia [VD]), of which, 1,031 had AFib (350 with AD; 320 with VD).
• Compared with participants without AFib, those with AFib had a 42% higher risk for all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; P < .001) and more than double the risk for VD (aHR, 2.06; P < .001), but no significantly higher risk for AD.
• Younger age at AFib onset was associated with higher risks for all-cause dementia, AD and VD, with aHRs per 10-year decrease of 1.23, 1.27, and 1.35, respectively (P < .001 for all).
• After propensity score matching, AFib onset before age 65 years had the highest risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.82; P < .001), followed by AF onset at age 65-74 years (aHR, 1.47; P < .001). Similar results were seen in AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that careful monitoring of cognitive function for patients with a younger [AFib] onset age, particularly those diagnosed with [AFib] before age 65 years, is important to attenuate the risk of subsequent dementia,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Wenya Zhang, with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the study was observational, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Despite the adjustment for many underlying confounders, residual unidentified confounders may still exist. The vast majority of participants were White. The analyses did not consider the potential impact of effective treatment of AFib on dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – As an initial treatment strategy for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obesity, dual energy cardioversion is substantially more reliable and just as safe as conventional single energy cardioversion, a multicenter randomized trial shows.

When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.

Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.

In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.

No disadvantages seen with dual energy

The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.

The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.

“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.

In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.

200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart

In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.

The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.

On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).

On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).

The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.

Alternatives for obese outlined

Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.

Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.

“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.

Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.

As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.

Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – As an initial treatment strategy for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obesity, dual energy cardioversion is substantially more reliable and just as safe as conventional single energy cardioversion, a multicenter randomized trial shows.

When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.

Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.

In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.

No disadvantages seen with dual energy

The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.

The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.

“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.

In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.

200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart

In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.

The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.

On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).

On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).

The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.

Alternatives for obese outlined

Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.

Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.

“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.

Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.

As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.

Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – As an initial treatment strategy for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obesity, dual energy cardioversion is substantially more reliable and just as safe as conventional single energy cardioversion, a multicenter randomized trial shows.

When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.

Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.

In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.

No disadvantages seen with dual energy

The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.

The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.

“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.

In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.

200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart

In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.

The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.

On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).

On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).

The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.

Alternatives for obese outlined

Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.

Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.

“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.

Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.

As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.

Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel modality that uses short, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation (AFib), results of a large registry study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included all 1,568 patients (mean age 64.5 years and 35.3% women) in the MANIFEST-PF registry, which includes 24 European centers that began using PFA for treating AFib after regulatory approval in 2021.
• Researchers categorized patients by sex and evaluated them for clinical outcomes of PFA, including freedom from AFib and adverse events.
• All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (Farawave, Boston Scientific) and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia outside the 90-day blanking period lasting 30 seconds or longer.
• The primary safety outcome included the composite of acute (less than 7 days post-procedure) and chronic (more than 7 days post-procedure) major adverse events, including atrioesophageal fistula, symptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis, cardiac tamponade/perforation requiring intervention or surgery, stroke or systemic thromboembolism, persistent phrenic nerve injury, vascular access complications requiring surgery, coronary artery spasm, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference in 12-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between male and female patients (79.0% vs 76.3%; P = .28), with greater overall effectiveness in the paroxysmal AFib cohort (men, 82.5% vs women, 80.2%; P = .30) than in the persistent AF/long-standing persistent AFib cohort (men, 73.3% vs women, 67.3%; P = .40).
• Repeated ablation rates were similar between sexes (men, 8.3% vs women, 10.0%; P = .32).
• Among patients who underwent repeat ablation, pulmonary vein isolation durability was higher in female than in male patients (per vein, 82.6% vs 68.1%; P = .15 and per patient, 63.0% vs 37.8%; P = .005).
• Major adverse events occurred in 2.5% of women and 1.5% of men (P = .19), with such events mostly consisting of cardiac tamponade (women, 1.4% vs men, 1.0%; P = .46) and stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%, P > .99), and with no atrioesophageal fistulas or symptomatic pulmonary valve stenosis in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results are important, as women are underrepresented in prior ablation studies and the results have been mixed with regards to both safety and effectiveness using conventional ablation strategies such as radiofrequency or cryoablation,” lead author Mohit Turagam, MD, associate professor of medicine (cardiology), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, said in a press release.

