User login
Trial of Impella Heart Pump Stopped
An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.
“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”
The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.
DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
Loss of Clinical Equipoise
“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.
Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.
Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.
But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
Getting Hearts Pumping
The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.
“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward
Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.
“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.
Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.
“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.
“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
New Cardiogenic Shock Trials
Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.
“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.
What will the next trials investigate?
DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.
Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.
Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.
“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.
“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”
The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.
DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
Loss of Clinical Equipoise
“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.
Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.
Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.
But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
Getting Hearts Pumping
The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.
“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward
Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.
“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.
Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.
“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.
“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
New Cardiogenic Shock Trials
Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.
“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.
What will the next trials investigate?
DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.
Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.
Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.
“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.
“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”
The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.
DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
Loss of Clinical Equipoise
“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.
Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.
Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.
But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
Getting Hearts Pumping
The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.
“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward
Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.
“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.
Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.
“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.
“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
New Cardiogenic Shock Trials
Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.
“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.
What will the next trials investigate?
DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.
Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.
Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.
“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Why Cardiac Biomarkers Don’t Help Predict Heart Disease
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s the counterintuitive stuff in epidemiology that always really interests me. One intuition many of us have is that if a risk factor is significantly associated with an outcome, knowledge of that risk factor would help to predict that outcome. Makes sense. Feels right.
But it’s not right. Not always.
Here’s a fake example to illustrate my point. Let’s say we have 10,000 individuals who we follow for 10 years and 2000 of them die. (It’s been a rough decade.) At baseline, I measured a novel biomarker, the Perry Factor, in everyone. To keep it simple, the Perry Factor has only two values: 0 or 1.
I then do a standard associational analysis and find that individuals who are positive for the Perry Factor have a 40-fold higher odds of death than those who are negative for it. I am beginning to reconsider ascribing my good name to this biomarker. This is a highly statistically significant result — a P value <.001.
Clearly, knowledge of the Perry Factor should help me predict who will die in the cohort. I evaluate predictive power using a metric called the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, referred to as the C-statistic in time-to-event studies). It tells you, given two people — one who dies and one who doesn’t — how frequently you “pick” the right person, given the knowledge of their Perry Factor.
A C-statistic of 0.5, or 50%, would mean the Perry Factor gives you no better results than a coin flip; it’s chance. A C-statistic of 1 is perfect prediction. So, what will the C-statistic be, given the incredibly strong association of the Perry Factor with outcomes? 0.9? 0.95?
0.5024. Almost useless.
Let’s figure out why strength of association and usefulness for prediction are not always the same thing.
I constructed my fake Perry Factor dataset quite carefully to illustrate this point. Let me show you what happened. What you see here is a breakdown of the patients in my fake study. You can see that just 11 of them were Perry Factor positive, but 10 of those 11 ended up dying.
That’s quite unlikely by chance alone. It really does appear that if you have Perry Factor, your risk for death is much higher. But the reason that Perry Factor is a bad predictor is because it is so rare in the population. Sure, you can use it to correctly predict the outcome of 10 of the 11 people who have it, but the vast majority of people don’t have Perry Factor. It’s useless to distinguish who will die vs who will live in that population.
Why have I spent so much time trying to reverse our intuition that strength of association and strength of predictive power must be related? Because it helps to explain this paper, “Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Biomarkers in the Population,” appearing in JAMA, which is a very nice piece of work trying to help us better predict cardiovascular disease.
I don’t need to tell you that cardiovascular disease is the number-one killer in this country and most of the world. I don’t need to tell you that we have really good preventive therapies and lifestyle interventions that can reduce the risk. But it would be nice to know in whom, specifically, we should use those interventions.
Cardiovascular risk scores, to date, are pretty simple. The most common one in use in the United States, the pooled cohort risk equation, has nine variables, two of which require a cholesterol panel and one a blood pressure test. It’s easy and it’s pretty accurate.
Using the score from the pooled cohort risk calculator, you get a C-statistic as high as 0.82 when applied to Black women, a low of 0.71 when applied to Black men. Non-Black individuals are in the middle. Not bad. But, clearly, not perfect.
And aren’t we in the era of big data, the era of personalized medicine? We have dozens, maybe hundreds, of quantifiable biomarkers that are associated with subsequent heart disease. Surely, by adding these biomarkers into the risk equation, we can improve prediction. Right?
The JAMA study includes 164,054 patients pooled from 28 cohort studies from 12 countries. All the studies measured various key biomarkers at baseline and followed their participants for cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, coronary revascularization, and so on.
The biomarkers in question are really the big guns in this space: troponin, a marker of stress on the heart muscle; NT-proBNP, a marker of stretch on the heart muscle; and C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation. In every case, higher levels of these markers at baseline were associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in the future.
Troponin T, shown here, has a basically linear risk with subsequent cardiovascular disease.
BNP seems to demonstrate more of a threshold effect, where levels above 60 start to associate with problems.
And CRP does a similar thing, with levels above 1.
All of these findings were statistically significant. If you have higher levels of one or more of these biomarkers, you are more likely to have cardiovascular disease in the future.
Of course, our old friend the pooled cohort risk equation is still here — in the background — requiring just that one blood test and measurement of blood pressure. Let’s talk about predictive power.
The pooled cohort risk equation score, in this study, had a C-statistic of 0.812.
By adding troponin, BNP, and CRP to the equation, the new C-statistic is 0.819. Barely any change.
Now, the authors looked at different types of prediction here. The greatest improvement in the AUC was seen when they tried to predict heart failure within 1 year of measurement; there the AUC improved by 0.04. But the presence of BNP as a biomarker and the short time window of 1 year makes me wonder whether this is really prediction at all or whether they were essentially just diagnosing people with existing heart failure.
Why does this happen? Why do these promising biomarkers, clearly associated with bad outcomes, fail to improve our ability to predict the future? I already gave one example, which has to do with how the markers are distributed in the population. But even more relevant here is that the new markers will only improve prediction insofar as they are not already represented in the old predictive model.
Of course, BNP, for example, wasn’t in the old model. But smoking was. Diabetes was. Blood pressure was. All of that data might actually tell you something about the patient’s BNP through their mutual correlation. And improvement in prediction requires new information.
This is actually why I consider this a really successful study. We need to do studies like this to help us find what those new sources of information might be.
We will never get to a C-statistic of 1. Perfect prediction is the domain of palm readers and astrophysicists. But better prediction is always possible through data. The big question, of course, is which data?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s the counterintuitive stuff in epidemiology that always really interests me. One intuition many of us have is that if a risk factor is significantly associated with an outcome, knowledge of that risk factor would help to predict that outcome. Makes sense. Feels right.
But it’s not right. Not always.
Here’s a fake example to illustrate my point. Let’s say we have 10,000 individuals who we follow for 10 years and 2000 of them die. (It’s been a rough decade.) At baseline, I measured a novel biomarker, the Perry Factor, in everyone. To keep it simple, the Perry Factor has only two values: 0 or 1.
I then do a standard associational analysis and find that individuals who are positive for the Perry Factor have a 40-fold higher odds of death than those who are negative for it. I am beginning to reconsider ascribing my good name to this biomarker. This is a highly statistically significant result — a P value <.001.
Clearly, knowledge of the Perry Factor should help me predict who will die in the cohort. I evaluate predictive power using a metric called the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, referred to as the C-statistic in time-to-event studies). It tells you, given two people — one who dies and one who doesn’t — how frequently you “pick” the right person, given the knowledge of their Perry Factor.
A C-statistic of 0.5, or 50%, would mean the Perry Factor gives you no better results than a coin flip; it’s chance. A C-statistic of 1 is perfect prediction. So, what will the C-statistic be, given the incredibly strong association of the Perry Factor with outcomes? 0.9? 0.95?
0.5024. Almost useless.
Let’s figure out why strength of association and usefulness for prediction are not always the same thing.
I constructed my fake Perry Factor dataset quite carefully to illustrate this point. Let me show you what happened. What you see here is a breakdown of the patients in my fake study. You can see that just 11 of them were Perry Factor positive, but 10 of those 11 ended up dying.
That’s quite unlikely by chance alone. It really does appear that if you have Perry Factor, your risk for death is much higher. But the reason that Perry Factor is a bad predictor is because it is so rare in the population. Sure, you can use it to correctly predict the outcome of 10 of the 11 people who have it, but the vast majority of people don’t have Perry Factor. It’s useless to distinguish who will die vs who will live in that population.
Why have I spent so much time trying to reverse our intuition that strength of association and strength of predictive power must be related? Because it helps to explain this paper, “Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Biomarkers in the Population,” appearing in JAMA, which is a very nice piece of work trying to help us better predict cardiovascular disease.
I don’t need to tell you that cardiovascular disease is the number-one killer in this country and most of the world. I don’t need to tell you that we have really good preventive therapies and lifestyle interventions that can reduce the risk. But it would be nice to know in whom, specifically, we should use those interventions.
Cardiovascular risk scores, to date, are pretty simple. The most common one in use in the United States, the pooled cohort risk equation, has nine variables, two of which require a cholesterol panel and one a blood pressure test. It’s easy and it’s pretty accurate.
Using the score from the pooled cohort risk calculator, you get a C-statistic as high as 0.82 when applied to Black women, a low of 0.71 when applied to Black men. Non-Black individuals are in the middle. Not bad. But, clearly, not perfect.
And aren’t we in the era of big data, the era of personalized medicine? We have dozens, maybe hundreds, of quantifiable biomarkers that are associated with subsequent heart disease. Surely, by adding these biomarkers into the risk equation, we can improve prediction. Right?
The JAMA study includes 164,054 patients pooled from 28 cohort studies from 12 countries. All the studies measured various key biomarkers at baseline and followed their participants for cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, coronary revascularization, and so on.
The biomarkers in question are really the big guns in this space: troponin, a marker of stress on the heart muscle; NT-proBNP, a marker of stretch on the heart muscle; and C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation. In every case, higher levels of these markers at baseline were associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in the future.
Troponin T, shown here, has a basically linear risk with subsequent cardiovascular disease.
BNP seems to demonstrate more of a threshold effect, where levels above 60 start to associate with problems.
And CRP does a similar thing, with levels above 1.
All of these findings were statistically significant. If you have higher levels of one or more of these biomarkers, you are more likely to have cardiovascular disease in the future.
Of course, our old friend the pooled cohort risk equation is still here — in the background — requiring just that one blood test and measurement of blood pressure. Let’s talk about predictive power.
The pooled cohort risk equation score, in this study, had a C-statistic of 0.812.
By adding troponin, BNP, and CRP to the equation, the new C-statistic is 0.819. Barely any change.
Now, the authors looked at different types of prediction here. The greatest improvement in the AUC was seen when they tried to predict heart failure within 1 year of measurement; there the AUC improved by 0.04. But the presence of BNP as a biomarker and the short time window of 1 year makes me wonder whether this is really prediction at all or whether they were essentially just diagnosing people with existing heart failure.
Why does this happen? Why do these promising biomarkers, clearly associated with bad outcomes, fail to improve our ability to predict the future? I already gave one example, which has to do with how the markers are distributed in the population. But even more relevant here is that the new markers will only improve prediction insofar as they are not already represented in the old predictive model.
Of course, BNP, for example, wasn’t in the old model. But smoking was. Diabetes was. Blood pressure was. All of that data might actually tell you something about the patient’s BNP through their mutual correlation. And improvement in prediction requires new information.
This is actually why I consider this a really successful study. We need to do studies like this to help us find what those new sources of information might be.
We will never get to a C-statistic of 1. Perfect prediction is the domain of palm readers and astrophysicists. But better prediction is always possible through data. The big question, of course, is which data?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
It’s the counterintuitive stuff in epidemiology that always really interests me. One intuition many of us have is that if a risk factor is significantly associated with an outcome, knowledge of that risk factor would help to predict that outcome. Makes sense. Feels right.
But it’s not right. Not always.
Here’s a fake example to illustrate my point. Let’s say we have 10,000 individuals who we follow for 10 years and 2000 of them die. (It’s been a rough decade.) At baseline, I measured a novel biomarker, the Perry Factor, in everyone. To keep it simple, the Perry Factor has only two values: 0 or 1.
I then do a standard associational analysis and find that individuals who are positive for the Perry Factor have a 40-fold higher odds of death than those who are negative for it. I am beginning to reconsider ascribing my good name to this biomarker. This is a highly statistically significant result — a P value <.001.
