Cardiology News

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

After catching COVID-19 for the second time in July 2022, Daniel Lewis suffered persistent headaches, chest pain, and a dangerously high heart rate. He recalls that he was also so exhausted packing for a family wedding that he had to take a break to rest each time he put something into his suitcase.

Instead of attending the wedding, the 30-year-old Washington data analyst visited his doctor, who diagnosed “some postviral thing” and prescribed rest. Mr. Lewis found a new doctor, went to a long COVID clinic, and saw multiple specialists, but a year later, he’s still sick – and disabled. He meets the federal criteria for long COVID (symptoms that last more than 4 weeks).

He now uses an electric wheelchair whenever he leaves his apartment, a far cry from his pre-COVID life, when he was training for a half marathon.

“Some doctors have genuinely tried to help,” he said. “Most don’t really know what long COVID is, and ... since there’s no official guidance on what to do with long COVID patients, they just throw up their hands and say there’s nothing to do.”

That could be changing – at least the part about official guidance. New findings published in JAMA indicate we’re getting closer to unraveling what long COVID is all about and may help refine how it is defined and diagnosed. The study identified the 37 most common symptoms of long COVID, an important step toward better understanding and treatment of the condition, which affects an estimated 65 million people worldwide.

Although the study provides a way to systematically identify the condition, the authors were clear that this is significant but that it is only a first step. Naming symptoms is very different from understanding what causes them, and understanding them is critical for developing effective treatments, said pulmonologist Bruce Levy, MD, a study coauthor who is interim chair of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Researchers relied on self-reported symptoms from the 9,764 participants, all adults who are part of the ongoing Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) Initiative, a longitudinal study run by the National Institutes of Health. Some patients had long COVID when they signed up for the study, some developed it afterward, and some had never had it, or if they had, they were unaware.

Other studies, most of them involving smaller groups of patients, have examined long COVID biomarkers, risk factors, and specific symptoms. Dr. Levy said it’s important to have a symptom-based definition of long COVID that draws from a large cohort of patients who reported on their experiences with symptoms during the aftermath of infection. However, he pointed out that because participants volunteered for the study and were not chosen on the basis of specific criteria, they may not be representative of the more general population of patients with long COVID.

“We need this kind of evidence – it’s important to have self-reported symptoms, because clearly, the patients know what they’re feeling,” Dr. Levy said. “But it’s only part of the picture.”

Dr. Levy said the definition of long COVID needs to be further refined by ongoing research, including objective assessments of clinical findings, laboratory testing, imaging, and biomarkers.

One of the notable findings in the JAMA study is that certain symptoms tend to occur in clusters. The biostatisticians and analysts who processed the data identified four subgroups of very common symptoms that appeared together in more than 80% of the long COVID patients: loss of or change in smell and taste; postexertional malaise and fatigue; brain fog, postexertional malaise, and fatigue; and fatigue, postexertional malaise, dizziness, brain fog, gastrointestinal issues, and palpitations.

Many of those symptoms are also associated with underlying conditions not related to long COVID, which makes an accurate diagnosis a challenge.

“Just the fact that they would cluster into four groups suggests that underlying all this is not just one unifying pathobiology,” Dr. Levy said. He stressed that clinicians need to understand what’s causing the symptoms before they can properly treat patients.

He pointed out that two of the possible disease-driving mechanisms are persistence of the virus and prolonged inflammation that is slow to resolve. For patients experiencing inflammation after the virus is gone, an anti-inflammatory therapy would be most appropriate.

But if they have persistent virus, “you would want to treat with an antiviral antibiotic and not quiet down the body’s antiviral inflammatory response,” he said. “How you treat the two potential underlying causes of long COVID could thus be almost diametrically opposed, so that’s part of the importance of figuring out what is the underlying cause of those symptoms, not just identifying the symptoms themselves.”

More studies are needed to determine whether long COVID is a syndrome or is related to a singular pathobiology, experts said.

That’s consistent with the impression of long COVID researcher Harlan Krumholz, MD, the Harold H. Hines Jr. professor of medicine (cardiology) at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Krumholz worries that some clinicians might use the JAMA findings to dismiss patients whose symptoms meet the criteria in the scoring system developed for the study.

“It’s important for people who read this paper to know that this is preliminary,” said Dr. Krumholz, a principal investigator of another patient-focused study designed to understand long COVID – the Yale Listen to Immune, Symptom, and Treatment Experiences Now (LISTEN) Study. “It’s a condition we don’t understand yet.”

Dr. Krumholz said he has lost track of the number of patients he knows who, like Daniel Lewis, are ill and are unable to get answers. “There is an intense sense of inadequacy on the clinical side and the research side,” he said. “Every day people ask me, ‘Are there any evidence-based strategies?’ And so far I have to say, every day, ‘No.’ I hate to say it, but it’s kind of like every patient is on their own. They’re trying different things because they can’t wait. There is an imperative to help them.”

At the end of July, the National Institutes of Health launched phase 2 clinical trials to evaluate at least four new treatments for long COVID, all part of the RECOVER initiative. By then, Mr. Lewis, who believes his myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome was triggered by the virus, had made plans to try an alternative, experimental therapy.

“My hope is that it will fix me,” he said. “I’m excited about those kinds of hard-hitting infusion, immunological treatment.”

As for the JAMA study, he didn’t allow himself to get excited when it was released, a function of his experience as a data analyst and long COVID patient.

“I don’t think it moves the needle much yet,” he said. “It’s the first study, and we shouldn’t expect much from the first pieces of data to come out of that. If they keep following that cohort and go deeper and deeper, they’re going to find some interesting stuff that will lead to treatments.”

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

The latest clinical practice guideline for managing patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) takes an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to care and includes key updates on revascularization, beta-blocker use, and routine functional and anatomic testing.

Developed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and other specialty societies, the 2023 guideline both updates and consolidates ACC/AHA guidelines previously published in 2012 and 2014 for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

It was published online in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

Among the key recommendations were the following.

• Long-term beta-blocker therapy is no longer recommended for improving outcomes for patients with CCD in the absence of myocardial infarction within the past year, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than or equal to 50%, or another primary indication for beta-blocker therapy. Either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker is recommended as first-line antianginal therapy.
• Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are recommended for select groups of patients with CCD, including individuals without diabetes, to improve outcomes.
• Statins remain first-line therapy for lipid lowering for patients with CCD. Several adjunctive therapies, such as ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, or bempedoic acid, may be used in select populations, although clinical outcomes data are not yet available for novel agents such as inclisiran and bempedoic acid.
• Shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are safe and effective in many circumstances, particularly when the risk of bleeding is high and the ischemic risk is not high.
• The use of nonprescription or dietary supplements, including fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids or vitamins, is not recommended for patients with CCD, given the lack of benefit in reducing cardiovascular events.
• Revascularization is recommended in two scenarios: (1) for patients with lifestyle-limiting angina despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with coronary stenoses amenable to revascularization, with the goal of improving symptoms; and (2) for patients with significant left main disease or multivessel disease with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), for whom coronary artery bypass grafting plus medical therapy is recommended over medical therapy alone, with the goal of improving survival.
• Routine periodic anatomic or ischemic testing in the absence of a change in clinical or functional status is not recommended for risk stratification or to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients with CCD.
• Nondrug therapies, including healthy dietary habits and exercise, are recommended for all patients with CCD. When possible, patients should participate in regular physical activity, including activities to reduce sitting time and to increase aerobic and resistance exercise.
• Cardiac rehabilitation for eligible patients provides significant cardiovascular benefits, including decreased morbidity and mortality.
• Electronic cigarettes increase the odds of successful smoking cessation, but they are not recommended as first-line therapy, owing to the lack of long-term safety data and risks associated with sustained use.

Living document

The co-authors of a related editorial note that “CCD as defined in the 2023 guideline includes patients who may or may not have classic signs and symptoms of CAD.