In an accompanying commentary, Peter M. Kistler, MBBS, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a colleague said that the study authors should be congratulated “for presenting much-needed data on sex-specific outcomes in catheter ablation,” which “reassuringly” suggest that success and safety for AFib ablation are comparable between the sexes, although the study does have “important limitations.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Turagam and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers can’t rule out the possibility that treatment selection and unmeasured confounders between sexes affected the validity of the study findings. The median number of follow-up 24-hour Holter monitors used for AFib monitoring was only two, which may have resulted in inaccurate estimates of AFib recurrence rates and treatment effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Boston Scientific Corporation, the PFA device manufacturer. Turagam has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. The commentary authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel modality that uses short, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation (AFib), results of a large registry study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included all 1,568 patients (mean age 64.5 years and 35.3% women) in the MANIFEST-PF registry, which includes 24 European centers that began using PFA for treating AFib after regulatory approval in 2021.
• Researchers categorized patients by sex and evaluated them for clinical outcomes of PFA, including freedom from AFib and adverse events.
• All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (Farawave, Boston Scientific) and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia outside the 90-day blanking period lasting 30 seconds or longer.
• The primary safety outcome included the composite of acute (less than 7 days post-procedure) and chronic (more than 7 days post-procedure) major adverse events, including atrioesophageal fistula, symptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis, cardiac tamponade/perforation requiring intervention or surgery, stroke or systemic thromboembolism, persistent phrenic nerve injury, vascular access complications requiring surgery, coronary artery spasm, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference in 12-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between male and female patients (79.0% vs 76.3%; P = .28), with greater overall effectiveness in the paroxysmal AFib cohort (men, 82.5% vs women, 80.2%; P = .30) than in the persistent AF/long-standing persistent AFib cohort (men, 73.3% vs women, 67.3%; P = .40).
• Repeated ablation rates were similar between sexes (men, 8.3% vs women, 10.0%; P = .32).
• Among patients who underwent repeat ablation, pulmonary vein isolation durability was higher in female than in male patients (per vein, 82.6% vs 68.1%; P = .15 and per patient, 63.0% vs 37.8%; P = .005).
• Major adverse events occurred in 2.5% of women and 1.5% of men (P = .19), with such events mostly consisting of cardiac tamponade (women, 1.4% vs men, 1.0%; P = .46) and stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%, P > .99), and with no atrioesophageal fistulas or symptomatic pulmonary valve stenosis in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results are important, as women are underrepresented in prior ablation studies and the results have been mixed with regards to both safety and effectiveness using conventional ablation strategies such as radiofrequency or cryoablation,” lead author Mohit Turagam, MD, associate professor of medicine (cardiology), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, said in a press release.

In an accompanying commentary, Peter M. Kistler, MBBS, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a colleague said that the study authors should be congratulated “for presenting much-needed data on sex-specific outcomes in catheter ablation,” which “reassuringly” suggest that success and safety for AFib ablation are comparable between the sexes, although the study does have “important limitations.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Turagam and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers can’t rule out the possibility that treatment selection and unmeasured confounders between sexes affected the validity of the study findings. The median number of follow-up 24-hour Holter monitors used for AFib monitoring was only two, which may have resulted in inaccurate estimates of AFib recurrence rates and treatment effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Boston Scientific Corporation, the PFA device manufacturer. Turagam has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. The commentary authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel modality that uses short, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation (AFib), results of a large registry study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included all 1,568 patients (mean age 64.5 years and 35.3% women) in the MANIFEST-PF registry, which includes 24 European centers that began using PFA for treating AFib after regulatory approval in 2021.
• Researchers categorized patients by sex and evaluated them for clinical outcomes of PFA, including freedom from AFib and adverse events.
• All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (Farawave, Boston Scientific) and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia outside the 90-day blanking period lasting 30 seconds or longer.
• The primary safety outcome included the composite of acute (less than 7 days post-procedure) and chronic (more than 7 days post-procedure) major adverse events, including atrioesophageal fistula, symptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis, cardiac tamponade/perforation requiring intervention or surgery, stroke or systemic thromboembolism, persistent phrenic nerve injury, vascular access complications requiring surgery, coronary artery spasm, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference in 12-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between male and female patients (79.0% vs 76.3%; P = .28), with greater overall effectiveness in the paroxysmal AFib cohort (men, 82.5% vs women, 80.2%; P = .30) than in the persistent AF/long-standing persistent AFib cohort (men, 73.3% vs women, 67.3%; P = .40).
• Repeated ablation rates were similar between sexes (men, 8.3% vs women, 10.0%; P = .32).
• Among patients who underwent repeat ablation, pulmonary vein isolation durability was higher in female than in male patients (per vein, 82.6% vs 68.1%; P = .15 and per patient, 63.0% vs 37.8%; P = .005).
• Major adverse events occurred in 2.5% of women and 1.5% of men (P = .19), with such events mostly consisting of cardiac tamponade (women, 1.4% vs men, 1.0%; P = .46) and stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%, P > .99), and with no atrioesophageal fistulas or symptomatic pulmonary valve stenosis in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results are important, as women are underrepresented in prior ablation studies and the results have been mixed with regards to both safety and effectiveness using conventional ablation strategies such as radiofrequency or cryoablation,” lead author Mohit Turagam, MD, associate professor of medicine (cardiology), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, said in a press release.