Clearly, knowledge of the Perry Factor should help me predict who will die in the cohort. I evaluate predictive power using a metric called the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC, referred to as the C-statistic in time-to-event studies). It tells you, given two people — one who dies and one who doesn’t — how frequently you “pick” the right person, given the knowledge of their Perry Factor.
A C-statistic of 0.5, or 50%, would mean the Perry Factor gives you no better results than a coin flip; it’s chance. A C-statistic of 1 is perfect prediction. So, what will the C-statistic be, given the incredibly strong association of the Perry Factor with outcomes? 0.9? 0.95?
0.5024. Almost useless.
Let’s figure out why strength of association and usefulness for prediction are not always the same thing.
I constructed my fake Perry Factor dataset quite carefully to illustrate this point. Let me show you what happened. What you see here is a breakdown of the patients in my fake study. You can see that just 11 of them were Perry Factor positive, but 10 of those 11 ended up dying.
That’s quite unlikely by chance alone. It really does appear that if you have Perry Factor, your risk for death is much higher. But the reason that Perry Factor is a bad predictor is because it is so rare in the population. Sure, you can use it to correctly predict the outcome of 10 of the 11 people who have it, but the vast majority of people don’t have Perry Factor. It’s useless to distinguish who will die vs who will live in that population.
Why have I spent so much time trying to reverse our intuition that strength of association and strength of predictive power must be related? Because it helps to explain this paper, “Prognostic Value of Cardiovascular Biomarkers in the Population,” appearing in JAMA, which is a very nice piece of work trying to help us better predict cardiovascular disease.
I don’t need to tell you that cardiovascular disease is the number-one killer in this country and most of the world. I don’t need to tell you that we have really good preventive therapies and lifestyle interventions that can reduce the risk. But it would be nice to know in whom, specifically, we should use those interventions.
Cardiovascular risk scores, to date, are pretty simple. The most common one in use in the United States, the pooled cohort risk equation, has nine variables, two of which require a cholesterol panel and one a blood pressure test. It’s easy and it’s pretty accurate.
Using the score from the pooled cohort risk calculator, you get a C-statistic as high as 0.82 when applied to Black women, a low of 0.71 when applied to Black men. Non-Black individuals are in the middle. Not bad. But, clearly, not perfect.
And aren’t we in the era of big data, the era of personalized medicine? We have dozens, maybe hundreds, of quantifiable biomarkers that are associated with subsequent heart disease. Surely, by adding these biomarkers into the risk equation, we can improve prediction. Right?
The JAMA study includes 164,054 patients pooled from 28 cohort studies from 12 countries. All the studies measured various key biomarkers at baseline and followed their participants for cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, coronary revascularization, and so on.
The biomarkers in question are really the big guns in this space: troponin, a marker of stress on the heart muscle; NT-proBNP, a marker of stretch on the heart muscle; and C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation. In every case, higher levels of these markers at baseline were associated with a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in the future.
Troponin T, shown here, has a basically linear risk with subsequent cardiovascular disease.
BNP seems to demonstrate more of a threshold effect, where levels above 60 start to associate with problems.
And CRP does a similar thing, with levels above 1.
All of these findings were statistically significant. If you have higher levels of one or more of these biomarkers, you are more likely to have cardiovascular disease in the future.
Of course, our old friend the pooled cohort risk equation is still here — in the background — requiring just that one blood test and measurement of blood pressure. Let’s talk about predictive power.
The pooled cohort risk equation score, in this study, had a C-statistic of 0.812.
By adding troponin, BNP, and CRP to the equation, the new C-statistic is 0.819. Barely any change.
Now, the authors looked at different types of prediction here. The greatest improvement in the AUC was seen when they tried to predict heart failure within 1 year of measurement; there the AUC improved by 0.04. But the presence of BNP as a biomarker and the short time window of 1 year makes me wonder whether this is really prediction at all or whether they were essentially just diagnosing people with existing heart failure.
Why does this happen? Why do these promising biomarkers, clearly associated with bad outcomes, fail to improve our ability to predict the future? I already gave one example, which has to do with how the markers are distributed in the population. But even more relevant here is that the new markers will only improve prediction insofar as they are not already represented in the old predictive model.
Of course, BNP, for example, wasn’t in the old model. But smoking was. Diabetes was. Blood pressure was. All of that data might actually tell you something about the patient’s BNP through their mutual correlation. And improvement in prediction requires new information.
This is actually why I consider this a really successful study. We need to do studies like this to help us find what those new sources of information might be.
We will never get to a C-statistic of 1. Perfect prediction is the domain of palm readers and astrophysicists. But better prediction is always possible through data. The big question, of course, is which data?
Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Neutrophils Take Center Stage in Growing Understanding of Colchicine’s Role in Treating Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease
NEW YORK — New insights into colchicine’s disruption of the pathway that contributes to arterial inflammation and new clinical studies of the drug could pave the way toward greater use of the anti-inflammatory drug in patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), researchers said at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.
Colchicine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2023 in a once-daily 0.5-mg formulation under the brand name Lodoco to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for CVD. The Lodoco formulation is slightly smaller than the 0.6-mg formulation that’s taken twice daily for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute gout flares.
In a presentation at the conference, Binita Shah, MD, one of the principal investigators in trials of Lodoco, explained how the inflammatory pathway contributes to atherosclerosis and provided an update on how colchicine disrupts the pathway. Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine at New York University in New York City and director of research at NYU Langone Health Interventional Cardiology.
“Colchicine dampens inflammatory markers on neutrophils so that they are less likely to be attracted to inflamed or injured endothelium, which would be the site of where plaque is building up or where the plaque has ruptured in the setting of a heart attack,” Shah told this news organization after her presentation.
The Inflammatory Pathway
Dr. Shah explained that normal coronary endothelium resists adhesion by circulating leukocytes, but inflamed or injured coronary endothelium attracts those neutrophils via two types of selectins: L-selectins on neutrophils and E-selectins on endothelial cells. Those neutrophils then release inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which then triggers production of IL-6 and, subsequently, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), which contributes to plaque formation, she said.
“Colchicine affects these pathways with a balance for safety and effect on clinical outcomes, particularly to reduce recurrent myocardial infarction [MI],” Dr. Shah said during her presentation.
Results from the CIRT trial demonstrated that methotrexate is ineffective in blocking the adenosine-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway, Dr. Shah said, so focusing on the IL-1ß–IL-6–hsCRP pathway, which is known to work based on the results of the CANTOS trial, could pay dividends.
“This is where colchicine can potentially play a role,” she said.
Dr. Shah cited a secondary analysis of the CANTOS trial in which the magnitude of hsCRP reduction correlated with a reduction in MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary analysis showed that patients who received canakinumab and achieved hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L had a nonsignificant 5% lower risk and those who reached < 2 mg/L had a statistically significant 25% lower risk than those who received placebo.
The COPE-PCI Pilot trial demonstrated the benefit of targeting the interleukin pathways, she noted.
Further clarification of the role of colchicine in managing patients with acute coronary syndrome may come from two other randomized trials now underway, Dr. Shah said: POPCORN is evaluating colchicine to reduce MACE after noncardiac surgery, and CLEAR SYNERGY is evaluating the best timing for colchicine therapy after an acute MI.
Dr. Shah presented preliminary data from her group from a neutrophil biomarker substudy of CLEAR SYNERGY that isolated neutrophils from patients who had an acute MI. “We treated them with various doses of colchicine and showed that the interaction between those treated neutrophils [and] the endothelial cells were a lot lower; they were less sticky to endothelial cells as colchicine was administered,” she said in her presentation. She added that colchicine also reduced neutrophil chemotaxis and neutrophil activation and potentially inhibited inflammasomes, decreasing IL-1ß production.
What’s more, colchicine has been shown to not affect platelets alone but rather platelets at the site of inflammation or plaque rupture, Dr. Shah added. “At currently used doses, colchicine does not inhibit platelet activity [by] itself, so we’ve never seen increased bleeding events, but it will dampen neutrophils’ ability to latch onto a platelet that could contribute to a clot,” she later told this news organization.
“There are multiple studies, both retrospective studies in gout cohorts as well as prospective studies in the cardiovascular cohort, that all show consistently one thing, which is that colchicine continues to reduce the risk of having a recurrent MI in patients who either have cardiovascular disease or are at high risk of having cardiovascular disease,” she said.
“I think that’s very helpful to know that it’s not just one study — it’s not just a fluke, potentially a play of chance — but multiple studies consistently showing the same thing: That there’s a reduced risk of acute MI.”
Slow to Embrace Colchicine
Despite this evidence, cardiologists and rheumatologists have been slow to embrace colchicine for patients at risk for cardiovascular events, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone. “What [Shah] really highlighted was that for a number of years now, we’ve had several clinical trials showing the benefit of low-dose colchicine to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and yet despite these and that there’s now an indication to use low-dose colchicine to reduce cardiovascular disease, we’re still struggling for this medication to be taken up by the general cardiology community to treat high-risk patients.
“There’s still some work to do to prove that we need to break those barriers,” Dr. Garshick added. Some of the confusion surrounding the use of colchicine for ASCVD may be attributed to the 0.5-mg dose approved for CVD as opposed to the long-approved 0.6-mg dose for gout, he said. “People are generally confused: Is it OK to use the 0.6-mg dose?” Dr. Garshick said.
Potential gastrointestinal side effects may be another concerning factor, although, he added, “we didn’t see any major complications.” Another issue could be polypharmacy in many of these patients, he said.
Dr. Garshick concurred with Shah that the existing evidence supporting the use of colchicine to reduce risk for cardiovascular events is strong, but more will come out. “I think there’s going to be evolving data supporting it,” he said.
Dr. Shah disclosed financial relationships with Philips Volcano and Novo Nordisk. She is a principal investigator of the CLEAR SYNERGY biomarker substudy and the POPCORN trial. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
NEW YORK — New insights into colchicine’s disruption of the pathway that contributes to arterial inflammation and new clinical studies of the drug could pave the way toward greater use of the anti-inflammatory drug in patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), researchers said at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.
Colchicine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2023 in a once-daily 0.5-mg formulation under the brand name Lodoco to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for CVD. The Lodoco formulation is slightly smaller than the 0.6-mg formulation that’s taken twice daily for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute gout flares.
In a presentation at the conference, Binita Shah, MD, one of the principal investigators in trials of Lodoco, explained how the inflammatory pathway contributes to atherosclerosis and provided an update on how colchicine disrupts the pathway. Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine at New York University in New York City and director of research at NYU Langone Health Interventional Cardiology.
“Colchicine dampens inflammatory markers on neutrophils so that they are less likely to be attracted to inflamed or injured endothelium, which would be the site of where plaque is building up or where the plaque has ruptured in the setting of a heart attack,” Shah told this news organization after her presentation.
The Inflammatory Pathway
Dr. Shah explained that normal coronary endothelium resists adhesion by circulating leukocytes, but inflamed or injured coronary endothelium attracts those neutrophils via two types of selectins: L-selectins on neutrophils and E-selectins on endothelial cells. Those neutrophils then release inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which then triggers production of IL-6 and, subsequently, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), which contributes to plaque formation, she said.
“Colchicine affects these pathways with a balance for safety and effect on clinical outcomes, particularly to reduce recurrent myocardial infarction [MI],” Dr. Shah said during her presentation.
Results from the CIRT trial demonstrated that methotrexate is ineffective in blocking the adenosine-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway, Dr. Shah said, so focusing on the IL-1ß–IL-6–hsCRP pathway, which is known to work based on the results of the CANTOS trial, could pay dividends.
“This is where colchicine can potentially play a role,” she said.
Dr. Shah cited a secondary analysis of the CANTOS trial in which the magnitude of hsCRP reduction correlated with a reduction in MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary analysis showed that patients who received canakinumab and achieved hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L had a nonsignificant 5% lower risk and those who reached < 2 mg/L had a statistically significant 25% lower risk than those who received placebo.
The COPE-PCI Pilot trial demonstrated the benefit of targeting the interleukin pathways, she noted.
Further clarification of the role of colchicine in managing patients with acute coronary syndrome may come from two other randomized trials now underway, Dr. Shah said: POPCORN is evaluating colchicine to reduce MACE after noncardiac surgery, and CLEAR SYNERGY is evaluating the best timing for colchicine therapy after an acute MI.