“The 2023 guideline reflects this heterogeneity by including patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization, those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, stable angina or equivalent with or without a positive imaging test, vasospasm or microvascular disease, and positive noninvasive screening test leading to a clinician diagnosis of CAD,” write Sunil V. Rao, MD, with NYU Langone Health System, and co-authors.

“The focus of the guideline is on extending life and improving quality of life for CCD patients, taking into account patient priorities and the importance of equitable care. There is emphasis on shared decision-making that involves the patient’s preferences and values when considering treatment options,” they point out.

“Importantly, the guidelines exist to provide guidance and are meant to complement, not supplant, clinical judgment. As the evidence for the management of CCD continues to evolve, the guidelines will need to be a ‘living document’ to ensure that clinicians and patients can achieve their shared therapeutic goals of reducing mortality and improving quality of life,” they add.

The 2023 guideline on management of patients with CCD was developed in collaboration with and was endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, the National Lipid Association, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. It has been endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

The latest clinical practice guideline for managing patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) takes an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to care and includes key updates on revascularization, beta-blocker use, and routine functional and anatomic testing.

Developed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and other specialty societies, the 2023 guideline both updates and consolidates ACC/AHA guidelines previously published in 2012 and 2014 for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

It was published online in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

Among the key recommendations were the following.

• Long-term beta-blocker therapy is no longer recommended for improving outcomes for patients with CCD in the absence of myocardial infarction within the past year, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than or equal to 50%, or another primary indication for beta-blocker therapy. Either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker is recommended as first-line antianginal therapy.
• Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are recommended for select groups of patients with CCD, including individuals without diabetes, to improve outcomes.
• Statins remain first-line therapy for lipid lowering for patients with CCD. Several adjunctive therapies, such as ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, or bempedoic acid, may be used in select populations, although clinical outcomes data are not yet available for novel agents such as inclisiran and bempedoic acid.
• Shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are safe and effective in many circumstances, particularly when the risk of bleeding is high and the ischemic risk is not high.
• The use of nonprescription or dietary supplements, including fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids or vitamins, is not recommended for patients with CCD, given the lack of benefit in reducing cardiovascular events.
• Revascularization is recommended in two scenarios: (1) for patients with lifestyle-limiting angina despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with coronary stenoses amenable to revascularization, with the goal of improving symptoms; and (2) for patients with significant left main disease or multivessel disease with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), for whom coronary artery bypass grafting plus medical therapy is recommended over medical therapy alone, with the goal of improving survival.
• Routine periodic anatomic or ischemic testing in the absence of a change in clinical or functional status is not recommended for risk stratification or to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients with CCD.
• Nondrug therapies, including healthy dietary habits and exercise, are recommended for all patients with CCD. When possible, patients should participate in regular physical activity, including activities to reduce sitting time and to increase aerobic and resistance exercise.
• Cardiac rehabilitation for eligible patients provides significant cardiovascular benefits, including decreased morbidity and mortality.
• Electronic cigarettes increase the odds of successful smoking cessation, but they are not recommended as first-line therapy, owing to the lack of long-term safety data and risks associated with sustained use.

Living document

The co-authors of a related editorial note that “CCD as defined in the 2023 guideline includes patients who may or may not have classic signs and symptoms of CAD.

“The 2023 guideline reflects this heterogeneity by including patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization, those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, stable angina or equivalent with or without a positive imaging test, vasospasm or microvascular disease, and positive noninvasive screening test leading to a clinician diagnosis of CAD,” write Sunil V. Rao, MD, with NYU Langone Health System, and co-authors.

“The focus of the guideline is on extending life and improving quality of life for CCD patients, taking into account patient priorities and the importance of equitable care. There is emphasis on shared decision-making that involves the patient’s preferences and values when considering treatment options,” they point out.

“Importantly, the guidelines exist to provide guidance and are meant to complement, not supplant, clinical judgment. As the evidence for the management of CCD continues to evolve, the guidelines will need to be a ‘living document’ to ensure that clinicians and patients can achieve their shared therapeutic goals of reducing mortality and improving quality of life,” they add.

The 2023 guideline on management of patients with CCD was developed in collaboration with and was endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, the National Lipid Association, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. It has been endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

The latest clinical practice guideline for managing patients with chronic coronary disease (CCD) takes an evidence-based and patient-centered approach to care and includes key updates on revascularization, beta-blocker use, and routine functional and anatomic testing.

Developed by the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and other specialty societies, the 2023 guideline both updates and consolidates ACC/AHA guidelines previously published in 2012 and 2014 for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.

It was published online in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology .

Among the key recommendations were the following.

• Long-term beta-blocker therapy is no longer recommended for improving outcomes for patients with CCD in the absence of myocardial infarction within the past year, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than or equal to 50%, or another primary indication for beta-blocker therapy. Either a calcium channel blocker or a beta-blocker is recommended as first-line antianginal therapy.
• Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are recommended for select groups of patients with CCD, including individuals without diabetes, to improve outcomes.
• Statins remain first-line therapy for lipid lowering for patients with CCD. Several adjunctive therapies, such as ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, inclisiran, or bempedoic acid, may be used in select populations, although clinical outcomes data are not yet available for novel agents such as inclisiran and bempedoic acid.
• Shorter durations of dual antiplatelet therapy are safe and effective in many circumstances, particularly when the risk of bleeding is high and the ischemic risk is not high.
• The use of nonprescription or dietary supplements, including fish oil and omega-3 fatty acids or vitamins, is not recommended for patients with CCD, given the lack of benefit in reducing cardiovascular events.
• Revascularization is recommended in two scenarios: (1) for patients with lifestyle-limiting angina despite guideline-directed medical therapy and with coronary stenoses amenable to revascularization, with the goal of improving symptoms; and (2) for patients with significant left main disease or multivessel disease with severe LV dysfunction (LVEF ≤ 35%), for whom coronary artery bypass grafting plus medical therapy is recommended over medical therapy alone, with the goal of improving survival.
• Routine periodic anatomic or ischemic testing in the absence of a change in clinical or functional status is not recommended for risk stratification or to guide therapeutic decision-making for patients with CCD.
• Nondrug therapies, including healthy dietary habits and exercise, are recommended for all patients with CCD. When possible, patients should participate in regular physical activity, including activities to reduce sitting time and to increase aerobic and resistance exercise.
• Cardiac rehabilitation for eligible patients provides significant cardiovascular benefits, including decreased morbidity and mortality.
• Electronic cigarettes increase the odds of successful smoking cessation, but they are not recommended as first-line therapy, owing to the lack of long-term safety data and risks associated with sustained use.

Living document

The co-authors of a related editorial note that “CCD as defined in the 2023 guideline includes patients who may or may not have classic signs and symptoms of CAD.

“The 2023 guideline reflects this heterogeneity by including patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome hospitalization, those with ischemic cardiomyopathy, stable angina or equivalent with or without a positive imaging test, vasospasm or microvascular disease, and positive noninvasive screening test leading to a clinician diagnosis of CAD,” write Sunil V. Rao, MD, with NYU Langone Health System, and co-authors.

“The focus of the guideline is on extending life and improving quality of life for CCD patients, taking into account patient priorities and the importance of equitable care. There is emphasis on shared decision-making that involves the patient’s preferences and values when considering treatment options,” they point out.

“Importantly, the guidelines exist to provide guidance and are meant to complement, not supplant, clinical judgment. As the evidence for the management of CCD continues to evolve, the guidelines will need to be a ‘living document’ to ensure that clinicians and patients can achieve their shared therapeutic goals of reducing mortality and improving quality of life,” they add.

The 2023 guideline on management of patients with CCD was developed in collaboration with and was endorsed by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, the National Lipid Association, and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. It has been endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Questions about omega-3 fatty acid supplements come up often in the atrial fibrillation (AFib) clinic.

The story begins with the simple observation that populations who eat lots of oily fish have fewer coronary events. This correlation provoked great interest in concentrating fish oils in pill form and studying their use to promote health.