In an accompanying commentary, Peter M. Kistler, MBBS, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a colleague said that the study authors should be congratulated “for presenting much-needed data on sex-specific outcomes in catheter ablation,” which “reassuringly” suggest that success and safety for AFib ablation are comparable between the sexes, although the study does have “important limitations.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Turagam and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers can’t rule out the possibility that treatment selection and unmeasured confounders between sexes affected the validity of the study findings. The median number of follow-up 24-hour Holter monitors used for AFib monitoring was only two, which may have resulted in inaccurate estimates of AFib recurrence rates and treatment effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Boston Scientific Corporation, the PFA device manufacturer. Turagam has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. The commentary authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Aurora EV-ICD) system, which uses a single lead implanted substernally to allow antitachycardia pacing and low-energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space for lead placement.

Courtesy Medtronic

“The Aurora EV-ICD system is a tremendous step forward in implantable defibrillator technology,” Bradley P. Knight, MD, medical director of electrophysiology at Northwestern Medicine Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Chicago, said in a company news release.

“Placing the leads outside of the heart, rather than inside the heart and veins, reduces the risk of long-term complications, ultimately allowing us to further evolve safe and effective ICD technology,” said Dr. Knight, who was involved in the pivotal trial that led to U.S. approval.

The approval, which includes the system’s proprietary procedure implant tools, was supported by results from a global pivotal study that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in 2022.

The study enrolled 356 patients who were at risk of sudden cardiac death and who had a class I or IIa indication for ICD. Participants were enrolled at 46 sites in 17 countries.

The device’s effectiveness in delivering defibrillation therapy at implant (primary efficacy endpoint) was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%.

There were no major intraprocedural complications, nor were any unique complications observed that were related to the EV ICD procedure or system, compared with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

Additionally, 33 defibrillation shocks were avoided by having antitachycardia pacing programmed “on.”

At 6 months, 92.6% of patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were free from major system- and/or procedure-related major complications, such as hospitalization, system revision, or death.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is indicated for patients who are at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, who have not previously undergone sternotomy, and who do not need long-term bradycardia pacing.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is similar in size, shape, and longevity to traditional transvenous ICDs.

Medtronic said the Aurora EV-ICD system will be commercially available on a limited basis in the United States in the coming weeks.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Aurora EV-ICD) system, which uses a single lead implanted substernally to allow antitachycardia pacing and low-energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space for lead placement.

Courtesy Medtronic

“The Aurora EV-ICD system is a tremendous step forward in implantable defibrillator technology,” Bradley P. Knight, MD, medical director of electrophysiology at Northwestern Medicine Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Chicago, said in a company news release.

“Placing the leads outside of the heart, rather than inside the heart and veins, reduces the risk of long-term complications, ultimately allowing us to further evolve safe and effective ICD technology,” said Dr. Knight, who was involved in the pivotal trial that led to U.S. approval.

The approval, which includes the system’s proprietary procedure implant tools, was supported by results from a global pivotal study that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in 2022.

The study enrolled 356 patients who were at risk of sudden cardiac death and who had a class I or IIa indication for ICD. Participants were enrolled at 46 sites in 17 countries.

The device’s effectiveness in delivering defibrillation therapy at implant (primary efficacy endpoint) was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%.

There were no major intraprocedural complications, nor were any unique complications observed that were related to the EV ICD procedure or system, compared with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

Additionally, 33 defibrillation shocks were avoided by having antitachycardia pacing programmed “on.”

At 6 months, 92.6% of patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were free from major system- and/or procedure-related major complications, such as hospitalization, system revision, or death.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is indicated for patients who are at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, who have not previously undergone sternotomy, and who do not need long-term bradycardia pacing.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is similar in size, shape, and longevity to traditional transvenous ICDs.

Medtronic said the Aurora EV-ICD system will be commercially available on a limited basis in the United States in the coming weeks.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Aurora EV-ICD) system, which uses a single lead implanted substernally to allow antitachycardia pacing and low-energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space for lead placement.