Dr. Shah presented preliminary data from her group from a neutrophil biomarker substudy of CLEAR SYNERGY that isolated neutrophils from patients who had an acute MI. “We treated them with various doses of colchicine and showed that the interaction between those treated neutrophils [and] the endothelial cells were a lot lower; they were less sticky to endothelial cells as colchicine was administered,” she said in her presentation. She added that colchicine also reduced neutrophil chemotaxis and neutrophil activation and potentially inhibited inflammasomes, decreasing IL-1ß production.
What’s more, colchicine has been shown to not affect platelets alone but rather platelets at the site of inflammation or plaque rupture, Dr. Shah added. “At currently used doses, colchicine does not inhibit platelet activity [by] itself, so we’ve never seen increased bleeding events, but it will dampen neutrophils’ ability to latch onto a platelet that could contribute to a clot,” she later told this news organization.
“There are multiple studies, both retrospective studies in gout cohorts as well as prospective studies in the cardiovascular cohort, that all show consistently one thing, which is that colchicine continues to reduce the risk of having a recurrent MI in patients who either have cardiovascular disease or are at high risk of having cardiovascular disease,” she said.
“I think that’s very helpful to know that it’s not just one study — it’s not just a fluke, potentially a play of chance — but multiple studies consistently showing the same thing: That there’s a reduced risk of acute MI.”
Slow to Embrace Colchicine
Despite this evidence, cardiologists and rheumatologists have been slow to embrace colchicine for patients at risk for cardiovascular events, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone. “What [Shah] really highlighted was that for a number of years now, we’ve had several clinical trials showing the benefit of low-dose colchicine to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and yet despite these and that there’s now an indication to use low-dose colchicine to reduce cardiovascular disease, we’re still struggling for this medication to be taken up by the general cardiology community to treat high-risk patients.
“There’s still some work to do to prove that we need to break those barriers,” Dr. Garshick added. Some of the confusion surrounding the use of colchicine for ASCVD may be attributed to the 0.5-mg dose approved for CVD as opposed to the long-approved 0.6-mg dose for gout, he said. “People are generally confused: Is it OK to use the 0.6-mg dose?” Dr. Garshick said.
Potential gastrointestinal side effects may be another concerning factor, although, he added, “we didn’t see any major complications.” Another issue could be polypharmacy in many of these patients, he said.
Dr. Garshick concurred with Shah that the existing evidence supporting the use of colchicine to reduce risk for cardiovascular events is strong, but more will come out. “I think there’s going to be evolving data supporting it,” he said.
Dr. Shah disclosed financial relationships with Philips Volcano and Novo Nordisk. She is a principal investigator of the CLEAR SYNERGY biomarker substudy and the POPCORN trial. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
NEW YORK — New insights into colchicine’s disruption of the pathway that contributes to arterial inflammation and new clinical studies of the drug could pave the way toward greater use of the anti-inflammatory drug in patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), researchers said at the 4th Annual Cardiometabolic Risk in Inflammatory Conditions conference.
Colchicine was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2023 in a once-daily 0.5-mg formulation under the brand name Lodoco to reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for CVD. The Lodoco formulation is slightly smaller than the 0.6-mg formulation that’s taken twice daily for the prophylaxis and treatment of acute gout flares.
In a presentation at the conference, Binita Shah, MD, one of the principal investigators in trials of Lodoco, explained how the inflammatory pathway contributes to atherosclerosis and provided an update on how colchicine disrupts the pathway. Dr. Shah is an associate professor of medicine at New York University in New York City and director of research at NYU Langone Health Interventional Cardiology.
“Colchicine dampens inflammatory markers on neutrophils so that they are less likely to be attracted to inflamed or injured endothelium, which would be the site of where plaque is building up or where the plaque has ruptured in the setting of a heart attack,” Shah told this news organization after her presentation.
The Inflammatory Pathway
Dr. Shah explained that normal coronary endothelium resists adhesion by circulating leukocytes, but inflamed or injured coronary endothelium attracts those neutrophils via two types of selectins: L-selectins on neutrophils and E-selectins on endothelial cells. Those neutrophils then release inflammatory cytokines including interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which then triggers production of IL-6 and, subsequently, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), which contributes to plaque formation, she said.
“Colchicine affects these pathways with a balance for safety and effect on clinical outcomes, particularly to reduce recurrent myocardial infarction [MI],” Dr. Shah said during her presentation.
Results from the CIRT trial demonstrated that methotrexate is ineffective in blocking the adenosine-mediated anti-inflammatory pathway, Dr. Shah said, so focusing on the IL-1ß–IL-6–hsCRP pathway, which is known to work based on the results of the CANTOS trial, could pay dividends.
“This is where colchicine can potentially play a role,” she said.
Dr. Shah cited a secondary analysis of the CANTOS trial in which the magnitude of hsCRP reduction correlated with a reduction in MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death. The secondary analysis showed that patients who received canakinumab and achieved hsCRP ≥ 2 mg/L had a nonsignificant 5% lower risk and those who reached < 2 mg/L had a statistically significant 25% lower risk than those who received placebo.
The COPE-PCI Pilot trial demonstrated the benefit of targeting the interleukin pathways, she noted.
Further clarification of the role of colchicine in managing patients with acute coronary syndrome may come from two other randomized trials now underway, Dr. Shah said: POPCORN is evaluating colchicine to reduce MACE after noncardiac surgery, and CLEAR SYNERGY is evaluating the best timing for colchicine therapy after an acute MI.
Dr. Shah presented preliminary data from her group from a neutrophil biomarker substudy of CLEAR SYNERGY that isolated neutrophils from patients who had an acute MI. “We treated them with various doses of colchicine and showed that the interaction between those treated neutrophils [and] the endothelial cells were a lot lower; they were less sticky to endothelial cells as colchicine was administered,” she said in her presentation. She added that colchicine also reduced neutrophil chemotaxis and neutrophil activation and potentially inhibited inflammasomes, decreasing IL-1ß production.
What’s more, colchicine has been shown to not affect platelets alone but rather platelets at the site of inflammation or plaque rupture, Dr. Shah added. “At currently used doses, colchicine does not inhibit platelet activity [by] itself, so we’ve never seen increased bleeding events, but it will dampen neutrophils’ ability to latch onto a platelet that could contribute to a clot,” she later told this news organization.
“There are multiple studies, both retrospective studies in gout cohorts as well as prospective studies in the cardiovascular cohort, that all show consistently one thing, which is that colchicine continues to reduce the risk of having a recurrent MI in patients who either have cardiovascular disease or are at high risk of having cardiovascular disease,” she said.
“I think that’s very helpful to know that it’s not just one study — it’s not just a fluke, potentially a play of chance — but multiple studies consistently showing the same thing: That there’s a reduced risk of acute MI.”
Slow to Embrace Colchicine
Despite this evidence, cardiologists and rheumatologists have been slow to embrace colchicine for patients at risk for cardiovascular events, said Michael S. Garshick, MD, who attended the conference and is head of the Cardio-Rheumatology Program at NYU Langone. “What [Shah] really highlighted was that for a number of years now, we’ve had several clinical trials showing the benefit of low-dose colchicine to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and yet despite these and that there’s now an indication to use low-dose colchicine to reduce cardiovascular disease, we’re still struggling for this medication to be taken up by the general cardiology community to treat high-risk patients.
“There’s still some work to do to prove that we need to break those barriers,” Dr. Garshick added. Some of the confusion surrounding the use of colchicine for ASCVD may be attributed to the 0.5-mg dose approved for CVD as opposed to the long-approved 0.6-mg dose for gout, he said. “People are generally confused: Is it OK to use the 0.6-mg dose?” Dr. Garshick said.
Potential gastrointestinal side effects may be another concerning factor, although, he added, “we didn’t see any major complications.” Another issue could be polypharmacy in many of these patients, he said.
Dr. Garshick concurred with Shah that the existing evidence supporting the use of colchicine to reduce risk for cardiovascular events is strong, but more will come out. “I think there’s going to be evolving data supporting it,” he said.
Dr. Shah disclosed financial relationships with Philips Volcano and Novo Nordisk. She is a principal investigator of the CLEAR SYNERGY biomarker substudy and the POPCORN trial. Dr. Garshick disclosed relationships with Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Agepha Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Horizon Therapeutics.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Which Emergencies Are Genuine Emergencies?
WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).
“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
DGIM Educates Patients
What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.
When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.
“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.
“Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
What Are Emergencies?
In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:
- Chest pain
- Circulatory disorder
- Disorders of consciousness
- Breathing difficulties
- Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
- Severe bleeding
- Allergic shock
“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.
Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.
Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.
“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
Four of 10 Cases
The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.
In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.
The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.
The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).
According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).
“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
DGIM Educates Patients
What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.
When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.
“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.
“Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
What Are Emergencies?
In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:
- Chest pain
- Circulatory disorder
- Disorders of consciousness
- Breathing difficulties
- Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
- Severe bleeding
- Allergic shock
“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.
Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.
Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.
“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
Four of 10 Cases
The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.
In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.
The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.
The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).
According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
WIESBADEN, GERMANY — Crowded waiting rooms, long wait times, irritable patients, and aggression toward nursing staff and doctors are increasingly the reality in German emergency rooms. Clearly, emergencies belong in the emergency room. However, “In about half of all patients in the emergency room, there is no urgent medical emergency,” Norbert Schütz, MD, director of geriatrics and rheumatology at Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Hospital in Wiesbaden, Germany, said at a press conference for the 130th Annual Meeting of the German Society of Internal Medicine (DGIM).
“In our daily medical practice, we repeatedly experience people either accessing our emergency departments and ambulances too quickly or lingering at home for too long when they have severe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz, who organized the Patient Day during the Internist Congress.
DGIM Educates Patients
What is an emergency? “I think the public is quite well informed about conditions associated with loss of consciousness, severe pain, chest pain, or paralysis: Think stroke or heart attack. This is undoubtedly a success of recent years. The difficulty arises with everything in between. For instance, should I go to the hospital with severe headaches?” asked Dr. Schütz.
When is a patient a case for the emergency room, the physician on-call service, or the general practitioner? At the Patient Day in Wiesbaden, DGIM aims to educate and train interested parties with a dedicated lecture. The focus is on recognizing an emergency, specifically emergencies in children and mental illnesses.
“Our Patient Day aims to contribute to making the right decisions. We want to inform, answer questions, and alleviate fears,” said Dr. Schütz. Interested parties can refresh their emergency knowledge, tour ambulances, and have the equipment explained. The public also has the opportunity to learn about resuscitation techniques theoretically and practically.
“Should, for whatever reason, the general practitioner not be reachable, the physician on-call service can be reached,” said Dr. Schütz. It may happen, however, that neither the general practitioner nor the on-call physician is immediately available.
What Are Emergencies?
In cases of severe health impairment, urgency is required, and a severe emergency should be assumed in the following cases:
- Chest pain
- Circulatory disorder
- Disorders of consciousness
- Breathing difficulties
- Sudden weakness or numbness/paralysis
- Severe bleeding
- Allergic shock
“In such cases, the emergency departments of the hospitals are available around the clock, and if necessary, an emergency doctor should be present during transportation to the hospital,” said Dr. Schütz.
Classifying emergencies is challenging, especially with children. “Children often find it difficult to clearly categorize or describe symptoms,” said Dr. Schütz. A situation is critical if, for example, the child’s breathing or consciousness is impaired.
Mental emergencies pose a particular challenge for patients and relatives because the patient and relatives are often overwhelmed by the situation. If there are suicidal thoughts, the patient should present him- or herself immediately to an emergency room.
“Patients who come to the emergency room because they cannot get appointments with their general practitioner or specialist, for whatever reason, are no emergency. We also see this in the emergency room from time to time,” said Dr. Schütz. Emergency rooms are not intended for this purpose. “And generally, these are not emergencies.”
Four of 10 Cases
The number of patients in emergency rooms has steadily increased in recent years. Statistically, only 4 out of 10 cases are genuine emergencies, as detailed surveys of patients in the emergency rooms of northern German hospitals have shown.