A small post hoc study from a group in Norway stimulated me to review what we do and don’t know about fish pills, as I call them in clinic.
 

OMENI secondary analysis

Peder Myhre, MD, and colleagues recently published a secondary analysis of the OMENI trial looking at both the risk and possible causes of AFib in the omega-3 group.

The OMENI trial randomly assigned slightly more than 1,000 older patients (mean age, 75 years) post–myocardial infarction to either 1.8 g/d of fish oil supplements versus placebo for 2 years. The supplements comprised 930 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 660 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The main trial reported no difference in a composite primary endpoint of MI, revascularization, stroke, death, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The secondary analysis explored the 75% of patients in the main trial who had no history of AFib. It looked at how many in each group developed either true clinical AFib or what the authors called micro-AFib, defined as short bursts of irregular atrial activity lasting seconds.

The sub-analysis had three main findings: Patients in the supplement arm had a 90% higher rate of AFib or micro-AFib, compared with patients on placebo, EPA had the strongest effect on the association, and there was a graded risk for AFib with increasing serum EPA levels.  

The authors raised the possibility that more micro-AFib might be a possible mediator of AFib risk.
 

Trials of low-dose EPA and DHA

First, the low-dose trials. In the ASCEND trial from 2018, more than 15,000 patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to either 1 g of omega-3 fatty acids (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) or mineral oil.

The trial was neutral. After 7.4 years, the primary endpoint of MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death occurred in 8.9% of the supplement group versus 9.2% of the placebo arm.The incidence of AFib was higher in the omega-3 group but did not reach statistical significance (2.1% vs. 1.7% for placebo; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.54).

Another neutral CV trial, VITAL, specifically studied the effects of marine omega-3 pills (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) in older adults without heart disease, cancer, or AFib. After slightly more than 5 years, AFib occurred at a similar rate in the active arm and placebo arms (3.7% vs. 3.4% for placebo; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19)
 

Trials of very high-dose marine omega-3s

Next came trials of higher doses in higher-risk populations.

In 2020, JAMA published the STRENGTH trial, which compared 4 g/d of a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA with a corn oil placebo in more than 13,000 patients who either had established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or were at high risk for ASCVD.

The trial was terminated early because of futility and a signal of increased AFib risk in the supplement arm.

Nearly the same number of patients in the supplement versus placebo arm experienced a primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events: 12.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.

AFib was a tertiary endpoint in this trial. An increase in investigator-reported new-onset AFib was observed in the omega-3 group: 2.2% vs. 1.3% for corn oil (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.29-2.21; nominal P < .001).

The REDUCE-IT trial randomly assigned more than 8,000 patients who had ASCVD or diabetes and high ASCVD risk and elevated triglyceride levels to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily, a concentrated form of EPA, or a mineral oil placebo.

After nearly 5 years, there was a 4.8% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint of CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unstable angina with icosapent ethyl. An increase in atherogenic biomarkers in the mineral oil placebo complicated interpretation of this trial.

Hospitalization for AFib or flutter occurred in 3.1% of the active arm versus 2.1% of the mineral oil group (P = .004).
 

Meta-analysis of marine omega-3 supplement trials

In 2021, Baris Gencer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of these five trials plus 2 more (GISSI-HF and RP) looking specifically at risk for AFib. Their final analysis included more than 81,000 patients followed for nearly 5 years.

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements associated with a 25% increase in the risk for AFib (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46P =.013). Exploring further, they noted a dose-dependent relationship. Most of the increased risk occurred in trials that tested greater than 1 g/d.
 

Summary

When faced with surprise findings, I like to think things through.

First about plausibility. Omega-3 fatty acids clearly exert electrophysiologic effects on cardiac cells, an increase in AFib risk is plausible. The exact underlying mechanism may be unknown, but exact mechanisms are less important than actual clinical effects (see sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors).

What about causality? Factors supporting causality include plausibility, consistency of increased AFib risk in multiple studies, and a dose-response relationship.

I see multiple clinical implications of this observation.

The first is the power of the randomized trial to inform practice. If we relied only on observational evidence, we might have assumed that since high fish consumption in populations associated with lower rates of cardiac events, fish oil supplementation would also reduce cardiac events. Other than the outlier trial, REDUCE-IT, with its mineral oil placebo, the preponderance of the randomized controlled trial evidence does not support fish oils for the reduction of CV events.

Randomized controlled trials also exposed the AFib risk. This would have been difficult to sort out in nonrandom observational studies.

Another underappreciated lesson is the notion that drugs, including supplements, can have off-target effects.

Consider the case of statin drugs. It is widely assumed that statins reduce cardiac events by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Yet, statins became a mainstay not because of LDL-C lowering but because multiple trials found that this class of drugs reduced cardiac events without increasing adverse effects.

Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglyceride levels, but this is not enough to adopt the use of these pills. The lack of consistent reduction in CV events and the off-target signal of AFib risk argue against routine use of fish-oil pills.

I will close with uncertainty. Though there is plausibility and multiple reasons to infer causality of marine omega-3s in increasing AFib risk, the effect size remains unknown.

In an editorial accompanying the recent meta-analysis, epidemiologist Michelle Samuel, MPH, PhD, and electrophysiologist Stanley Nattel, MD, cautioned readers on a technical but important point. It concerns the matter of competing risks, such as death, in the analysis of AFib risk, meaning that patients who died may have developed AFib had they lived. They provide a detailed explanation in the open access article, but the take-home is that the exact effect size is difficult to quantify without patient-level original data.

No matter. I find the signal of increased AFib risk an important one to use at the bedside.

Intermittent AFib has an unpredictable natural history. It often resolves as mysteriously as it arises. When patients take fish-oil supplements, I cite these studies, note the lack of CV protection, then I recommend stopping the pills.

This allows for one of the most important interventions in AFib care: time.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist with Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Questions about omega-3 fatty acid supplements come up often in the atrial fibrillation (AFib) clinic.

The story begins with the simple observation that populations who eat lots of oily fish have fewer coronary events. This correlation provoked great interest in concentrating fish oils in pill form and studying their use to promote health.

A small post hoc study from a group in Norway stimulated me to review what we do and don’t know about fish pills, as I call them in clinic.
 

OMENI secondary analysis

Peder Myhre, MD, and colleagues recently published a secondary analysis of the OMENI trial looking at both the risk and possible causes of AFib in the omega-3 group.

The OMENI trial randomly assigned slightly more than 1,000 older patients (mean age, 75 years) post–myocardial infarction to either 1.8 g/d of fish oil supplements versus placebo for 2 years. The supplements comprised 930 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 660 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The main trial reported no difference in a composite primary endpoint of MI, revascularization, stroke, death, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The secondary analysis explored the 75% of patients in the main trial who had no history of AFib. It looked at how many in each group developed either true clinical AFib or what the authors called micro-AFib, defined as short bursts of irregular atrial activity lasting seconds.

The sub-analysis had three main findings: Patients in the supplement arm had a 90% higher rate of AFib or micro-AFib, compared with patients on placebo, EPA had the strongest effect on the association, and there was a graded risk for AFib with increasing serum EPA levels.  

The authors raised the possibility that more micro-AFib might be a possible mediator of AFib risk.
 

Trials of low-dose EPA and DHA

First, the low-dose trials. In the ASCEND trial from 2018, more than 15,000 patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to either 1 g of omega-3 fatty acids (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) or mineral oil.

The trial was neutral. After 7.4 years, the primary endpoint of MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death occurred in 8.9% of the supplement group versus 9.2% of the placebo arm.The incidence of AFib was higher in the omega-3 group but did not reach statistical significance (2.1% vs. 1.7% for placebo; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.54).

Another neutral CV trial, VITAL, specifically studied the effects of marine omega-3 pills (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) in older adults without heart disease, cancer, or AFib. After slightly more than 5 years, AFib occurred at a similar rate in the active arm and placebo arms (3.7% vs. 3.4% for placebo; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19)
 

Trials of very high-dose marine omega-3s

Next came trials of higher doses in higher-risk populations.