Courtesy Medtronic

“The Aurora EV-ICD system is a tremendous step forward in implantable defibrillator technology,” Bradley P. Knight, MD, medical director of electrophysiology at Northwestern Medicine Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Chicago, said in a company news release.

“Placing the leads outside of the heart, rather than inside the heart and veins, reduces the risk of long-term complications, ultimately allowing us to further evolve safe and effective ICD technology,” said Dr. Knight, who was involved in the pivotal trial that led to U.S. approval.

The approval, which includes the system’s proprietary procedure implant tools, was supported by results from a global pivotal study that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in 2022.

The study enrolled 356 patients who were at risk of sudden cardiac death and who had a class I or IIa indication for ICD. Participants were enrolled at 46 sites in 17 countries.

The device’s effectiveness in delivering defibrillation therapy at implant (primary efficacy endpoint) was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%.

There were no major intraprocedural complications, nor were any unique complications observed that were related to the EV ICD procedure or system, compared with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

Additionally, 33 defibrillation shocks were avoided by having antitachycardia pacing programmed “on.”

At 6 months, 92.6% of patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were free from major system- and/or procedure-related major complications, such as hospitalization, system revision, or death.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is indicated for patients who are at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, who have not previously undergone sternotomy, and who do not need long-term bradycardia pacing.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is similar in size, shape, and longevity to traditional transvenous ICDs.

Medtronic said the Aurora EV-ICD system will be commercially available on a limited basis in the United States in the coming weeks.

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

The issue of earlier classification of medical conditions – known as “diagnosis creep” – is leading to many patients becoming eligible for treatments at earlier stages in their disease course, without those treatments having been validated in those particular groups.

This concern has been highlighted recently in the atrial fibrillation (AF) field, with the recent change in the definition of hypertension in the United States at lower levels of blood pressure causing a lot more patients to become eligible for oral anticoagulation at an earlier stage in their AF course.

U.S. researchers analyzed data from 316,388 patients with AF from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence outpatient quality improvement registry, and found that at 36 months’ follow-up, 83.5% of patients met the new 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension, while only 53.3% met the previous 140/90 mm Hg definition.

The diagnosis of hypertension gives 1 point in the CHA2DS2-VASc score, which is used to determine risk in AF patients, those with scores of 2 or more being eligible for oral anticoagulation.

The researchers report that in patients with an index CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 (before the hypertension diagnosis), at 36 months, 83% fulfilled the 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension while the 140/90 mm Hg definition was met by only 50%, giving a large increase in the number of patients who could qualify for oral anticoagulation therapy.

“While the definition of hypertension has changed in response to landmark clinical trials, CHA2DS2-VASc was validated using an older hypertension definition, with limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and higher blood pressure goals for treatment,” the authors state.

“Now, patients with AF will meet the CHA2DS2-VASc threshold for oral anticoagulation earlier in their disease course. However, it is not known if patients with scores of 1 or 2 using the new hypertension definition have sufficient stroke risk to offset the bleeding risk of oral anticoagulation and will receive net clinical benefit,” they point out.

This study was published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

Senior author of the report, Mintu Turakhia, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University/iRhythm Technologies Inc., said AF is a good example of how “diagnosis creep” may lead to patients receiving inappropriate treatment.

“Risk scores derived when risk variables were described in one way are starting to be applied based on a diagnosis made in a totally different way,” he said in an interview. “Diagnosis creep is a problem everywhere in medicine. The goal of this study was to quantify what this means for the new definition of hypertension in the context of risk scoring AF patients for anticoagulation treatment. We are calling attention to this issue so clinicians are aware of possible implications.”

Dr. Turakhia explained that the CHA2DS2-VASc score was formulated based on claims data so there was a record of hypertension on the clinical encounter. That hypertension diagnosis would have been based on the old definition of 140/90 mm Hg.

“But now we apply a label of hypertension in the office every time someone has a measurement of elevated blood pressure – treated or untreated – and the blood pressure threshold for a hypertension diagnosis has changed to 130/80 mm Hg,” he said. “We are asking what this means for risk stratification scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc, and how do we quantify what that means for anticoagulation eligibility?”

He said that while identifying hypertension at lower blood pressures may be beneficial with regard to starting antihypertensive treatment earlier with a consequent reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, when this also affects risk scores that determine treatment for other conditions, as is the case for AF, the case is not so clear.

Dr. Turakhia pointed out that with AF, there are additional factors causing diagnosis creep, including earlier detection of AF and identification of shorter episodes due to the use of higher sensitivity tools to detect abnormal rhythms.