In the PiNo Nord cross-sectional study, Martin Scherer, MD, of University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Hamburg, Germany, and his team examined the reasons why patients visit the emergency room. They interviewed 1175 patients in five hospitals and documented the medical diagnoses. Patients classified as “immediately” or “very urgently” in need of treatment were excluded.
The surveyed patients were on average 41.8 years old, 52.9% were men, and 54.7% of the patients indicated a low urgency of treatment. About 41% of the patients visited the emergency room on their own initiative, 17% stated they were referred or entrusted by their general practitioner, and 8% were referred by a specialist in the emergency room.
The strongest predictors for low subjective treatment urgency were musculoskeletal trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.18), skin afflictions (OR, 2.15), and the unavailability of an open general practitioner’s office (OR, 1.70).
According to Dr. Scherer and his colleagues, the reasons for visiting an emergency room are diverse and can be based on the perceived structural conditions and individual patient preferences in addition to the urgency of the health problem.
This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Telemedicine Reduces Rehospitalization, Revascularization in Post-PCI ACS Patients
ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.
The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.
“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.”
The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Telemedicine Protocol
The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter.
Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years.
If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.
Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.
Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).
MACE rates were similar between the two groups.
At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.
The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).
Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
Human Element Key
In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.
However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”
Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology.
“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”
While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”
The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.
The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.
“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.”
The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Telemedicine Protocol
The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter.
Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years.
If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.
Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.
Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).
MACE rates were similar between the two groups.
At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.
The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).
Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
Human Element Key
In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.
However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”
Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology.
“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”
While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”
The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA — Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who had a myocardial infarction or unstable angina and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) had a 76% lower rate of hospital readmission after 6 months if they participated in a remote monitoring protocol compared with similar patients who had standard post-discharge care, results of a new trial suggest.
The TELE-ACS trial showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients also had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits, unplanned coronary revascularizations, and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness. However, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were similar between the two groups. The protocol included consultation with a cardiologist who reviewed home-monitoring data.
“The team was able to aid in preventing unnecessary presentations and advised the patients to seek emergency care whenever was necessary,” Nasser Alshahrani, MSc, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, said while presenting the results at the American College of Cardiology meeting. “The TELE-ACS protocol provided a significant reduction in readmission rates post-ACS and other adverse events.”
The study findings were published online simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Telemedicine Protocol
The trial, conducted from January 2022 to April 2023, randomly assigned 337 patients to telemedicine or standard care when they were discharged after PCI and had at least one cardiovascular risk factor. The telemedicine protocol consisted of 12-lead electrocardiogram belt, an automated blood-pressure monitor, and a pulse oximeter.
Patients in the telemedicine arm initiated the remote monitoring protocol if they thought they had cardiac symptoms. The majority (86%) were men with what the study described as “a high preponderance of cardiovascular risk factors.” Average age was 58.1 years.
If a telemedicine patient initiated the protocol, a cardiologist remotely assessed the patient’s symptoms and channeled the patient to the appropriate care pathway, whether reassuring the patient or sending them to a primary care physician or emergency department, or to call emergency services. Patients who didn’t get a call back from the cardiologist within 15 minutes were told to seek care in the standard clinical pathway.
Telemedicine patients were given the telemonitoring package and training in how to use the devices before they were discharged. They also received three follow-up quality control calls in the first two months to ensure they were using the equipment correctly. They kept the telemonitoring equipment for 8 months, but were followed out to 9 months. Six telemedicine patients dropped out while one standard care patient withdrew from the study.
Results showed that at 6 months, telemedicine patients had statistically significantly lower rates of post-discharge emergency department visits (25% vs 37%, P < .001), unplanned coronary revascularizations (3% vs 9%, P < .01) and cardiovascular symptoms, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and dizziness (a 13% to 18% difference for each symptom, P < .01).
MACE rates were similar between the two groups.
At 9 months, 3 months after the protocol ended, 20 telemedicine patients and 50 standard-care patients were readmitted to the hospital, while 52 and 73, respectively, went to the emergency department.
The telemedicine patients also had shorter hospital stays: an average of 0.5 and 1.2 days at 6 and 9 months, respectively, vs 1.5 and 1.8 days in the standard treatment arm (P < .001 for both).
Mr. Alshahrani noted several limitations with the study, namely that 86% of participants were men, and that the intervention was only offered to people who had smartphones. “The high level of support for the telemedicine group, with prompt cardiology responses, may be challenging to replicate outside a trial setting, requiring significant investment and training,” he added.
Human Element Key
In an interview from London after the presentation, lead author Ramzi Khamis, MB ChB, PhD, said, “This was quite a basic study. Really what we did was we integrated a clinical decision-making algorithm that we perfected with some quite novel but basic technology.” Future research should strive to add a home troponin test to the protocol and an artificial intelligence component, he said.
However, Dr. Khamis noted that human interaction was key to the success of the TELE-ACS trial. “The human factor is very important here and I think it would be really interesting to have a head-to-head comparison of human interaction with remote monitoring vs an AI-driven interaction,” he said. “I have my doubts that AI would be able to beat the human factor here.”
Lawrence Phillips, MD, medical director of outpatient cardiology at NYU Langone Heart, told this news organization that the study was appropriately powered to evaluate the telemedicine protocol, and that it could serve as a template for other studies of remote monitoring in cardiology.
“I think that this study is forming the foundation of evolving telemedicine data,” he said. “It shows really interesting results, and I’m sure it’s going to be reproduced in different ways going forward.”
While other studies have shown the utility of telemedicine to decrease unnecessary hospitalizations, this study went one step further, Dr. Phillips said. “What was unique about this study was the package that they put together,” he added. “It was a combination of telehealth and being able to speak with someone when you have concerns with objective data of an electrocardiogram, blood-pressure cuff, and oxygen level assessment, which is an interesting approach having that ejective data with [a] subjective element.”
The trial received funding from the British Heart Foundation; King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia via The Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau; Sansour Fund, Imperial Healthcare Charity; and Safwan Sobhan Fund at Imperial College London. Mr. Alshahrani and Dr. Khamis have no relevant relationships to disclose. Dr. Phillips has no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Prolonged Sitting at Work Ups CVD and All-Cause Mortality, Daily Breaks May Help
However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say.
“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan.
“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart
2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity.
For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk.
Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected.
During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group.
In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work.
Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05).
Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work.
“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote.
“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added.
Simple Yet Profound Message
Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting.
The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.
“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added.
Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say.
“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan.
“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart
2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity.
For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk.
Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected.
During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group.
In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work.
Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05).
Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work.
“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote.
“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added.
Simple Yet Profound Message
Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting.
The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.
“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added.
Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
However, daily breaks from sitting and leisure-time activity can help mitigate the “serious” risks associated with prolonged occupational sitting, the researchers say.
“As part of modern lifestyles, prolonged occupational sitting is considered normal and has not received due attention, even though its deleterious effect on health outcomes has been demonstrated,” wrote the authors, led by Wayne Gao, PhD, with Taipei Medical University College of Public Health, Taipei City, Taiwan.
“The importance of physical activity and moving around can never be overstated,” Michelle Bloom, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at NYU Langone Health in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.
“As a cardiologist, I bring this up at almost every visit with every patient regardless of why they’re seeing me, because I think that patients respond better when their doctor says it than when they just kind of know it in the back of their mind,” said Dr. Bloom, who is also a professor in the Division of Cardiology, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, New York.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Prolonged Sitting Hard on the Heart
2020 marked the first time that guidelines on physical activity from the World Health Organization recommended reducing sedentary behaviors owing to their health consequences. Less is known on the specific association of prolonged occupational sitting with health outcomes, especially in the context of low physical activity.
For their study, Dr. Gao and colleagues quantified health risks associated with prolonged sitting on the job and determined whether a certain threshold of physical activity may attenuate this risk.
Participants included 481,688 adults (mean age, 39 years; 53% women) in a health surveillance program in Taiwan. Data on occupational sitting, leisure-time physical activity, lifestyle, and metabolic parameters were collected.
During an average follow up of nearly 13 years, 26,257 participants died; more than half (57%) of the deaths occurred in individuals who mostly sat at work. There were 5371 CVD-related deaths, with 60% occurring in the mostly sitting group.
In multivariate analysis that adjusted for sex, age, education, smoking, drinking, and body mass index, adults who mostly sat at work had a 16% higher risk of dying of any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20) and a 34% increased risk of dying of CVD (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.22-1.46) compared with those who mostly did not sit at work.
Adults who mostly alternated between sitting and not sitting at work were not at increased risk of all-cause mortality compared with individuals who mostly did not at work (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.05).
Among adults who mostly sat at work and engaged in low (15-29 minutes) or no (< 15 minutes) daily leisure-time activity, increasing activity by 15 and 30 minutes per day, respectively, lowered the risk for mortality to a level similar to that of inactive individuals who mostly do not sit at work.
“Overall, our findings from a large prospective cohort help to strengthen the increasingly accumulating evidence linking a sedentary lifestyle and health risks,” the authors wrote.
“Systemic changes, such as more frequent breaks, standing desks, designated workplace areas for physical activity, and gym membership benefits, can help reduce risk,” they added.
Simple Yet Profound Message
Reached for comment, Anu Lala, MD, with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York, said this study provides a “simple yet profound message” about the dangers of prolonged sitting.
The finding of a 16% higher all-cause mortality in those who mostly sat at work after adjustment for major risk factors is “pretty remarkable. And for CVD mortality, it’s double that,” Dr. Lala told this news organization.
“I think we undervalue the importance of movement, however simple it is. Even simple actions, like squatting and standing up have benefits for the heart,” Dr. Lala added.
Dr. Bloom said she tells her patients, “You don’t have to go out tomorrow and run a marathon. Just get up a few times a day, walk a few laps in your office, walk back and forth from the mailbox, walk up and down your steps a couple of times — just do something more than you’re doing already.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Gao and Dr. Bloom have no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lala has serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bayer, Novo Nordisk, Cordio, Zoll, and Sequana Medical.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Traumatic Brain Injury and CVD: What’s the Link?
The long-term impact of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on neurologic and psychiatric function is well-established, but a growing body of research is pointing to unexpected medical sequalae, including cardiovascular disease (CVD).
A recent review looked at the investigation to date into this surprising connection, not only summarizing study findings but also suggesting potential mechanisms that might account for the association.
“; consequently, they should undergo regular monitoring,” senior author Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Network, Boston, and lead author Saef Izzy, MD, MBChB, a neurologist at the Stroke and Cerebrovascular Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.
“This holds significant importance for healthcare practitioners, as there exist several strategies to mitigate cardiovascular disease risk — including weight management, adopting a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, and quitting smoking,” they stated.
Leslie Croll, MD, American Heart Association volunteer and assistant professor of clinical neurology at the Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that it’s “extremely important to learn more about the interplay between TBI, neurologic disease, psychiatric complications, and the cardiovascular system.”
Hopefully, she added, “future research will help us understand what kind of cardiovascular disease monitoring and prevention measures stand to give TBI patients the most benefit.”
Chronic Condition
TBI is “a major cause of long-term disability and premature death,” and is “highly prevalent among contact sports players, military personnel (eg, due to injuries sustained during conflict), and the general population (eg, due to falls and road traffic incidents),” the authors wrote.
Most studies pertaining to TBI have “primarily focused on establishing connections between single TBI, repetitive TBI, and their acute and chronic neurological and psychiatric consequences, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE),” Drs. Zafonte and Izzy noted. By contrast, there has been a “notable lack of research attention given to non-neurological conditions associated with TBI.”
They pointed out that recent insights into TBI — particularly the acknowledgment of TBI as an “emerging chronic condition rather than merely an acute aftermath of brain injury” — have come to light through epidemiologic and pathologic investigations involving military veterans, professional American-style football players, and the civilian population. “This recognition opens up an opportunity to broaden our perspective and delve into the medical aspects of health that may be influenced by TBI.”
To broaden the investigation, the researchers reviewed literature published between January 1, 2001, and June 18, 2023. Of 26,335 articles, they narrowed their review down to 15 studies that investigated CVD, CVD risk factors, and cerebrovascular disease in the chronic phase of TBI, including community, military, or sport-related brain trauma, regardless of the timing of disease occurrence with respect to brain injury via TBI or repetitive head impact.