In 2020, JAMA published the STRENGTH trial, which compared 4 g/d of a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA with a corn oil placebo in more than 13,000 patients who either had established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or were at high risk for ASCVD.

The trial was terminated early because of futility and a signal of increased AFib risk in the supplement arm.

Nearly the same number of patients in the supplement versus placebo arm experienced a primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events: 12.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.

AFib was a tertiary endpoint in this trial. An increase in investigator-reported new-onset AFib was observed in the omega-3 group: 2.2% vs. 1.3% for corn oil (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.29-2.21; nominal P < .001).

The REDUCE-IT trial randomly assigned more than 8,000 patients who had ASCVD or diabetes and high ASCVD risk and elevated triglyceride levels to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily, a concentrated form of EPA, or a mineral oil placebo.

After nearly 5 years, there was a 4.8% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint of CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unstable angina with icosapent ethyl. An increase in atherogenic biomarkers in the mineral oil placebo complicated interpretation of this trial.

Hospitalization for AFib or flutter occurred in 3.1% of the active arm versus 2.1% of the mineral oil group (P = .004).
 

Meta-analysis of marine omega-3 supplement trials

In 2021, Baris Gencer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of these five trials plus 2 more (GISSI-HF and RP) looking specifically at risk for AFib. Their final analysis included more than 81,000 patients followed for nearly 5 years.

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements associated with a 25% increase in the risk for AFib (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46P =.013). Exploring further, they noted a dose-dependent relationship. Most of the increased risk occurred in trials that tested greater than 1 g/d.
 

Summary

When faced with surprise findings, I like to think things through.

First about plausibility. Omega-3 fatty acids clearly exert electrophysiologic effects on cardiac cells, an increase in AFib risk is plausible. The exact underlying mechanism may be unknown, but exact mechanisms are less important than actual clinical effects (see sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors).

What about causality? Factors supporting causality include plausibility, consistency of increased AFib risk in multiple studies, and a dose-response relationship.

I see multiple clinical implications of this observation.

The first is the power of the randomized trial to inform practice. If we relied only on observational evidence, we might have assumed that since high fish consumption in populations associated with lower rates of cardiac events, fish oil supplementation would also reduce cardiac events. Other than the outlier trial, REDUCE-IT, with its mineral oil placebo, the preponderance of the randomized controlled trial evidence does not support fish oils for the reduction of CV events.

Randomized controlled trials also exposed the AFib risk. This would have been difficult to sort out in nonrandom observational studies.

Another underappreciated lesson is the notion that drugs, including supplements, can have off-target effects.

Consider the case of statin drugs. It is widely assumed that statins reduce cardiac events by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Yet, statins became a mainstay not because of LDL-C lowering but because multiple trials found that this class of drugs reduced cardiac events without increasing adverse effects.

Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglyceride levels, but this is not enough to adopt the use of these pills. The lack of consistent reduction in CV events and the off-target signal of AFib risk argue against routine use of fish-oil pills.

I will close with uncertainty. Though there is plausibility and multiple reasons to infer causality of marine omega-3s in increasing AFib risk, the effect size remains unknown.

In an editorial accompanying the recent meta-analysis, epidemiologist Michelle Samuel, MPH, PhD, and electrophysiologist Stanley Nattel, MD, cautioned readers on a technical but important point. It concerns the matter of competing risks, such as death, in the analysis of AFib risk, meaning that patients who died may have developed AFib had they lived. They provide a detailed explanation in the open access article, but the take-home is that the exact effect size is difficult to quantify without patient-level original data.

No matter. I find the signal of increased AFib risk an important one to use at the bedside.

Intermittent AFib has an unpredictable natural history. It often resolves as mysteriously as it arises. When patients take fish-oil supplements, I cite these studies, note the lack of CV protection, then I recommend stopping the pills.

This allows for one of the most important interventions in AFib care: time.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist with Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Questions about omega-3 fatty acid supplements come up often in the atrial fibrillation (AFib) clinic.

The story begins with the simple observation that populations who eat lots of oily fish have fewer coronary events. This correlation provoked great interest in concentrating fish oils in pill form and studying their use to promote health.

A small post hoc study from a group in Norway stimulated me to review what we do and don’t know about fish pills, as I call them in clinic.
 

OMENI secondary analysis

Peder Myhre, MD, and colleagues recently published a secondary analysis of the OMENI trial looking at both the risk and possible causes of AFib in the omega-3 group.

The OMENI trial randomly assigned slightly more than 1,000 older patients (mean age, 75 years) post–myocardial infarction to either 1.8 g/d of fish oil supplements versus placebo for 2 years. The supplements comprised 930 mg of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and 660 mg of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). The main trial reported no difference in a composite primary endpoint of MI, revascularization, stroke, death, or hospitalization for heart failure.

The secondary analysis explored the 75% of patients in the main trial who had no history of AFib. It looked at how many in each group developed either true clinical AFib or what the authors called micro-AFib, defined as short bursts of irregular atrial activity lasting seconds.

The sub-analysis had three main findings: Patients in the supplement arm had a 90% higher rate of AFib or micro-AFib, compared with patients on placebo, EPA had the strongest effect on the association, and there was a graded risk for AFib with increasing serum EPA levels.  

The authors raised the possibility that more micro-AFib might be a possible mediator of AFib risk.
 

Trials of low-dose EPA and DHA

First, the low-dose trials. In the ASCEND trial from 2018, more than 15,000 patients with diabetes were randomly assigned to either 1 g of omega-3 fatty acids (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) or mineral oil.

The trial was neutral. After 7.4 years, the primary endpoint of MI, stroke, transient ischemic attack, or cardiovascular death occurred in 8.9% of the supplement group versus 9.2% of the placebo arm.The incidence of AFib was higher in the omega-3 group but did not reach statistical significance (2.1% vs. 1.7% for placebo; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.54).

Another neutral CV trial, VITAL, specifically studied the effects of marine omega-3 pills (460-mg EPA and 380-mg DHA) in older adults without heart disease, cancer, or AFib. After slightly more than 5 years, AFib occurred at a similar rate in the active arm and placebo arms (3.7% vs. 3.4% for placebo; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.96-1.24; P = .19)
 

Trials of very high-dose marine omega-3s

Next came trials of higher doses in higher-risk populations.

In 2020, JAMA published the STRENGTH trial, which compared 4 g/d of a carboxylic acid formulation of EPA and DHA with a corn oil placebo in more than 13,000 patients who either had established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or were at high risk for ASCVD.

The trial was terminated early because of futility and a signal of increased AFib risk in the supplement arm.

Nearly the same number of patients in the supplement versus placebo arm experienced a primary composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events: 12.0% versus 12.2%, respectively.

AFib was a tertiary endpoint in this trial. An increase in investigator-reported new-onset AFib was observed in the omega-3 group: 2.2% vs. 1.3% for corn oil (HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.29-2.21; nominal P < .001).

The REDUCE-IT trial randomly assigned more than 8,000 patients who had ASCVD or diabetes and high ASCVD risk and elevated triglyceride levels to either 4 g of icosapent ethyl daily, a concentrated form of EPA, or a mineral oil placebo.

After nearly 5 years, there was a 4.8% absolute risk reduction in the primary endpoint of CV death, MI, stroke, revascularization, or unstable angina with icosapent ethyl. An increase in atherogenic biomarkers in the mineral oil placebo complicated interpretation of this trial.

Hospitalization for AFib or flutter occurred in 3.1% of the active arm versus 2.1% of the mineral oil group (P = .004).
 

Meta-analysis of marine omega-3 supplement trials

In 2021, Baris Gencer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of these five trials plus 2 more (GISSI-HF and RP) looking specifically at risk for AFib. Their final analysis included more than 81,000 patients followed for nearly 5 years.

Omega 3 fatty acid supplements associated with a 25% increase in the risk for AFib (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.07-1.46P =.013). Exploring further, they noted a dose-dependent relationship. Most of the increased risk occurred in trials that tested greater than 1 g/d.
 