“What about the patient who has been identified as having AF based on just a few seconds found on monitoring and who is aged 65 (so just over the age threshold for 1 point on the CHA2DS2-VASc score)?” he asked. “Now we’re going to throw in hypertension with a blood pressure measurement just over 130/80 mm Hg, and they will be eligible for anticoagulation.”

Dr. Turakhia noted that in addition to earlier classification of hypertension, other conditions contributing to the CHA2DS2-VASc score are also being detected earlier, including diabetes and reduced ejection fractions that are considered heart failure.

“I worry about the sum of the parts. We don’t know if the risk score performs equally well when we’re using these different thresholds. We have to be careful that we are not exposing patients to the bleeding risks of anticoagulation unnecessarily. There is a clear issue here,” he said.
 

What should clinicians do?

In a comment, Gregory Lip, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Liverpool, England, who helped develop the CHA2DS2-VASc score, said clinicians needed to think more broadly when considering hypertension as a risk factor for the score.

He points out that if a patient had a history of hypertension but is now controlled to below 130/80 mm Hg, they would still be considered to be at risk per the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

And for patients without a history of hypertension, and who have a current blood pressure measurement of around 130/80 mm Hg, Dr. Lip advises that it would be premature to diagnose hypertension immediately.

“Hypertension is not a yes/no diagnosis. If you look at the relationship between blood pressure and risk of stroke, it is like a continual dose-response. It doesn’t mean that at 129/79 there is no stroke risk but that at 130/80 there is a stroke risk. It’s not like that,” he said.

“I wouldn’t make a diagnosis on a one-off blood pressure measurement. I would want to monitor that patient and get them to do home measurements,” he commented. “If someone constantly has levels around that 130/80 mm Hg, I don’t necessarily rush in with a definite diagnosis of hypertension and start drug treatment. I would look at lifestyle first. And in such patients, I wouldn’t give them the 1 point for hypertension on the CHA2DS2-VASc score.”

Dr. Lip points out that a hypertension diagnosis is not just about blood pressure numbers. “We have to assess the patients much more completely before giving them a diagnosis and consider factors such as whether there is evidence of hypertension-related end-organ damage, and if lifestyle issues have been addressed.”
 

Are new risk scores needed?

Dr. Turakhia agreed that clinicians need to look at the bigger picture, but he also suggested that new risk scores may need to be developed.

“All of us in the medical community need to think about whether we should be recalibrating risk prediction with more contemporary evidence – based on our ability to detect disease now,” he commented.

“This could even be a different risk score altogether, possibly incorporating a wider range of parameters or perhaps incorporating machine learning. That’s really the question we need to be asking ourselves,” Dr. Turakhia added.

Dr. Lip noted that there are many stroke risk factors and only those that are most common and have been well validated go into clinical risk scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc.

“These risks scores are by design simplifications, and only have modest predictive value for identifying patients at high risk of stroke. You can always improve on clinical risk scores by adding in other variables,” he said. “There are some risk scores in AF with 26 variables. But the practical application of these more complex scores can be difficult in clinical practice. These risks scores are meant to be simple so that they can be used by busy clinicians in the outpatient clinic or on a ward round. It is not easy to input 26 different variables.”

He also noted that many guidelines are now veering away from categorizing patients at high, medium, or low risk of stroke, which he refers to as “artificial” classifications. “There is now more of a default position that patients should receive stroke prevention normally with a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant] unless they are low risk.”

Dr. Turakhia agreed that it is imperative to look at the bigger picture when identifying AF patients for anticoagulation. “We have to be careful not to take things at face value. It is more important than ever to use clinical judgment to avoid overtreatment in borderline situations,” he concluded.

This study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. Turakhia reported employment from iRhythm Technologies; equity from AliveCor, Connect America, Evidently, and Forward; grants from U.S. Food and Drug Administration, American Heart Association, Bayer, Sanofi, Gilead, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and personal fees from Pfizer and JAMA Cardiology (prior associate editor) outside the submitted work. Dr. Lip has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The issue of earlier classification of medical conditions – known as “diagnosis creep” – is leading to many patients becoming eligible for treatments at earlier stages in their disease course, without those treatments having been validated in those particular groups.

This concern has been highlighted recently in the atrial fibrillation (AF) field, with the recent change in the definition of hypertension in the United States at lower levels of blood pressure causing a lot more patients to become eligible for oral anticoagulation at an earlier stage in their AF course.

U.S. researchers analyzed data from 316,388 patients with AF from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence outpatient quality improvement registry, and found that at 36 months’ follow-up, 83.5% of patients met the new 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension, while only 53.3% met the previous 140/90 mm Hg definition.