New Cardiovascular Risk
Studies that used national or local registries tended to be retrospective and predominantly conducted in people with preexisting cardiovascular conditions. In these studies, TBI was found to be an independent risk factor for myocardial dysfunction. However, although these studies do provide evidence of elevated cardiovascular risk subsequent to a single TBI, including individuals with preexisting medical comorbidities “makes it difficult to determine the timing of incident cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors subsequent to brain injury,” they wrote.
However, some studies showed that even individuals with TBI but without preexisting myocardial dysfunction at baseline had a significantly higher risk for CVD than those without a history of TBI.
In fact, several studies included populations without preexisting medical and cardiovascular comorbidities to “better refine the order and timing of CVD and other risk factors in individuals with TBI.”
For example, one study of concussion survivors without preexisting diagnoses showed that cardiovascular, endocrinological, and neuropsychiatric comorbidities occurred at a “significantly higher incidence within 5 years after concussive TBI compared with healthy individuals who were matched in terms of age, race, and sex and didn’t have a TBI exposure.” Other studies yielded similar findings.
Because cardiovascular risk factors and events become more common with age, it’s important to account for age in evaluating the effects of TBI. Although many studies of TBI and subsequent CVD didn’t stratify individuals by age, one 10-year study of people without any known cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric conditions who sustained TBI found that people as young as 18-40 years were more likely to develop hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diabetes within 3-5 years following brain injury than matched individuals in the control group.
“Individuals who have encountered TBI, surprisingly even those who are young and in good health with no prior comorbid conditions, face an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes for an extended duration after the initial event,” Drs. Zafonte and Izzy summarized. “Therefore, it’s imperative that they receive regular and long-term screenings for CVD and associated risk factors.”
Bidirectional Relationship
Brain injury has been associated with acute cardiovascular dysfunction, including autonomic heart-brain axis dysregulation, imbalances between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, and excessive catecholamine release, the authors noted.
Drs. Zafonte and Izzy suggested several plausible links between TBI and cardiovascular dysfunction, noting that they are “likely multifaceted, potentially encompassing risk factors that span the pre-injury, injury, and post-injury phases of the condition.”
TBI may induce alterations in neurobiological processes, which have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for CVD (eg, chronic dysfunction of the autonomic system, systemic inflammation, and modifications in the brain-gut connection).
Patients with TBI might develop additional risk factors following the injury, including conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and other psychiatric illnesses, which are “known to augment the risk of CVD.”
TBI can lead to subsequent behavioral and lifestyle changes that place patients at an elevated risk for both cardiovascular and cognitive dysfunction when compared to the general population of TBI survivors.
There may be additional as yet undefined risks.
They believe there’s a bidirectional relationship between TBI and CVD. “On one hand, TBI has been associated with an elevated risk of CVD,” they said. “Conversely, cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and sleep disturbances that have been demonstrated to negatively influence cognitive function and heighten the risk of dementia. Consequently, this interplay can further compound the long-term consequences of the injury.”
Their work aims to try and disentangle this “complex series of relationships.”
They recommend screening to identify diseases in their earliest and “most manageable phases” because TBI has been “unveiled as an underappreciated risk factor for CVD within contact sports, military, and community setting.”
An effective screening program “should rely on quantifiable and dependable biomarkers such as blood pressure, BMI, waist circumference, blood lipid levels, and glucose. Additionally, it should take into account other factors like smoking habits, physical activity, and dietary choices,” they recommended.
Heart-Brain Connection
Dr. Croll noted that TBI is “associated with many poorly understood physiologic changes and complications, so it’s exciting to see research aimed at clarifying this chronic disease process.”
In recent years, “we have seen a greater appreciation and understanding of the heart-brain connection,” she said. “Moving forward, more research, including TBI research, will target that connection.”
She added that there are probably “multiple mechanisms” at play underlying the connection between TBI and CVD.
Most importantly, “we are increasingly learning that TBI is not only a discrete event that requires immediate treatment but also a chronic disease process,” and when we “think about the substantial long-term morbidity associated with TBI, we should keep increased risk for CVD on top of mind,” said Dr. Croll.
The review received no funding. Izzy reported receiving grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 2023 Stepping Strong Innovator Award. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving grants from the NIH and royalties from Springer and Demos publishing for serving as a coeditor of Brain Injury Medicine. Dr. Zafonte has also served as an adviser to Myomo, Oncare.ai, Nanodiagnostics, and Kisbee. He reported evaluating patients in the Massachusetts General Hospital Brain and Body–TRUST Program, which is funded by the NFL Players Association. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Croll declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The long-term impact of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on neurologic and psychiatric function is well-established, but a growing body of research is pointing to unexpected medical sequalae, including cardiovascular disease (CVD).
A recent review looked at the investigation to date into this surprising connection, not only summarizing study findings but also suggesting potential mechanisms that might account for the association.
“; consequently, they should undergo regular monitoring,” senior author Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Network, Boston, and lead author Saef Izzy, MD, MBChB, a neurologist at the Stroke and Cerebrovascular Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.
“This holds significant importance for healthcare practitioners, as there exist several strategies to mitigate cardiovascular disease risk — including weight management, adopting a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, and quitting smoking,” they stated.
Leslie Croll, MD, American Heart Association volunteer and assistant professor of clinical neurology at the Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that it’s “extremely important to learn more about the interplay between TBI, neurologic disease, psychiatric complications, and the cardiovascular system.”
Hopefully, she added, “future research will help us understand what kind of cardiovascular disease monitoring and prevention measures stand to give TBI patients the most benefit.”
Chronic Condition
TBI is “a major cause of long-term disability and premature death,” and is “highly prevalent among contact sports players, military personnel (eg, due to injuries sustained during conflict), and the general population (eg, due to falls and road traffic incidents),” the authors wrote.
Most studies pertaining to TBI have “primarily focused on establishing connections between single TBI, repetitive TBI, and their acute and chronic neurological and psychiatric consequences, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE),” Drs. Zafonte and Izzy noted. By contrast, there has been a “notable lack of research attention given to non-neurological conditions associated with TBI.”
They pointed out that recent insights into TBI — particularly the acknowledgment of TBI as an “emerging chronic condition rather than merely an acute aftermath of brain injury” — have come to light through epidemiologic and pathologic investigations involving military veterans, professional American-style football players, and the civilian population. “This recognition opens up an opportunity to broaden our perspective and delve into the medical aspects of health that may be influenced by TBI.”
To broaden the investigation, the researchers reviewed literature published between January 1, 2001, and June 18, 2023. Of 26,335 articles, they narrowed their review down to 15 studies that investigated CVD, CVD risk factors, and cerebrovascular disease in the chronic phase of TBI, including community, military, or sport-related brain trauma, regardless of the timing of disease occurrence with respect to brain injury via TBI or repetitive head impact.
New Cardiovascular Risk
Studies that used national or local registries tended to be retrospective and predominantly conducted in people with preexisting cardiovascular conditions. In these studies, TBI was found to be an independent risk factor for myocardial dysfunction. However, although these studies do provide evidence of elevated cardiovascular risk subsequent to a single TBI, including individuals with preexisting medical comorbidities “makes it difficult to determine the timing of incident cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors subsequent to brain injury,” they wrote.
However, some studies showed that even individuals with TBI but without preexisting myocardial dysfunction at baseline had a significantly higher risk for CVD than those without a history of TBI.
In fact, several studies included populations without preexisting medical and cardiovascular comorbidities to “better refine the order and timing of CVD and other risk factors in individuals with TBI.”
For example, one study of concussion survivors without preexisting diagnoses showed that cardiovascular, endocrinological, and neuropsychiatric comorbidities occurred at a “significantly higher incidence within 5 years after concussive TBI compared with healthy individuals who were matched in terms of age, race, and sex and didn’t have a TBI exposure.” Other studies yielded similar findings.
Because cardiovascular risk factors and events become more common with age, it’s important to account for age in evaluating the effects of TBI. Although many studies of TBI and subsequent CVD didn’t stratify individuals by age, one 10-year study of people without any known cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric conditions who sustained TBI found that people as young as 18-40 years were more likely to develop hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diabetes within 3-5 years following brain injury than matched individuals in the control group.
“Individuals who have encountered TBI, surprisingly even those who are young and in good health with no prior comorbid conditions, face an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes for an extended duration after the initial event,” Drs. Zafonte and Izzy summarized. “Therefore, it’s imperative that they receive regular and long-term screenings for CVD and associated risk factors.”
Bidirectional Relationship
Brain injury has been associated with acute cardiovascular dysfunction, including autonomic heart-brain axis dysregulation, imbalances between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, and excessive catecholamine release, the authors noted.
Drs. Zafonte and Izzy suggested several plausible links between TBI and cardiovascular dysfunction, noting that they are “likely multifaceted, potentially encompassing risk factors that span the pre-injury, injury, and post-injury phases of the condition.”
TBI may induce alterations in neurobiological processes, which have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for CVD (eg, chronic dysfunction of the autonomic system, systemic inflammation, and modifications in the brain-gut connection).
Patients with TBI might develop additional risk factors following the injury, including conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and other psychiatric illnesses, which are “known to augment the risk of CVD.”
TBI can lead to subsequent behavioral and lifestyle changes that place patients at an elevated risk for both cardiovascular and cognitive dysfunction when compared to the general population of TBI survivors.
There may be additional as yet undefined risks.
They believe there’s a bidirectional relationship between TBI and CVD. “On one hand, TBI has been associated with an elevated risk of CVD,” they said. “Conversely, cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and sleep disturbances that have been demonstrated to negatively influence cognitive function and heighten the risk of dementia. Consequently, this interplay can further compound the long-term consequences of the injury.”
Their work aims to try and disentangle this “complex series of relationships.”
They recommend screening to identify diseases in their earliest and “most manageable phases” because TBI has been “unveiled as an underappreciated risk factor for CVD within contact sports, military, and community setting.”
An effective screening program “should rely on quantifiable and dependable biomarkers such as blood pressure, BMI, waist circumference, blood lipid levels, and glucose. Additionally, it should take into account other factors like smoking habits, physical activity, and dietary choices,” they recommended.
Heart-Brain Connection
Dr. Croll noted that TBI is “associated with many poorly understood physiologic changes and complications, so it’s exciting to see research aimed at clarifying this chronic disease process.”
In recent years, “we have seen a greater appreciation and understanding of the heart-brain connection,” she said. “Moving forward, more research, including TBI research, will target that connection.”
She added that there are probably “multiple mechanisms” at play underlying the connection between TBI and CVD.
Most importantly, “we are increasingly learning that TBI is not only a discrete event that requires immediate treatment but also a chronic disease process,” and when we “think about the substantial long-term morbidity associated with TBI, we should keep increased risk for CVD on top of mind,” said Dr. Croll.
The review received no funding. Izzy reported receiving grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 2023 Stepping Strong Innovator Award. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving grants from the NIH and royalties from Springer and Demos publishing for serving as a coeditor of Brain Injury Medicine. Dr. Zafonte has also served as an adviser to Myomo, Oncare.ai, Nanodiagnostics, and Kisbee. He reported evaluating patients in the Massachusetts General Hospital Brain and Body–TRUST Program, which is funded by the NFL Players Association. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Croll declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The long-term impact of traumatic brain injury (TBI) on neurologic and psychiatric function is well-established, but a growing body of research is pointing to unexpected medical sequalae, including cardiovascular disease (CVD).
A recent review looked at the investigation to date into this surprising connection, not only summarizing study findings but also suggesting potential mechanisms that might account for the association.
“; consequently, they should undergo regular monitoring,” senior author Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Network, Boston, and lead author Saef Izzy, MD, MBChB, a neurologist at the Stroke and Cerebrovascular Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, told this news organization.
“This holds significant importance for healthcare practitioners, as there exist several strategies to mitigate cardiovascular disease risk — including weight management, adopting a healthy diet, engaging in regular physical activity, and quitting smoking,” they stated.
Leslie Croll, MD, American Heart Association volunteer and assistant professor of clinical neurology at the Temple University Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, told this news organization that it’s “extremely important to learn more about the interplay between TBI, neurologic disease, psychiatric complications, and the cardiovascular system.”
Hopefully, she added, “future research will help us understand what kind of cardiovascular disease monitoring and prevention measures stand to give TBI patients the most benefit.”