Summary

When faced with surprise findings, I like to think things through.

First about plausibility. Omega-3 fatty acids clearly exert electrophysiologic effects on cardiac cells, an increase in AFib risk is plausible. The exact underlying mechanism may be unknown, but exact mechanisms are less important than actual clinical effects (see sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors).

What about causality? Factors supporting causality include plausibility, consistency of increased AFib risk in multiple studies, and a dose-response relationship.

I see multiple clinical implications of this observation.

The first is the power of the randomized trial to inform practice. If we relied only on observational evidence, we might have assumed that since high fish consumption in populations associated with lower rates of cardiac events, fish oil supplementation would also reduce cardiac events. Other than the outlier trial, REDUCE-IT, with its mineral oil placebo, the preponderance of the randomized controlled trial evidence does not support fish oils for the reduction of CV events.

Randomized controlled trials also exposed the AFib risk. This would have been difficult to sort out in nonrandom observational studies.

Another underappreciated lesson is the notion that drugs, including supplements, can have off-target effects.

Consider the case of statin drugs. It is widely assumed that statins reduce cardiac events by lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Yet, statins became a mainstay not because of LDL-C lowering but because multiple trials found that this class of drugs reduced cardiac events without increasing adverse effects.

Omega-3 fatty acids reduce triglyceride levels, but this is not enough to adopt the use of these pills. The lack of consistent reduction in CV events and the off-target signal of AFib risk argue against routine use of fish-oil pills.

I will close with uncertainty. Though there is plausibility and multiple reasons to infer causality of marine omega-3s in increasing AFib risk, the effect size remains unknown.

In an editorial accompanying the recent meta-analysis, epidemiologist Michelle Samuel, MPH, PhD, and electrophysiologist Stanley Nattel, MD, cautioned readers on a technical but important point. It concerns the matter of competing risks, such as death, in the analysis of AFib risk, meaning that patients who died may have developed AFib had they lived. They provide a detailed explanation in the open access article, but the take-home is that the exact effect size is difficult to quantify without patient-level original data.

No matter. I find the signal of increased AFib risk an important one to use at the bedside.

Intermittent AFib has an unpredictable natural history. It often resolves as mysteriously as it arises. When patients take fish-oil supplements, I cite these studies, note the lack of CV protection, then I recommend stopping the pills.

This allows for one of the most important interventions in AFib care: time.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist with Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use current health and desire for pregnancy to guide contraception discussions in primary care, according to authors of an updated report.

In an installment of the American College of Physicians’ In the Clinic series, Rachel Cannon, MD, Kelly Treder, MD, and Elisabeth J. Woodhams, MD, all of Boston Medical Center, presented an article on the complex topic of contraception for patients with chronic illness.

“Many patients with chronic illness or complex medical issues interact with a primary care provider on a frequent basis, which provides a great access point for contraceptive counseling with a provider they trust and know,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder in a joint interview. “We wanted to create a ‘go to’ resource for primary care physicians to review contraceptive options and counseling best practices for all of their patients. Contraceptive care is part of overall health care and should be included in the primary care encounter.”

The authors discussed the types of contraception, as well as risks and benefits, and offered guidance for choosing a contraceptive method for medically complex patients.

“In recent years, there has been a shift in contraceptive counseling toward shared decision-making, a counseling strategy that honors the patient as the expert in their body and their life experiences and emphasizes their autonomy and values,” the authors said. “For providers, this translates to understanding that contraceptive efficacy is not the only important characteristic to patients, and that many other important factors contribute to an individual’s decision to use a particular method or not use birth control at all,” they said.
 

Start the conversation

Start by assessing a patient’s interest in and readiness for pregnancy, if applicable, the authors said. One example of a screen, the PATH questionnaire (Parent/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How important), is designed for patients in any demographic, and includes questions about the timing and desire for pregnancy and feelings about birth control, as well as options for patients to express uncertainty or ambivalence about pregnancy and contraception.

Some patients may derive benefits from hormonal contraceptives beyond pregnancy prevention, the authors wrote. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) may improve menorrhagia, and data suggest that CHC use also may reduce risk for some cancer types, including endometrial and ovarian cancers, they said.

Overall, contraceptive counseling should include discussions of safety, efficacy, and the patient’s lived experience.
 

Clinical considerations and contraindications

Medically complex patients who desire contraception may consider hormonal or nonhormonal methods based on their preferences and medical conditions, but clinicians need to consider comorbidities and contraindications, the authors wrote.

When a woman of childbearing age with any complex medical issue starts a new medication or receives a new diagnosis, contraception and pregnancy planning should be part of the discussion, the authors said. Safe and successful pregnancies are possible for women with complex medical issues when underlying health concerns are identified and addressed in advance, they added. Alternatively, for patients seeking to avoid pregnancy permanently, options for sterilization can be part of an informed discussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use offers clinicians detailed information about the risks of both contraceptives and pregnancy for patients with various medical conditions, according to the authors.

The CDC document lists medical conditions associated with an increased risk for adverse health events if the individual becomes pregnant. These conditions include breast cancer, complicated valvular heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, endometrial or ovarian cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, bariatric surgery within 2 years of the pregnancy, HIV, ischemic heart disease, severe cirrhosis, stroke, lupus, solid organ transplant within 2 years of the pregnancy, and tuberculosis. Women with these and other conditions associated with increased risk of adverse events if pregnancy occurs should be advised of the high failure rate of barrier and behavior-based contraceptive methods, and informed about options for long-acting contraceptives, according to the CDC.
 

Risks, benefits, and balance

“It is important to remember that the alternative to contraception for many patients is pregnancy – for many patients with complex medical conditions, pregnancy is far more dangerous than any contraceptive method,” Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder said in an interview. “This is important to consider when thinking about relative contraindications to a certain method or when thinking about ‘less effective’ contraception methods. The most effective method is a method the patient will actually continue to use,” they said.

The recent approval of the over-the-counter minipill is “a huge win for reproductive health care,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder. The minipill has very few contraindications, and it is the most effective over-the-counter contraceptive now available, they said.

“An over-the-counter contraceptive pill can increase access to contraception without having to see a physician in the clinic, freeing patients from many of the challenges of navigating the health care system,” the authors added.

As for additional research, the establishment of a long-term safety record may help support other OTC contraceptive methods in the future, the authors said.
 

Contraceptive counseling is everyone’s specialty

In an accompanying editorial, Amy A. Sarma, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, shared an example of the importance of contraceptive discussions with medically complex patients outside of an ob.gyn. setting. A young woman with a family history of myocardial infarction had neglected her own primary care until an MI of her own sent her to the hospital. While hospitalized, the patient was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

“Her cardiology care team made every effort to optimize her cardiac care, but no one considered that she was also a woman of childbearing potential despite the teratogenic potential of several of her prescribed medications,” Dr. Sarma wrote. When the patient visited Dr. Sarma to discuss prevention of future MIs, Dr. Sarma took the opportunity to discuss the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy and the risks for this patient not only because of her recent MI, but also because of her chronic health conditions.

As it happened, the woman did not want a high-risk pregnancy and was interested in contraceptive methods. Dr. Sarma pointed out that, had the woman been engaged in routine primary care, these issues would have arisen in that setting, but like many younger women with cardiovascular disease, she did not make her own primary care a priority, and had missed out on other opportunities to discuss contraception. “Her MI opened a window of opportunity to help prevent an unintended and high-risk pregnancy,” Dr. Sarma noted.

Dr. Sarma’s patient anecdote illustrated the point of the In the Clinic review: that any clinician can discuss pregnancy and contraception with patients of childbearing age who have medical comorbidities that could affect a pregnancy. “All clinicians who care for patients of reproductive potential should become comfortable discussing pregnancy intent, preconception risk assessment, and contraceptive counseling,” Dr. Sarma said.