The diagnosis of hypertension gives 1 point in the CHA2DS2-VASc score, which is used to determine risk in AF patients, those with scores of 2 or more being eligible for oral anticoagulation.

The researchers report that in patients with an index CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 (before the hypertension diagnosis), at 36 months, 83% fulfilled the 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension while the 140/90 mm Hg definition was met by only 50%, giving a large increase in the number of patients who could qualify for oral anticoagulation therapy.

“While the definition of hypertension has changed in response to landmark clinical trials, CHA2DS2-VASc was validated using an older hypertension definition, with limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and higher blood pressure goals for treatment,” the authors state.

“Now, patients with AF will meet the CHA2DS2-VASc threshold for oral anticoagulation earlier in their disease course. However, it is not known if patients with scores of 1 or 2 using the new hypertension definition have sufficient stroke risk to offset the bleeding risk of oral anticoagulation and will receive net clinical benefit,” they point out.

This study was published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

Senior author of the report, Mintu Turakhia, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University/iRhythm Technologies Inc., said AF is a good example of how “diagnosis creep” may lead to patients receiving inappropriate treatment.

“Risk scores derived when risk variables were described in one way are starting to be applied based on a diagnosis made in a totally different way,” he said in an interview. “Diagnosis creep is a problem everywhere in medicine. The goal of this study was to quantify what this means for the new definition of hypertension in the context of risk scoring AF patients for anticoagulation treatment. We are calling attention to this issue so clinicians are aware of possible implications.”

Dr. Turakhia explained that the CHA2DS2-VASc score was formulated based on claims data so there was a record of hypertension on the clinical encounter. That hypertension diagnosis would have been based on the old definition of 140/90 mm Hg.

“But now we apply a label of hypertension in the office every time someone has a measurement of elevated blood pressure – treated or untreated – and the blood pressure threshold for a hypertension diagnosis has changed to 130/80 mm Hg,” he said. “We are asking what this means for risk stratification scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc, and how do we quantify what that means for anticoagulation eligibility?”

He said that while identifying hypertension at lower blood pressures may be beneficial with regard to starting antihypertensive treatment earlier with a consequent reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, when this also affects risk scores that determine treatment for other conditions, as is the case for AF, the case is not so clear.

Dr. Turakhia pointed out that with AF, there are additional factors causing diagnosis creep, including earlier detection of AF and identification of shorter episodes due to the use of higher sensitivity tools to detect abnormal rhythms.

“What about the patient who has been identified as having AF based on just a few seconds found on monitoring and who is aged 65 (so just over the age threshold for 1 point on the CHA2DS2-VASc score)?” he asked. “Now we’re going to throw in hypertension with a blood pressure measurement just over 130/80 mm Hg, and they will be eligible for anticoagulation.”

Dr. Turakhia noted that in addition to earlier classification of hypertension, other conditions contributing to the CHA2DS2-VASc score are also being detected earlier, including diabetes and reduced ejection fractions that are considered heart failure.

“I worry about the sum of the parts. We don’t know if the risk score performs equally well when we’re using these different thresholds. We have to be careful that we are not exposing patients to the bleeding risks of anticoagulation unnecessarily. There is a clear issue here,” he said.
 

What should clinicians do?

In a comment, Gregory Lip, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Liverpool, England, who helped develop the CHA2DS2-VASc score, said clinicians needed to think more broadly when considering hypertension as a risk factor for the score.

He points out that if a patient had a history of hypertension but is now controlled to below 130/80 mm Hg, they would still be considered to be at risk per the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

And for patients without a history of hypertension, and who have a current blood pressure measurement of around 130/80 mm Hg, Dr. Lip advises that it would be premature to diagnose hypertension immediately.

“Hypertension is not a yes/no diagnosis. If you look at the relationship between blood pressure and risk of stroke, it is like a continual dose-response. It doesn’t mean that at 129/79 there is no stroke risk but that at 130/80 there is a stroke risk. It’s not like that,” he said.

“I wouldn’t make a diagnosis on a one-off blood pressure measurement. I would want to monitor that patient and get them to do home measurements,” he commented. “If someone constantly has levels around that 130/80 mm Hg, I don’t necessarily rush in with a definite diagnosis of hypertension and start drug treatment. I would look at lifestyle first. And in such patients, I wouldn’t give them the 1 point for hypertension on the CHA2DS2-VASc score.”