Chronic Condition
TBI is “a major cause of long-term disability and premature death,” and is “highly prevalent among contact sports players, military personnel (eg, due to injuries sustained during conflict), and the general population (eg, due to falls and road traffic incidents),” the authors wrote.
Most studies pertaining to TBI have “primarily focused on establishing connections between single TBI, repetitive TBI, and their acute and chronic neurological and psychiatric consequences, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE),” Drs. Zafonte and Izzy noted. By contrast, there has been a “notable lack of research attention given to non-neurological conditions associated with TBI.”
They pointed out that recent insights into TBI — particularly the acknowledgment of TBI as an “emerging chronic condition rather than merely an acute aftermath of brain injury” — have come to light through epidemiologic and pathologic investigations involving military veterans, professional American-style football players, and the civilian population. “This recognition opens up an opportunity to broaden our perspective and delve into the medical aspects of health that may be influenced by TBI.”
To broaden the investigation, the researchers reviewed literature published between January 1, 2001, and June 18, 2023. Of 26,335 articles, they narrowed their review down to 15 studies that investigated CVD, CVD risk factors, and cerebrovascular disease in the chronic phase of TBI, including community, military, or sport-related brain trauma, regardless of the timing of disease occurrence with respect to brain injury via TBI or repetitive head impact.
New Cardiovascular Risk
Studies that used national or local registries tended to be retrospective and predominantly conducted in people with preexisting cardiovascular conditions. In these studies, TBI was found to be an independent risk factor for myocardial dysfunction. However, although these studies do provide evidence of elevated cardiovascular risk subsequent to a single TBI, including individuals with preexisting medical comorbidities “makes it difficult to determine the timing of incident cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors subsequent to brain injury,” they wrote.
However, some studies showed that even individuals with TBI but without preexisting myocardial dysfunction at baseline had a significantly higher risk for CVD than those without a history of TBI.
In fact, several studies included populations without preexisting medical and cardiovascular comorbidities to “better refine the order and timing of CVD and other risk factors in individuals with TBI.”
For example, one study of concussion survivors without preexisting diagnoses showed that cardiovascular, endocrinological, and neuropsychiatric comorbidities occurred at a “significantly higher incidence within 5 years after concussive TBI compared with healthy individuals who were matched in terms of age, race, and sex and didn’t have a TBI exposure.” Other studies yielded similar findings.
Because cardiovascular risk factors and events become more common with age, it’s important to account for age in evaluating the effects of TBI. Although many studies of TBI and subsequent CVD didn’t stratify individuals by age, one 10-year study of people without any known cardiovascular or neuropsychiatric conditions who sustained TBI found that people as young as 18-40 years were more likely to develop hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, and diabetes within 3-5 years following brain injury than matched individuals in the control group.
“Individuals who have encountered TBI, surprisingly even those who are young and in good health with no prior comorbid conditions, face an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes for an extended duration after the initial event,” Drs. Zafonte and Izzy summarized. “Therefore, it’s imperative that they receive regular and long-term screenings for CVD and associated risk factors.”
Bidirectional Relationship
Brain injury has been associated with acute cardiovascular dysfunction, including autonomic heart-brain axis dysregulation, imbalances between the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, and excessive catecholamine release, the authors noted.
Drs. Zafonte and Izzy suggested several plausible links between TBI and cardiovascular dysfunction, noting that they are “likely multifaceted, potentially encompassing risk factors that span the pre-injury, injury, and post-injury phases of the condition.”
TBI may induce alterations in neurobiological processes, which have been reported to be associated with an increased risk for CVD (eg, chronic dysfunction of the autonomic system, systemic inflammation, and modifications in the brain-gut connection).
Patients with TBI might develop additional risk factors following the injury, including conditions like posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, and other psychiatric illnesses, which are “known to augment the risk of CVD.”
TBI can lead to subsequent behavioral and lifestyle changes that place patients at an elevated risk for both cardiovascular and cognitive dysfunction when compared to the general population of TBI survivors.
There may be additional as yet undefined risks.
They believe there’s a bidirectional relationship between TBI and CVD. “On one hand, TBI has been associated with an elevated risk of CVD,” they said. “Conversely, cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and sleep disturbances that have been demonstrated to negatively influence cognitive function and heighten the risk of dementia. Consequently, this interplay can further compound the long-term consequences of the injury.”
Their work aims to try and disentangle this “complex series of relationships.”
They recommend screening to identify diseases in their earliest and “most manageable phases” because TBI has been “unveiled as an underappreciated risk factor for CVD within contact sports, military, and community setting.”
An effective screening program “should rely on quantifiable and dependable biomarkers such as blood pressure, BMI, waist circumference, blood lipid levels, and glucose. Additionally, it should take into account other factors like smoking habits, physical activity, and dietary choices,” they recommended.
Heart-Brain Connection
Dr. Croll noted that TBI is “associated with many poorly understood physiologic changes and complications, so it’s exciting to see research aimed at clarifying this chronic disease process.”
In recent years, “we have seen a greater appreciation and understanding of the heart-brain connection,” she said. “Moving forward, more research, including TBI research, will target that connection.”
She added that there are probably “multiple mechanisms” at play underlying the connection between TBI and CVD.
Most importantly, “we are increasingly learning that TBI is not only a discrete event that requires immediate treatment but also a chronic disease process,” and when we “think about the substantial long-term morbidity associated with TBI, we should keep increased risk for CVD on top of mind,” said Dr. Croll.
The review received no funding. Izzy reported receiving grants from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 2023 Stepping Strong Innovator Award. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving grants from the NIH and royalties from Springer and Demos publishing for serving as a coeditor of Brain Injury Medicine. Dr. Zafonte has also served as an adviser to Myomo, Oncare.ai, Nanodiagnostics, and Kisbee. He reported evaluating patients in the Massachusetts General Hospital Brain and Body–TRUST Program, which is funded by the NFL Players Association. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Croll declared no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Temporary Higher Stroke Rate After TAVR
TOPLINE:
Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
- The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
- The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
- Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
TAKEAWAY:
- , accounting for 69% of these events.
- After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
- Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
- SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.
In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”
SOURCE:
The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.
LIMITATIONS:
The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.
DISCLOSURES:
The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
- The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
- The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
- Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
TAKEAWAY:
- , accounting for 69% of these events.
- After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
- Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
- SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.
In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”
SOURCE:
The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.
LIMITATIONS:
The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.
DISCLOSURES:
The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
- The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
- The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
- Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
TAKEAWAY:
- , accounting for 69% of these events.
- After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
- Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
- SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.
In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”
SOURCE:
The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.
LIMITATIONS:
The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.
DISCLOSURES:
The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Ascending Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms: A ‘Silver Lining’?
Often known as a “silent killer,” ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms (ATAAs) may grow asymptomatically until they rupture, at which point, mortality is over 90%.
But and by extension, for those who have one, a significantly reduced risk for coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction (MI).
“We noticed in the operating room that many patients we worked on who had an ATAA had pristine arteries, like a teenager’s,” said John Elefteriades, MD, William W.L. Glenn Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and former chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. “The same was true of the femoral artery, which we use to hook up to the heart-lung machine.”
Elefteriades and colleagues have been investigating the implications of this association for more than two decades. Many of their studies are highlighted in a recent review of the evidence supporting the protective relationship between ATAAs and the development of atherosclerosis and the possible mechanisms driving the relationship.
“We see four different layers of protection,” said Sandip Mukherjee, MD, medical director of the Aortic Institute at Yale New Haven Hospital and a senior editor of the journal AORTA. Mukherjee collaborated with Elefteriades on many of the studies.
The first layer of protection is lower intima-media thickness, specifically, 0.131 mm lower than in individuals without an ATAA. “It may not seem like very much, but one point can actually translate into a 13%-15% decline in the rate of myocardial infarction or stroke,” Dr. Mukherjee said.
The second layer is lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Lower LDL cholesterol levels (75 mg/dL) were associated with increased odds of ATAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.21), whereas elevated levels (150 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL) were associated with decreased odds of ATAAs (OR, 0.62 and 0.29, respectively).
Lower calcification scores for the coronary arteries are the third layer of protection (6.73 vs 9.36 in one study).
The fourth protective layer is a significantly reduced prevalence of coronary artery disease. A study of individuals with ATAA compared to controls found 61 of those with ATAA had coronary artery disease vs 140 of controls, and 11 vs 83 had experienced an MI. Of note, patients with ATAAs were protected despite having higher body mass indices than controls.
Other MI risk factors such as age increased the risk even among those with an ATAA but, again, much less so than among controls; a multivariable binary logistic regression of data in the team’s review showed that patients with ATAAs were 298, 250, and 232 times less likely to have an MI than if they had a family history of MI, dyslipidemia, or hypertension, respectively.
Why the Protection?
The ligamentum arteriosum separates the ascending from the descending (thoracoabdominal) aorta. ATAAs, located above the ligamentum, tend to be pro-aneurysmal but anti-atherosclerotic. In the descending aorta, below the ligamentum, atherosclerotic aneurysms develop.
The differences between the two sections of the aorta originate in the germ layer in the embryo, Dr. Elefteriades said. “The fundamental difference in tissue of origin translates into marked differences in the character of aneurysms in the different aortic segments.”
What specifically underlies the reduced cardiovascular risk? “We don’t really know, but we think that there may be two possible etiologies,” Dr. Mukherjee said. One hypothesis involves transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), which is overexpressed in patients with ATAA and seems to increase their vulnerability to aneurysms while also conferring protection from coronary disease risk.
Some studies have shown differences in cellular responses to TGF-beta between the thoracic and abdominal aorta, including collagen production and contractility. Others have shown that some patients who have had an MI have polymorphisms that decrease their levels of TGF-beta.
Furthermore, TGF-beta plays a key role in the development of the intimal layer, which could underpin the lack of intimal thickening in patients with ATAA.
But overall, studies have been mixed and challenging to interpret, Dr. Elefteriades and Dr. Mukherjee agreed. TGF-beta has multiple remodeling roles in the body, and it is difficult at this point to isolate its exact role in aortic disease.
Another hypothesis involves matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are dysregulated in patients with ATAA and may confer some protection, Mukherjee said. Several studies have shown higher plasma levels of certain MMPs in patients with ATAAs. MMPs also were found to be elevated in the thoracic aortic walls of patients with ATAA who had an aortic dissection, as well as in the aortic smooth muscle cells in the intima and media.
In addition, some studies have shown increased levels of MMP-2 in the aortas of patients with ATAAs compared with patients with coronary artery disease.
Adding to the mix of possibilities, “We recently found a gene that’s dysregulated in our aneurysm patients that is very intimately related to atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “But the work is too preliminary to say anything more at this point.”
“It would be fabulous to prove what it is causing this protection,” Dr. Mukherjee added. “But the truth is we don’t know. These are hypotheses.”
“The most important message from our work is that most clinicians need to dissociate an ATAA from the concept of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “The ascending aorta is not an atherosclerotic phenomenon.”
How to Manage Patients With ATAA
What does the distinct character of ATAAs mean for patient management? “Finding a drug to treat ATAAs — to prevent growth, rupture, or dissection — has been like a search for the Holy Grail,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “Statins are not necessary, as this is a non-atherosclerotic process. Although sporadic studies have reported beneficial effects from beta-blockers or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), this has often been based on ‘soft’ evidence, requiring a combination of outcome measures to achieve significance.”
That said, he noted, “The mainstay, common sense treatment is to keep blood pressure controlled. This is usually achieved by a beta-blocker and an ARB, even if the benefit is not via a direct biologic effect on the aneurysmal degenerative process, but via simple hemodynamics — discouraging rupture by keeping pressure in the aorta low.”
Dr. Mukherjee suggested that these patients should be referred to a specialty aneurysm center where their genes will be evaluated, and then the aneurysm will be followed very closely.
“If the aneurysm is larger than 4.5 cm, we screen the patient every single year, and if they have chest pain, we treat them the same way as we treat other aneurysms,” he said. “As a rule of thumb, if the aneurysm reaches 5 cm, it should come out, although the size at which this should happen may differ between 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm, depending on the patient’s body size.”
As for lifestyle management, Dr. Elefteriades said, “Protection from atherosclerosis and MI won’t go away after the aneurysm is removed. We think it’s in the body’s chemistry. But even though it’s very hard for those patients to have a heart attack, we don’t recommend they eat roast beef every night — although I do think they’d be protected from such lifestyle aberrations.”