The research for this article was funded by the American College of Physicians. The review authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sarma had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use current health and desire for pregnancy to guide contraception discussions in primary care, according to authors of an updated report.

In an installment of the American College of Physicians’ In the Clinic series, Rachel Cannon, MD, Kelly Treder, MD, and Elisabeth J. Woodhams, MD, all of Boston Medical Center, presented an article on the complex topic of contraception for patients with chronic illness.

“Many patients with chronic illness or complex medical issues interact with a primary care provider on a frequent basis, which provides a great access point for contraceptive counseling with a provider they trust and know,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder in a joint interview. “We wanted to create a ‘go to’ resource for primary care physicians to review contraceptive options and counseling best practices for all of their patients. Contraceptive care is part of overall health care and should be included in the primary care encounter.”

The authors discussed the types of contraception, as well as risks and benefits, and offered guidance for choosing a contraceptive method for medically complex patients.

“In recent years, there has been a shift in contraceptive counseling toward shared decision-making, a counseling strategy that honors the patient as the expert in their body and their life experiences and emphasizes their autonomy and values,” the authors said. “For providers, this translates to understanding that contraceptive efficacy is not the only important characteristic to patients, and that many other important factors contribute to an individual’s decision to use a particular method or not use birth control at all,” they said.
 

Start the conversation

Start by assessing a patient’s interest in and readiness for pregnancy, if applicable, the authors said. One example of a screen, the PATH questionnaire (Parent/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How important), is designed for patients in any demographic, and includes questions about the timing and desire for pregnancy and feelings about birth control, as well as options for patients to express uncertainty or ambivalence about pregnancy and contraception.

Some patients may derive benefits from hormonal contraceptives beyond pregnancy prevention, the authors wrote. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) may improve menorrhagia, and data suggest that CHC use also may reduce risk for some cancer types, including endometrial and ovarian cancers, they said.

Overall, contraceptive counseling should include discussions of safety, efficacy, and the patient’s lived experience.
 

Clinical considerations and contraindications

Medically complex patients who desire contraception may consider hormonal or nonhormonal methods based on their preferences and medical conditions, but clinicians need to consider comorbidities and contraindications, the authors wrote.

When a woman of childbearing age with any complex medical issue starts a new medication or receives a new diagnosis, contraception and pregnancy planning should be part of the discussion, the authors said. Safe and successful pregnancies are possible for women with complex medical issues when underlying health concerns are identified and addressed in advance, they added. Alternatively, for patients seeking to avoid pregnancy permanently, options for sterilization can be part of an informed discussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use offers clinicians detailed information about the risks of both contraceptives and pregnancy for patients with various medical conditions, according to the authors.

The CDC document lists medical conditions associated with an increased risk for adverse health events if the individual becomes pregnant. These conditions include breast cancer, complicated valvular heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, endometrial or ovarian cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, bariatric surgery within 2 years of the pregnancy, HIV, ischemic heart disease, severe cirrhosis, stroke, lupus, solid organ transplant within 2 years of the pregnancy, and tuberculosis. Women with these and other conditions associated with increased risk of adverse events if pregnancy occurs should be advised of the high failure rate of barrier and behavior-based contraceptive methods, and informed about options for long-acting contraceptives, according to the CDC.
 

Risks, benefits, and balance

“It is important to remember that the alternative to contraception for many patients is pregnancy – for many patients with complex medical conditions, pregnancy is far more dangerous than any contraceptive method,” Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder said in an interview. “This is important to consider when thinking about relative contraindications to a certain method or when thinking about ‘less effective’ contraception methods. The most effective method is a method the patient will actually continue to use,” they said.

The recent approval of the over-the-counter minipill is “a huge win for reproductive health care,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder. The minipill has very few contraindications, and it is the most effective over-the-counter contraceptive now available, they said.

“An over-the-counter contraceptive pill can increase access to contraception without having to see a physician in the clinic, freeing patients from many of the challenges of navigating the health care system,” the authors added.

As for additional research, the establishment of a long-term safety record may help support other OTC contraceptive methods in the future, the authors said.
 

Contraceptive counseling is everyone’s specialty

In an accompanying editorial, Amy A. Sarma, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, shared an example of the importance of contraceptive discussions with medically complex patients outside of an ob.gyn. setting. A young woman with a family history of myocardial infarction had neglected her own primary care until an MI of her own sent her to the hospital. While hospitalized, the patient was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

“Her cardiology care team made every effort to optimize her cardiac care, but no one considered that she was also a woman of childbearing potential despite the teratogenic potential of several of her prescribed medications,” Dr. Sarma wrote. When the patient visited Dr. Sarma to discuss prevention of future MIs, Dr. Sarma took the opportunity to discuss the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy and the risks for this patient not only because of her recent MI, but also because of her chronic health conditions.

As it happened, the woman did not want a high-risk pregnancy and was interested in contraceptive methods. Dr. Sarma pointed out that, had the woman been engaged in routine primary care, these issues would have arisen in that setting, but like many younger women with cardiovascular disease, she did not make her own primary care a priority, and had missed out on other opportunities to discuss contraception. “Her MI opened a window of opportunity to help prevent an unintended and high-risk pregnancy,” Dr. Sarma noted.

Dr. Sarma’s patient anecdote illustrated the point of the In the Clinic review: that any clinician can discuss pregnancy and contraception with patients of childbearing age who have medical comorbidities that could affect a pregnancy. “All clinicians who care for patients of reproductive potential should become comfortable discussing pregnancy intent, preconception risk assessment, and contraceptive counseling,” Dr. Sarma said.

The research for this article was funded by the American College of Physicians. The review authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sarma had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use current health and desire for pregnancy to guide contraception discussions in primary care, according to authors of an updated report.

In an installment of the American College of Physicians’ In the Clinic series, Rachel Cannon, MD, Kelly Treder, MD, and Elisabeth J. Woodhams, MD, all of Boston Medical Center, presented an article on the complex topic of contraception for patients with chronic illness.

“Many patients with chronic illness or complex medical issues interact with a primary care provider on a frequent basis, which provides a great access point for contraceptive counseling with a provider they trust and know,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder in a joint interview. “We wanted to create a ‘go to’ resource for primary care physicians to review contraceptive options and counseling best practices for all of their patients. Contraceptive care is part of overall health care and should be included in the primary care encounter.”

The authors discussed the types of contraception, as well as risks and benefits, and offered guidance for choosing a contraceptive method for medically complex patients.

“In recent years, there has been a shift in contraceptive counseling toward shared decision-making, a counseling strategy that honors the patient as the expert in their body and their life experiences and emphasizes their autonomy and values,” the authors said. “For providers, this translates to understanding that contraceptive efficacy is not the only important characteristic to patients, and that many other important factors contribute to an individual’s decision to use a particular method or not use birth control at all,” they said.
 

Start the conversation

Start by assessing a patient’s interest in and readiness for pregnancy, if applicable, the authors said. One example of a screen, the PATH questionnaire (Parent/Pregnancy Attitudes, Timing, and How important), is designed for patients in any demographic, and includes questions about the timing and desire for pregnancy and feelings about birth control, as well as options for patients to express uncertainty or ambivalence about pregnancy and contraception.

Some patients may derive benefits from hormonal contraceptives beyond pregnancy prevention, the authors wrote. Combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) may improve menorrhagia, and data suggest that CHC use also may reduce risk for some cancer types, including endometrial and ovarian cancers, they said.

Overall, contraceptive counseling should include discussions of safety, efficacy, and the patient’s lived experience.
 

Clinical considerations and contraindications

Medically complex patients who desire contraception may consider hormonal or nonhormonal methods based on their preferences and medical conditions, but clinicians need to consider comorbidities and contraindications, the authors wrote.

When a woman of childbearing age with any complex medical issue starts a new medication or receives a new diagnosis, contraception and pregnancy planning should be part of the discussion, the authors said. Safe and successful pregnancies are possible for women with complex medical issues when underlying health concerns are identified and addressed in advance, they added. Alternatively, for patients seeking to avoid pregnancy permanently, options for sterilization can be part of an informed discussion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use offers clinicians detailed information about the risks of both contraceptives and pregnancy for patients with various medical conditions, according to the authors.