Dr. Lip points out that a hypertension diagnosis is not just about blood pressure numbers. “We have to assess the patients much more completely before giving them a diagnosis and consider factors such as whether there is evidence of hypertension-related end-organ damage, and if lifestyle issues have been addressed.”
 

Are new risk scores needed?

Dr. Turakhia agreed that clinicians need to look at the bigger picture, but he also suggested that new risk scores may need to be developed.

“All of us in the medical community need to think about whether we should be recalibrating risk prediction with more contemporary evidence – based on our ability to detect disease now,” he commented.

“This could even be a different risk score altogether, possibly incorporating a wider range of parameters or perhaps incorporating machine learning. That’s really the question we need to be asking ourselves,” Dr. Turakhia added.

Dr. Lip noted that there are many stroke risk factors and only those that are most common and have been well validated go into clinical risk scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc.

“These risks scores are by design simplifications, and only have modest predictive value for identifying patients at high risk of stroke. You can always improve on clinical risk scores by adding in other variables,” he said. “There are some risk scores in AF with 26 variables. But the practical application of these more complex scores can be difficult in clinical practice. These risks scores are meant to be simple so that they can be used by busy clinicians in the outpatient clinic or on a ward round. It is not easy to input 26 different variables.”

He also noted that many guidelines are now veering away from categorizing patients at high, medium, or low risk of stroke, which he refers to as “artificial” classifications. “There is now more of a default position that patients should receive stroke prevention normally with a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant] unless they are low risk.”

Dr. Turakhia agreed that it is imperative to look at the bigger picture when identifying AF patients for anticoagulation. “We have to be careful not to take things at face value. It is more important than ever to use clinical judgment to avoid overtreatment in borderline situations,” he concluded.

This study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. Turakhia reported employment from iRhythm Technologies; equity from AliveCor, Connect America, Evidently, and Forward; grants from U.S. Food and Drug Administration, American Heart Association, Bayer, Sanofi, Gilead, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and personal fees from Pfizer and JAMA Cardiology (prior associate editor) outside the submitted work. Dr. Lip has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The issue of earlier classification of medical conditions – known as “diagnosis creep” – is leading to many patients becoming eligible for treatments at earlier stages in their disease course, without those treatments having been validated in those particular groups.

This concern has been highlighted recently in the atrial fibrillation (AF) field, with the recent change in the definition of hypertension in the United States at lower levels of blood pressure causing a lot more patients to become eligible for oral anticoagulation at an earlier stage in their AF course.

U.S. researchers analyzed data from 316,388 patients with AF from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence outpatient quality improvement registry, and found that at 36 months’ follow-up, 83.5% of patients met the new 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension, while only 53.3% met the previous 140/90 mm Hg definition.

The diagnosis of hypertension gives 1 point in the CHA2DS2-VASc score, which is used to determine risk in AF patients, those with scores of 2 or more being eligible for oral anticoagulation.

The researchers report that in patients with an index CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 (before the hypertension diagnosis), at 36 months, 83% fulfilled the 130/80 mm Hg definition of hypertension while the 140/90 mm Hg definition was met by only 50%, giving a large increase in the number of patients who could qualify for oral anticoagulation therapy.

“While the definition of hypertension has changed in response to landmark clinical trials, CHA2DS2-VASc was validated using an older hypertension definition, with limited ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and higher blood pressure goals for treatment,” the authors state.

“Now, patients with AF will meet the CHA2DS2-VASc threshold for oral anticoagulation earlier in their disease course. However, it is not known if patients with scores of 1 or 2 using the new hypertension definition have sufficient stroke risk to offset the bleeding risk of oral anticoagulation and will receive net clinical benefit,” they point out.

This study was published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.

Senior author of the report, Mintu Turakhia, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University/iRhythm Technologies Inc., said AF is a good example of how “diagnosis creep” may lead to patients receiving inappropriate treatment.

“Risk scores derived when risk variables were described in one way are starting to be applied based on a diagnosis made in a totally different way,” he said in an interview. “Diagnosis creep is a problem everywhere in medicine. The goal of this study was to quantify what this means for the new definition of hypertension in the context of risk scoring AF patients for anticoagulation treatment. We are calling attention to this issue so clinicians are aware of possible implications.”

Dr. Turakhia explained that the CHA2DS2-VASc score was formulated based on claims data so there was a record of hypertension on the clinical encounter. That hypertension diagnosis would have been based on the old definition of 140/90 mm Hg.

“But now we apply a label of hypertension in the office every time someone has a measurement of elevated blood pressure – treated or untreated – and the blood pressure threshold for a hypertension diagnosis has changed to 130/80 mm Hg,” he said. “We are asking what this means for risk stratification scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc, and how do we quantify what that means for anticoagulation eligibility?”