For now, he added, “Our team is on a hunt to find a drug to treat ascending disease directly and effectively. We have ongoing laboratory experiments with two drugs undergoing investigation at some level. We hope to embark soon on clinical trials.”
‘A Milestone’
James Hamilton Black III, MD, vice chair of the writing committee for the 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Aortic Disease Guideline and chief of Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, commented on the review and the concept of ATAA’s atherosclerotic protection.
“The association of ascending aortic aneurysms with a lower risk for MI is an interesting one, but it’s probably influenced, at least in part, by the patient population.” That population is at least partially curated since people are coming to an academic center. In addition, Dr. Black noted, “the patients with ATAAs are younger, and so age may be a confounding factor in the analyses. We wouldn’t expect them to have the same burden of atherosclerosis” as older patients.
Nevertheless, he said, “the findings speak to an emerging body of literature suggesting that although the aorta is a single organ, there are certainly different areas, and these would respond quite differently to environmental or genetic or heritable stressors. This isn’t surprising, and there probably are a lot of factors involved.”
Overall, he said, the findings underscore “the precision medicine approaches we need to take with patients with aortic diseases.”
In a commentary on the team’s review article, published in 2022, John G.T. Augoustides, MD, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggested that ATAA’s “silver lining” could advance the understanding of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) management, be integrated with the expanding horizons in hereditary thoracic aortic disease, and might be explored in the context of bicuspid aortic valve disease.
Highlighting the “relative absence” of atherosclerosis in ascending aortic aneurysms and its importance is a “milestone in our understanding,” he concluded. “It is likely that future advances in TAAs will be significantly influenced by this observation.”
Dr. Elefteriades, Dr. Mukherjee, and Dr. Black have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Often known as a “silent killer,” ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms (ATAAs) may grow asymptomatically until they rupture, at which point, mortality is over 90%.
But and by extension, for those who have one, a significantly reduced risk for coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction (MI).
“We noticed in the operating room that many patients we worked on who had an ATAA had pristine arteries, like a teenager’s,” said John Elefteriades, MD, William W.L. Glenn Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and former chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. “The same was true of the femoral artery, which we use to hook up to the heart-lung machine.”
Elefteriades and colleagues have been investigating the implications of this association for more than two decades. Many of their studies are highlighted in a recent review of the evidence supporting the protective relationship between ATAAs and the development of atherosclerosis and the possible mechanisms driving the relationship.
“We see four different layers of protection,” said Sandip Mukherjee, MD, medical director of the Aortic Institute at Yale New Haven Hospital and a senior editor of the journal AORTA. Mukherjee collaborated with Elefteriades on many of the studies.
The first layer of protection is lower intima-media thickness, specifically, 0.131 mm lower than in individuals without an ATAA. “It may not seem like very much, but one point can actually translate into a 13%-15% decline in the rate of myocardial infarction or stroke,” Dr. Mukherjee said.
The second layer is lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Lower LDL cholesterol levels (75 mg/dL) were associated with increased odds of ATAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.21), whereas elevated levels (150 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL) were associated with decreased odds of ATAAs (OR, 0.62 and 0.29, respectively).
Lower calcification scores for the coronary arteries are the third layer of protection (6.73 vs 9.36 in one study).
The fourth protective layer is a significantly reduced prevalence of coronary artery disease. A study of individuals with ATAA compared to controls found 61 of those with ATAA had coronary artery disease vs 140 of controls, and 11 vs 83 had experienced an MI. Of note, patients with ATAAs were protected despite having higher body mass indices than controls.
Other MI risk factors such as age increased the risk even among those with an ATAA but, again, much less so than among controls; a multivariable binary logistic regression of data in the team’s review showed that patients with ATAAs were 298, 250, and 232 times less likely to have an MI than if they had a family history of MI, dyslipidemia, or hypertension, respectively.
Why the Protection?
The ligamentum arteriosum separates the ascending from the descending (thoracoabdominal) aorta. ATAAs, located above the ligamentum, tend to be pro-aneurysmal but anti-atherosclerotic. In the descending aorta, below the ligamentum, atherosclerotic aneurysms develop.
The differences between the two sections of the aorta originate in the germ layer in the embryo, Dr. Elefteriades said. “The fundamental difference in tissue of origin translates into marked differences in the character of aneurysms in the different aortic segments.”
What specifically underlies the reduced cardiovascular risk? “We don’t really know, but we think that there may be two possible etiologies,” Dr. Mukherjee said. One hypothesis involves transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), which is overexpressed in patients with ATAA and seems to increase their vulnerability to aneurysms while also conferring protection from coronary disease risk.
Some studies have shown differences in cellular responses to TGF-beta between the thoracic and abdominal aorta, including collagen production and contractility. Others have shown that some patients who have had an MI have polymorphisms that decrease their levels of TGF-beta.
Furthermore, TGF-beta plays a key role in the development of the intimal layer, which could underpin the lack of intimal thickening in patients with ATAA.
But overall, studies have been mixed and challenging to interpret, Dr. Elefteriades and Dr. Mukherjee agreed. TGF-beta has multiple remodeling roles in the body, and it is difficult at this point to isolate its exact role in aortic disease.
Another hypothesis involves matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are dysregulated in patients with ATAA and may confer some protection, Mukherjee said. Several studies have shown higher plasma levels of certain MMPs in patients with ATAAs. MMPs also were found to be elevated in the thoracic aortic walls of patients with ATAA who had an aortic dissection, as well as in the aortic smooth muscle cells in the intima and media.
In addition, some studies have shown increased levels of MMP-2 in the aortas of patients with ATAAs compared with patients with coronary artery disease.
Adding to the mix of possibilities, “We recently found a gene that’s dysregulated in our aneurysm patients that is very intimately related to atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “But the work is too preliminary to say anything more at this point.”
“It would be fabulous to prove what it is causing this protection,” Dr. Mukherjee added. “But the truth is we don’t know. These are hypotheses.”
“The most important message from our work is that most clinicians need to dissociate an ATAA from the concept of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “The ascending aorta is not an atherosclerotic phenomenon.”
How to Manage Patients With ATAA
What does the distinct character of ATAAs mean for patient management? “Finding a drug to treat ATAAs — to prevent growth, rupture, or dissection — has been like a search for the Holy Grail,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “Statins are not necessary, as this is a non-atherosclerotic process. Although sporadic studies have reported beneficial effects from beta-blockers or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), this has often been based on ‘soft’ evidence, requiring a combination of outcome measures to achieve significance.”
That said, he noted, “The mainstay, common sense treatment is to keep blood pressure controlled. This is usually achieved by a beta-blocker and an ARB, even if the benefit is not via a direct biologic effect on the aneurysmal degenerative process, but via simple hemodynamics — discouraging rupture by keeping pressure in the aorta low.”
Dr. Mukherjee suggested that these patients should be referred to a specialty aneurysm center where their genes will be evaluated, and then the aneurysm will be followed very closely.
“If the aneurysm is larger than 4.5 cm, we screen the patient every single year, and if they have chest pain, we treat them the same way as we treat other aneurysms,” he said. “As a rule of thumb, if the aneurysm reaches 5 cm, it should come out, although the size at which this should happen may differ between 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm, depending on the patient’s body size.”
As for lifestyle management, Dr. Elefteriades said, “Protection from atherosclerosis and MI won’t go away after the aneurysm is removed. We think it’s in the body’s chemistry. But even though it’s very hard for those patients to have a heart attack, we don’t recommend they eat roast beef every night — although I do think they’d be protected from such lifestyle aberrations.”
For now, he added, “Our team is on a hunt to find a drug to treat ascending disease directly and effectively. We have ongoing laboratory experiments with two drugs undergoing investigation at some level. We hope to embark soon on clinical trials.”
‘A Milestone’
James Hamilton Black III, MD, vice chair of the writing committee for the 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Aortic Disease Guideline and chief of Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, commented on the review and the concept of ATAA’s atherosclerotic protection.
“The association of ascending aortic aneurysms with a lower risk for MI is an interesting one, but it’s probably influenced, at least in part, by the patient population.” That population is at least partially curated since people are coming to an academic center. In addition, Dr. Black noted, “the patients with ATAAs are younger, and so age may be a confounding factor in the analyses. We wouldn’t expect them to have the same burden of atherosclerosis” as older patients.
Nevertheless, he said, “the findings speak to an emerging body of literature suggesting that although the aorta is a single organ, there are certainly different areas, and these would respond quite differently to environmental or genetic or heritable stressors. This isn’t surprising, and there probably are a lot of factors involved.”
Overall, he said, the findings underscore “the precision medicine approaches we need to take with patients with aortic diseases.”
In a commentary on the team’s review article, published in 2022, John G.T. Augoustides, MD, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggested that ATAA’s “silver lining” could advance the understanding of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) management, be integrated with the expanding horizons in hereditary thoracic aortic disease, and might be explored in the context of bicuspid aortic valve disease.
Highlighting the “relative absence” of atherosclerosis in ascending aortic aneurysms and its importance is a “milestone in our understanding,” he concluded. “It is likely that future advances in TAAs will be significantly influenced by this observation.”
Dr. Elefteriades, Dr. Mukherjee, and Dr. Black have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Often known as a “silent killer,” ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms (ATAAs) may grow asymptomatically until they rupture, at which point, mortality is over 90%.
But and by extension, for those who have one, a significantly reduced risk for coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction (MI).
“We noticed in the operating room that many patients we worked on who had an ATAA had pristine arteries, like a teenager’s,” said John Elefteriades, MD, William W.L. Glenn Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and former chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. “The same was true of the femoral artery, which we use to hook up to the heart-lung machine.”
Elefteriades and colleagues have been investigating the implications of this association for more than two decades. Many of their studies are highlighted in a recent review of the evidence supporting the protective relationship between ATAAs and the development of atherosclerosis and the possible mechanisms driving the relationship.
“We see four different layers of protection,” said Sandip Mukherjee, MD, medical director of the Aortic Institute at Yale New Haven Hospital and a senior editor of the journal AORTA. Mukherjee collaborated with Elefteriades on many of the studies.
The first layer of protection is lower intima-media thickness, specifically, 0.131 mm lower than in individuals without an ATAA. “It may not seem like very much, but one point can actually translate into a 13%-15% decline in the rate of myocardial infarction or stroke,” Dr. Mukherjee said.
The second layer is lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Lower LDL cholesterol levels (75 mg/dL) were associated with increased odds of ATAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.21), whereas elevated levels (150 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL) were associated with decreased odds of ATAAs (OR, 0.62 and 0.29, respectively).
Lower calcification scores for the coronary arteries are the third layer of protection (6.73 vs 9.36 in one study).
The fourth protective layer is a significantly reduced prevalence of coronary artery disease. A study of individuals with ATAA compared to controls found 61 of those with ATAA had coronary artery disease vs 140 of controls, and 11 vs 83 had experienced an MI. Of note, patients with ATAAs were protected despite having higher body mass indices than controls.
Other MI risk factors such as age increased the risk even among those with an ATAA but, again, much less so than among controls; a multivariable binary logistic regression of data in the team’s review showed that patients with ATAAs were 298, 250, and 232 times less likely to have an MI than if they had a family history of MI, dyslipidemia, or hypertension, respectively.
Why the Protection?
The ligamentum arteriosum separates the ascending from the descending (thoracoabdominal) aorta. ATAAs, located above the ligamentum, tend to be pro-aneurysmal but anti-atherosclerotic. In the descending aorta, below the ligamentum, atherosclerotic aneurysms develop.
The differences between the two sections of the aorta originate in the germ layer in the embryo, Dr. Elefteriades said. “The fundamental difference in tissue of origin translates into marked differences in the character of aneurysms in the different aortic segments.”
What specifically underlies the reduced cardiovascular risk? “We don’t really know, but we think that there may be two possible etiologies,” Dr. Mukherjee said. One hypothesis involves transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), which is overexpressed in patients with ATAA and seems to increase their vulnerability to aneurysms while also conferring protection from coronary disease risk.
Some studies have shown differences in cellular responses to TGF-beta between the thoracic and abdominal aorta, including collagen production and contractility. Others have shown that some patients who have had an MI have polymorphisms that decrease their levels of TGF-beta.