The CDC document lists medical conditions associated with an increased risk for adverse health events if the individual becomes pregnant. These conditions include breast cancer, complicated valvular heart disease, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, endometrial or ovarian cancer, epilepsy, hypertension, bariatric surgery within 2 years of the pregnancy, HIV, ischemic heart disease, severe cirrhosis, stroke, lupus, solid organ transplant within 2 years of the pregnancy, and tuberculosis. Women with these and other conditions associated with increased risk of adverse events if pregnancy occurs should be advised of the high failure rate of barrier and behavior-based contraceptive methods, and informed about options for long-acting contraceptives, according to the CDC.
 

Risks, benefits, and balance

“It is important to remember that the alternative to contraception for many patients is pregnancy – for many patients with complex medical conditions, pregnancy is far more dangerous than any contraceptive method,” Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder said in an interview. “This is important to consider when thinking about relative contraindications to a certain method or when thinking about ‘less effective’ contraception methods. The most effective method is a method the patient will actually continue to use,” they said.

The recent approval of the over-the-counter minipill is “a huge win for reproductive health care,” said Dr. Cannon and Dr. Treder. The minipill has very few contraindications, and it is the most effective over-the-counter contraceptive now available, they said.

“An over-the-counter contraceptive pill can increase access to contraception without having to see a physician in the clinic, freeing patients from many of the challenges of navigating the health care system,” the authors added.

As for additional research, the establishment of a long-term safety record may help support other OTC contraceptive methods in the future, the authors said.
 

Contraceptive counseling is everyone’s specialty

In an accompanying editorial, Amy A. Sarma, MD, a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, shared an example of the importance of contraceptive discussions with medically complex patients outside of an ob.gyn. setting. A young woman with a family history of myocardial infarction had neglected her own primary care until an MI of her own sent her to the hospital. While hospitalized, the patient was diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

“Her cardiology care team made every effort to optimize her cardiac care, but no one considered that she was also a woman of childbearing potential despite the teratogenic potential of several of her prescribed medications,” Dr. Sarma wrote. When the patient visited Dr. Sarma to discuss prevention of future MIs, Dr. Sarma took the opportunity to discuss the cardiovascular risks of pregnancy and the risks for this patient not only because of her recent MI, but also because of her chronic health conditions.

As it happened, the woman did not want a high-risk pregnancy and was interested in contraceptive methods. Dr. Sarma pointed out that, had the woman been engaged in routine primary care, these issues would have arisen in that setting, but like many younger women with cardiovascular disease, she did not make her own primary care a priority, and had missed out on other opportunities to discuss contraception. “Her MI opened a window of opportunity to help prevent an unintended and high-risk pregnancy,” Dr. Sarma noted.

Dr. Sarma’s patient anecdote illustrated the point of the In the Clinic review: that any clinician can discuss pregnancy and contraception with patients of childbearing age who have medical comorbidities that could affect a pregnancy. “All clinicians who care for patients of reproductive potential should become comfortable discussing pregnancy intent, preconception risk assessment, and contraceptive counseling,” Dr. Sarma said.

The research for this article was funded by the American College of Physicians. The review authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Sarma had no financial conflicts to disclose.

FRANCE – Did you know that, long before anyone else, Leonardo da Vinci called into question Galen’s description of how the heart works?

This is just one of the many interesting tidbits featured in “Leonardo da Vinci and Anatomy, the Mechanics of Life,” an exhibition that runs until Sept. 17 at the Château du Clos Lucé – a home once owned by da Vinci – in Amboise, France.

In his book about this exhibition, Jean-Jacques Monsuez, MD, a cardiologist at Paris’ René-Muret Hospital, noted, “For a long time, very few people knew about Leonardo’s observations on the cardiovascular system’s anatomy or his rather physiological analysis of its hemodynamics. Had this not been the case, his work would, very likely, have had a significant influence on the subsequent development of knowledge about the cardiovascular system.”
 

A visionary view

In the second century AD, Galen put forth the following novel theory: The liver transforms food into blood. The blood is carried through veins to the various organs and is sent to the right ventricle through ebb and flow and to the left ventricle through intraventricular pores [which, we now know, do not exist].

In the left ventricle, the blood mixes with air – “pneuma” – from the lungs and is transformed into vital spirits. Clear blood, enriched with vital heat, is then carried by the arteries to peripheral tissues.

This erroneous explanation of how blood circulates went unchallenged for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And then along came Leonardo, anatomy pioneer and experimenter extraordinaire. Around 1513, after looking more closely at the heart chambers and the aortic valve, he arrived at the belief that, contrary to Galen’s theory, blood flow starts in the heart, not the liver.

“The heart in itself is not the origin of life, but [simply] a vessel made of dense muscle vivified and nourished by an artery and a vein, as are other muscles.”

He arrived at this insight through his in-depth dissections and studies of pig, ox, and human hearts.

A vast number of folios came about, all dedicated to the functioning of the heart. Taking his lead from Galen and Avicenna, Leonardo started off by drawing two atria and two ventricles along with Galen’s intraventricular pores.

But he quickly moved in a different direction when it came to the question of what enables the heart to produce vital spirits from blood flow.

On a double sheet showing several views of an ox heart, he drew all the components – this time with the aortic valve both open and closed.

“The accuracy of the description of the aortic valve is impressive, considering that, in a normal subject, its surface is on the order of 3 cm²,” Monsuez noted.

But Leonardo went even further, explaining the sequence of the opening and closing of the valve. To complete his demonstration, he even used a model from one of his experiments. He took some water with a suspension of grass seeds and pumped it through a glass tube that had a bulge representing the aortic sinuses. He tracked the resultant flow and eddies that mimic the hemodynamics enabling the valve to open and close.

“Recently, Professor Choudhury’s team at Oxford took Leonardo’s sketch illustrating this ingenious description and superimposed it on the 4D-MRI image of systolic flow vortices. They confirmed that Leonardo was accurate,” Monsuez reported.

But Leonardo’s ideas about the heart didn’t stop there. The polymath also provided a description of cardiac contraction. This was based on observations he had made by watching the movement of spiles that had been driven into the hearts of pigs at a slaughterhouse. He made an ancillary diagram confirming his interpretation. “N, the firm muscle is pulled back, and it’s the first cause of the heart’s movement, for, thus pulled, it lengthens, and lengthening, it shortens.”

Leonardo was the first to explain the role of the atria. “The atria are the antechambers that receive the blood from the heart when it escapes from its ventricle from the beginning until the end of the pressure.”

In addition, he showed, for the first time, the round crown-like appearance of the heart’s vasculature. “The heart has its surface divided into three parts by three veins which descend from its base, of which veins two terminate the extremities of the right ventricle and have two arteries in contact below them […] the surface space of the heart enclosed within its arteries occupies half the surface circle of the thickness of the heart […].”

Finally, Leonardo was the first to give a description and sketch of a bicuspid aortic valve, as can be seen on a 500-year-old plate in the Royal Collection Trust.
 

Wealth of knowledge

Because Leonardo’s discoveries about the cardiovascular system remained in the shadows, they did not factor into the thinking of physicians and surgeons during his lifetime or in the years that followed.

That is, until 1773, when Scottish anatomist Dr. William Hunter found out that the collection of King Charles II of England contained folios on the human body – folios that were made by Leonardo da Vinci.

The world would have to wait until the 19th century for a complete facsimile edition of the collection kept at Windsor Castle.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Did you know that, long before anyone else, Leonardo da Vinci called into question Galen’s description of how the heart works?

This is just one of the many interesting tidbits featured in “Leonardo da Vinci and Anatomy, the Mechanics of Life,” an exhibition that runs until Sept. 17 at the Château du Clos Lucé – a home once owned by da Vinci – in Amboise, France.