He said that while identifying hypertension at lower blood pressures may be beneficial with regard to starting antihypertensive treatment earlier with a consequent reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, when this also affects risk scores that determine treatment for other conditions, as is the case for AF, the case is not so clear.

Dr. Turakhia pointed out that with AF, there are additional factors causing diagnosis creep, including earlier detection of AF and identification of shorter episodes due to the use of higher sensitivity tools to detect abnormal rhythms.

“What about the patient who has been identified as having AF based on just a few seconds found on monitoring and who is aged 65 (so just over the age threshold for 1 point on the CHA2DS2-VASc score)?” he asked. “Now we’re going to throw in hypertension with a blood pressure measurement just over 130/80 mm Hg, and they will be eligible for anticoagulation.”

Dr. Turakhia noted that in addition to earlier classification of hypertension, other conditions contributing to the CHA2DS2-VASc score are also being detected earlier, including diabetes and reduced ejection fractions that are considered heart failure.

“I worry about the sum of the parts. We don’t know if the risk score performs equally well when we’re using these different thresholds. We have to be careful that we are not exposing patients to the bleeding risks of anticoagulation unnecessarily. There is a clear issue here,” he said.
 

What should clinicians do?

In a comment, Gregory Lip, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Liverpool, England, who helped develop the CHA2DS2-VASc score, said clinicians needed to think more broadly when considering hypertension as a risk factor for the score.

He points out that if a patient had a history of hypertension but is now controlled to below 130/80 mm Hg, they would still be considered to be at risk per the CHA2DS2-VASc score.

And for patients without a history of hypertension, and who have a current blood pressure measurement of around 130/80 mm Hg, Dr. Lip advises that it would be premature to diagnose hypertension immediately.

“Hypertension is not a yes/no diagnosis. If you look at the relationship between blood pressure and risk of stroke, it is like a continual dose-response. It doesn’t mean that at 129/79 there is no stroke risk but that at 130/80 there is a stroke risk. It’s not like that,” he said.

“I wouldn’t make a diagnosis on a one-off blood pressure measurement. I would want to monitor that patient and get them to do home measurements,” he commented. “If someone constantly has levels around that 130/80 mm Hg, I don’t necessarily rush in with a definite diagnosis of hypertension and start drug treatment. I would look at lifestyle first. And in such patients, I wouldn’t give them the 1 point for hypertension on the CHA2DS2-VASc score.”

Dr. Lip points out that a hypertension diagnosis is not just about blood pressure numbers. “We have to assess the patients much more completely before giving them a diagnosis and consider factors such as whether there is evidence of hypertension-related end-organ damage, and if lifestyle issues have been addressed.”
 

Are new risk scores needed?

Dr. Turakhia agreed that clinicians need to look at the bigger picture, but he also suggested that new risk scores may need to be developed.

“All of us in the medical community need to think about whether we should be recalibrating risk prediction with more contemporary evidence – based on our ability to detect disease now,” he commented.

“This could even be a different risk score altogether, possibly incorporating a wider range of parameters or perhaps incorporating machine learning. That’s really the question we need to be asking ourselves,” Dr. Turakhia added.

Dr. Lip noted that there are many stroke risk factors and only those that are most common and have been well validated go into clinical risk scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc.

“These risks scores are by design simplifications, and only have modest predictive value for identifying patients at high risk of stroke. You can always improve on clinical risk scores by adding in other variables,” he said. “There are some risk scores in AF with 26 variables. But the practical application of these more complex scores can be difficult in clinical practice. These risks scores are meant to be simple so that they can be used by busy clinicians in the outpatient clinic or on a ward round. It is not easy to input 26 different variables.”

He also noted that many guidelines are now veering away from categorizing patients at high, medium, or low risk of stroke, which he refers to as “artificial” classifications. “There is now more of a default position that patients should receive stroke prevention normally with a DOAC [direct oral anticoagulant] unless they are low risk.”

Dr. Turakhia agreed that it is imperative to look at the bigger picture when identifying AF patients for anticoagulation. “We have to be careful not to take things at face value. It is more important than ever to use clinical judgment to avoid overtreatment in borderline situations,” he concluded.

This study was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. Turakhia reported employment from iRhythm Technologies; equity from AliveCor, Connect America, Evidently, and Forward; grants from U.S. Food and Drug Administration, American Heart Association, Bayer, Sanofi, Gilead, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and personal fees from Pfizer and JAMA Cardiology (prior associate editor) outside the submitted work. Dr. Lip has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.