Furthermore, TGF-beta plays a key role in the development of the intimal layer, which could underpin the lack of intimal thickening in patients with ATAA.
But overall, studies have been mixed and challenging to interpret, Dr. Elefteriades and Dr. Mukherjee agreed. TGF-beta has multiple remodeling roles in the body, and it is difficult at this point to isolate its exact role in aortic disease.
Another hypothesis involves matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are dysregulated in patients with ATAA and may confer some protection, Mukherjee said. Several studies have shown higher plasma levels of certain MMPs in patients with ATAAs. MMPs also were found to be elevated in the thoracic aortic walls of patients with ATAA who had an aortic dissection, as well as in the aortic smooth muscle cells in the intima and media.
In addition, some studies have shown increased levels of MMP-2 in the aortas of patients with ATAAs compared with patients with coronary artery disease.
Adding to the mix of possibilities, “We recently found a gene that’s dysregulated in our aneurysm patients that is very intimately related to atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “But the work is too preliminary to say anything more at this point.”
“It would be fabulous to prove what it is causing this protection,” Dr. Mukherjee added. “But the truth is we don’t know. These are hypotheses.”
“The most important message from our work is that most clinicians need to dissociate an ATAA from the concept of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “The ascending aorta is not an atherosclerotic phenomenon.”
How to Manage Patients With ATAA
What does the distinct character of ATAAs mean for patient management? “Finding a drug to treat ATAAs — to prevent growth, rupture, or dissection — has been like a search for the Holy Grail,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “Statins are not necessary, as this is a non-atherosclerotic process. Although sporadic studies have reported beneficial effects from beta-blockers or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), this has often been based on ‘soft’ evidence, requiring a combination of outcome measures to achieve significance.”
That said, he noted, “The mainstay, common sense treatment is to keep blood pressure controlled. This is usually achieved by a beta-blocker and an ARB, even if the benefit is not via a direct biologic effect on the aneurysmal degenerative process, but via simple hemodynamics — discouraging rupture by keeping pressure in the aorta low.”
Dr. Mukherjee suggested that these patients should be referred to a specialty aneurysm center where their genes will be evaluated, and then the aneurysm will be followed very closely.
“If the aneurysm is larger than 4.5 cm, we screen the patient every single year, and if they have chest pain, we treat them the same way as we treat other aneurysms,” he said. “As a rule of thumb, if the aneurysm reaches 5 cm, it should come out, although the size at which this should happen may differ between 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm, depending on the patient’s body size.”
As for lifestyle management, Dr. Elefteriades said, “Protection from atherosclerosis and MI won’t go away after the aneurysm is removed. We think it’s in the body’s chemistry. But even though it’s very hard for those patients to have a heart attack, we don’t recommend they eat roast beef every night — although I do think they’d be protected from such lifestyle aberrations.”
For now, he added, “Our team is on a hunt to find a drug to treat ascending disease directly and effectively. We have ongoing laboratory experiments with two drugs undergoing investigation at some level. We hope to embark soon on clinical trials.”
‘A Milestone’
James Hamilton Black III, MD, vice chair of the writing committee for the 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Aortic Disease Guideline and chief of Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, commented on the review and the concept of ATAA’s atherosclerotic protection.
“The association of ascending aortic aneurysms with a lower risk for MI is an interesting one, but it’s probably influenced, at least in part, by the patient population.” That population is at least partially curated since people are coming to an academic center. In addition, Dr. Black noted, “the patients with ATAAs are younger, and so age may be a confounding factor in the analyses. We wouldn’t expect them to have the same burden of atherosclerosis” as older patients.
Nevertheless, he said, “the findings speak to an emerging body of literature suggesting that although the aorta is a single organ, there are certainly different areas, and these would respond quite differently to environmental or genetic or heritable stressors. This isn’t surprising, and there probably are a lot of factors involved.”
Overall, he said, the findings underscore “the precision medicine approaches we need to take with patients with aortic diseases.”
In a commentary on the team’s review article, published in 2022, John G.T. Augoustides, MD, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggested that ATAA’s “silver lining” could advance the understanding of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) management, be integrated with the expanding horizons in hereditary thoracic aortic disease, and might be explored in the context of bicuspid aortic valve disease.
Highlighting the “relative absence” of atherosclerosis in ascending aortic aneurysms and its importance is a “milestone in our understanding,” he concluded. “It is likely that future advances in TAAs will be significantly influenced by this observation.”
Dr. Elefteriades, Dr. Mukherjee, and Dr. Black have no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Debate grows over facility fees as lawmakers urge greater transparency
Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.
There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.
A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.
“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”
Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.
The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.
“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”
AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.
These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.
“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.
Big Battles Ahead
There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.
The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.
AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.
But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.
Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.
And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.
Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”
Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.
A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.
Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.
Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.
In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.
As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes
Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.
In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.
“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”
In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.
In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.
“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.
But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.
The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.
In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.
More Patients Shopping?
It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.
But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.
The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.
“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.
Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.
This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.
“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.
This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.
“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.
There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.
A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.
“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”
Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.
The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.
“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”
AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.
These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.
“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.
Big Battles Ahead
There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.
The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.
AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.
But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.
Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.
And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.
Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”
Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.
A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.
Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.
Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.
In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.
As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes
Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.
In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.
“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”
In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.
In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.
“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.
But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.
The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.
In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.
More Patients Shopping?
It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.
But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.
The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.
“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.
Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.
This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.
“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.
This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.
“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Can the US healthcare system learn something about how to operate from car dealerships? Lawrence Kosinski, MD, MBA, a governing board member of American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), believes so.
There’s growing concern in the United States about the lack of clarity surrounding facility fees, which are intended to cover costs of maintaining medical facilities. Dr. Kosinski thinks that Congress should look into the transparency mandate it created for car prices as a model for how to address this.
A 1958 federal law set the stage for the consumer-friendly breakdown of costs and relevant performance data that anyone who has bought a new vehicle in the United States would recognize.
“You look at that and you know exactly what you are paying for,” Dr. Kosinski told this news organization. “In healthcare, we need something like that.”
Novel solutions like Dr. Kosinski’s will be increasingly necessary, as lawmakers on the state and federal level have begun to set their sights on tackling this issue.
The Biden administration in July expressed concern about an increased use of facility fees for healthcare provided at doctors’ offices, saying these additional costs often surprise consumers. House Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) also raised this issue several times this year, including at a May meeting about pending legislation on price transparency for health services, where she mentioned the case of a man who underwent eye surgery in Maine.
“His bill included three separate facility fees totaling $7800 and professional fees totaling $6200,” Ms. Rodgers said. “Why are three facility fees necessary for 1 hour of surgery in one O.R.?”
AGA’s Dr. Kosinski said facility fees cover the additional costs hospitals and clinics face in providing even routine treatments for some patients. For example, colonoscopy for a patient with a body mass index of 50 would pose special challenges for the anesthesiologist.
These factors need to be considered in setting policies on facility fees, he said. But there is no reason hospitals and other sites of medical care can’t make the information about facility fees easy for patients to find and understand, Dr. Kosinski said.
“I’m struggling to see a reason why we can’t be more transparent,” he said.
Big Battles Ahead
There are two connected battles ahead regarding facility fees: Efforts to restrict these additional charges for many medical services and fights over the need for greater transparency in general about health costs.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is seeking to broadly restrict facility fees through his pending Primary Care and Health Workforce Act (S. 2840). The measure would block hospitals from charging health plans facility fees for many evaluation, management, and telehealth services.
The American Hospital Association (AHA) opposes it. They argue that the current payment approach rightly accounts for the added costs incurred when hospitals treat patients who are more likely to be ill or have chronic conditions than those seen in independent practices.
AHA said hospitals also need to maintain standby capacity for natural and man-made disasters, public health emergencies, and unexpected traumatic events. In September, AHA launched a television ad campaign to oppose any drive toward site-neutral policies. AHA says reducing the extra payments could cause more hospitals to shut their doors.
But there’s persistent interest in site-neutral payment, the term describing when the same reimbursement is given for care regardless of setting. This would lower pay for hospitals.
Among those pressing for change is an umbrella group of medical organizations known as the Alliance for Site Neutral Payment Reform. Its members include the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American College of Physicians, Community Oncology Alliance, and Digestive Health Physicians Association.
And on November 9, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) argued for eventually including a site-neutral Medicare provision to a major healthcare package that the Senate Finance Committee is putting together.
Sen. Hassan is seeking to end what she called the “the practice of charging patients unfair hospital facility fees for care provided in the off-campus outpatient setting, like at a regular doctor’s office.”
Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), told Sen. Hassan they intended to work with her to see if this issue could be addressed in the pending legislative package.
A 2015 budget deal marked the last time Congress took a major step to address the higher cost of services provided in hospital-owned facilities.
Lawmakers then were scrambling to find cuts to offset spending in what became the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act. This law established site-neutral payments under Medicare for services received at off-campus outpatient departments but exempted hospitals that already ran these kinds of operations or had advanced plans to create them.
Lawmakers are well aware of the potential savings from site-neutral policies and could look in time again to use them as part of a future budget deal.
In fact, in June, Sen. Hassan and Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced a bill meant to basically end the exemption given in the 2015 deal to existing hospital outpatient departments, which has allowed higher Medicare payments. In a press release, Braun estimated that their proposed site-neutral change could save taxpayers $40 billion over a decade.
As Debate Continues, States Are Moving Ahead With Changes
Consumer activists have won a few battles this year at the state level about facility fees.
In July, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, signed a law that requires medical organizations to report facility fees to the state, which will share them publicly. Facility fees can pop up after a patient has received an insurance company estimate of the out-of-pocket costs for care.
“Patients receive bills bloated by healthcare providers that overcharge for services and insurance companies that deny claims without explanation,” the Portland Press Herald reported in a 2022 story. “And with little clout to fight back or even negotiate, feeling helpless, they often give up and pay, worn down by a system that is as time-consuming as it is obtuse.”
In May, Colorado enacted a law that will require patient notification about facility fees at many hospitals in the state.
In June, Connecticut expanded its law regarding facility fees and prohibited them for certain routine outpatient healthcare services. A statement from Gov. Ned Lamont’s office said the original intent of these facility fees was to ensure hospitals could maintain the around-the-clock care needed for inpatient and emergency care.
“However, these fees have been increasingly applied to services such as diagnostic testing and other routine services,” the statement said.
But there have been setbacks as well for those seeking to curb facilities.
The Texas Hospital Association (THA) in May said its advocacy defeated a pair of state bills, House bill 1692 and Senate bill 1275, that sought to limit facility fees for outpatient services.
In rallying opposition to these bills, THA said the loss of facility fees would threaten care for patients. Facility fees help cover costs “beyond the doctor’s bill,” such as “lab technicians, interpreters, medical records, security personnel, janitorial staff, and others,” THA said.
More Patients Shopping?
It’s unclear when — or if — Congress and other states will take major steps to reduce additional payments to hospitals for outpatient care.
But the increased use of high deductibles in health plans is driving more consumers to try to understand all of the costs of medical procedures ahead of time and, thus, drawing attention to facility fees, said Charlie Byrge, the chief operating officer of MDsave.
The average annual deductible levels for an individual increased by 3.0% to $2004 from 2020 to 2021 and for a family plan by 3.9% to $3868, according to a federal report. Some people have higher deductibles, exceeding $5000, Mr. Byrge said.
“That’s creating an opportunity for firms that can connect physicians directly with patients who will pay part or all of the costs of a treatment out of pocket,” he told this news organization.
Doctors and hospitals work with MDsave to charge preset prices for certain services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms. Consumers then can shop online to see if they can save. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, where MDsave is based, the cost of a colonoscopy through MDsave is $2334, about half of the $4714 national average, according to the firm’s website.
This model for pricing routine medical care is akin to those used for other products and services, where companies decide ahead of time what to charge, he said.
“You don’t buy an airline ticket from Southwest or United or Delta and then there’s a bill after the fact because the price of gas went up a little bit on your flight,” Mr. Byrge said.
This will drive more competition among hospitals and clinics, in places where there are several sites of care in a region, Mr. Byrge said. But there are advantages for physicians and hospitals from the MDsave approach, he said.
“They know they’re getting paid upfront. They’re not going through the delays and headaches of the insurance reimbursement process. There are no denials. It’s just an upfront payment, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see the market really moving toward,” he said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.