In his book about this exhibition, Jean-Jacques Monsuez, MD, a cardiologist at Paris’ René-Muret Hospital, noted, “For a long time, very few people knew about Leonardo’s observations on the cardiovascular system’s anatomy or his rather physiological analysis of its hemodynamics. Had this not been the case, his work would, very likely, have had a significant influence on the subsequent development of knowledge about the cardiovascular system.”
 

A visionary view

In the second century AD, Galen put forth the following novel theory: The liver transforms food into blood. The blood is carried through veins to the various organs and is sent to the right ventricle through ebb and flow and to the left ventricle through intraventricular pores [which, we now know, do not exist].

In the left ventricle, the blood mixes with air – “pneuma” – from the lungs and is transformed into vital spirits. Clear blood, enriched with vital heat, is then carried by the arteries to peripheral tissues.

This erroneous explanation of how blood circulates went unchallenged for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And then along came Leonardo, anatomy pioneer and experimenter extraordinaire. Around 1513, after looking more closely at the heart chambers and the aortic valve, he arrived at the belief that, contrary to Galen’s theory, blood flow starts in the heart, not the liver.

“The heart in itself is not the origin of life, but [simply] a vessel made of dense muscle vivified and nourished by an artery and a vein, as are other muscles.”

He arrived at this insight through his in-depth dissections and studies of pig, ox, and human hearts.

A vast number of folios came about, all dedicated to the functioning of the heart. Taking his lead from Galen and Avicenna, Leonardo started off by drawing two atria and two ventricles along with Galen’s intraventricular pores.

But he quickly moved in a different direction when it came to the question of what enables the heart to produce vital spirits from blood flow.

On a double sheet showing several views of an ox heart, he drew all the components – this time with the aortic valve both open and closed.

“The accuracy of the description of the aortic valve is impressive, considering that, in a normal subject, its surface is on the order of 3 cm²,” Monsuez noted.

But Leonardo went even further, explaining the sequence of the opening and closing of the valve. To complete his demonstration, he even used a model from one of his experiments. He took some water with a suspension of grass seeds and pumped it through a glass tube that had a bulge representing the aortic sinuses. He tracked the resultant flow and eddies that mimic the hemodynamics enabling the valve to open and close.

“Recently, Professor Choudhury’s team at Oxford took Leonardo’s sketch illustrating this ingenious description and superimposed it on the 4D-MRI image of systolic flow vortices. They confirmed that Leonardo was accurate,” Monsuez reported.

But Leonardo’s ideas about the heart didn’t stop there. The polymath also provided a description of cardiac contraction. This was based on observations he had made by watching the movement of spiles that had been driven into the hearts of pigs at a slaughterhouse. He made an ancillary diagram confirming his interpretation. “N, the firm muscle is pulled back, and it’s the first cause of the heart’s movement, for, thus pulled, it lengthens, and lengthening, it shortens.”

Leonardo was the first to explain the role of the atria. “The atria are the antechambers that receive the blood from the heart when it escapes from its ventricle from the beginning until the end of the pressure.”

In addition, he showed, for the first time, the round crown-like appearance of the heart’s vasculature. “The heart has its surface divided into three parts by three veins which descend from its base, of which veins two terminate the extremities of the right ventricle and have two arteries in contact below them […] the surface space of the heart enclosed within its arteries occupies half the surface circle of the thickness of the heart […].”

Finally, Leonardo was the first to give a description and sketch of a bicuspid aortic valve, as can be seen on a 500-year-old plate in the Royal Collection Trust.
 

Wealth of knowledge

Because Leonardo’s discoveries about the cardiovascular system remained in the shadows, they did not factor into the thinking of physicians and surgeons during his lifetime or in the years that followed.

That is, until 1773, when Scottish anatomist Dr. William Hunter found out that the collection of King Charles II of England contained folios on the human body – folios that were made by Leonardo da Vinci.

The world would have to wait until the 19th century for a complete facsimile edition of the collection kept at Windsor Castle.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Did you know that, long before anyone else, Leonardo da Vinci called into question Galen’s description of how the heart works?

This is just one of the many interesting tidbits featured in “Leonardo da Vinci and Anatomy, the Mechanics of Life,” an exhibition that runs until Sept. 17 at the Château du Clos Lucé – a home once owned by da Vinci – in Amboise, France.

In his book about this exhibition, Jean-Jacques Monsuez, MD, a cardiologist at Paris’ René-Muret Hospital, noted, “For a long time, very few people knew about Leonardo’s observations on the cardiovascular system’s anatomy or his rather physiological analysis of its hemodynamics. Had this not been the case, his work would, very likely, have had a significant influence on the subsequent development of knowledge about the cardiovascular system.”
 

A visionary view

In the second century AD, Galen put forth the following novel theory: The liver transforms food into blood. The blood is carried through veins to the various organs and is sent to the right ventricle through ebb and flow and to the left ventricle through intraventricular pores [which, we now know, do not exist].

In the left ventricle, the blood mixes with air – “pneuma” – from the lungs and is transformed into vital spirits. Clear blood, enriched with vital heat, is then carried by the arteries to peripheral tissues.

This erroneous explanation of how blood circulates went unchallenged for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And then along came Leonardo, anatomy pioneer and experimenter extraordinaire. Around 1513, after looking more closely at the heart chambers and the aortic valve, he arrived at the belief that, contrary to Galen’s theory, blood flow starts in the heart, not the liver.

“The heart in itself is not the origin of life, but [simply] a vessel made of dense muscle vivified and nourished by an artery and a vein, as are other muscles.”

He arrived at this insight through his in-depth dissections and studies of pig, ox, and human hearts.

A vast number of folios came about, all dedicated to the functioning of the heart. Taking his lead from Galen and Avicenna, Leonardo started off by drawing two atria and two ventricles along with Galen’s intraventricular pores.

But he quickly moved in a different direction when it came to the question of what enables the heart to produce vital spirits from blood flow.

On a double sheet showing several views of an ox heart, he drew all the components – this time with the aortic valve both open and closed.

“The accuracy of the description of the aortic valve is impressive, considering that, in a normal subject, its surface is on the order of 3 cm²,” Monsuez noted.

But Leonardo went even further, explaining the sequence of the opening and closing of the valve. To complete his demonstration, he even used a model from one of his experiments. He took some water with a suspension of grass seeds and pumped it through a glass tube that had a bulge representing the aortic sinuses. He tracked the resultant flow and eddies that mimic the hemodynamics enabling the valve to open and close.

“Recently, Professor Choudhury’s team at Oxford took Leonardo’s sketch illustrating this ingenious description and superimposed it on the 4D-MRI image of systolic flow vortices. They confirmed that Leonardo was accurate,” Monsuez reported.

But Leonardo’s ideas about the heart didn’t stop there. The polymath also provided a description of cardiac contraction. This was based on observations he had made by watching the movement of spiles that had been driven into the hearts of pigs at a slaughterhouse. He made an ancillary diagram confirming his interpretation. “N, the firm muscle is pulled back, and it’s the first cause of the heart’s movement, for, thus pulled, it lengthens, and lengthening, it shortens.”

Leonardo was the first to explain the role of the atria. “The atria are the antechambers that receive the blood from the heart when it escapes from its ventricle from the beginning until the end of the pressure.”

In addition, he showed, for the first time, the round crown-like appearance of the heart’s vasculature. “The heart has its surface divided into three parts by three veins which descend from its base, of which veins two terminate the extremities of the right ventricle and have two arteries in contact below them […] the surface space of the heart enclosed within its arteries occupies half the surface circle of the thickness of the heart […].”

Finally, Leonardo was the first to give a description and sketch of a bicuspid aortic valve, as can be seen on a 500-year-old plate in the Royal Collection Trust.
 

Wealth of knowledge

Because Leonardo’s discoveries about the cardiovascular system remained in the shadows, they did not factor into the thinking of physicians and surgeons during his lifetime or in the years that followed.

That is, until 1773, when Scottish anatomist Dr. William Hunter found out that the collection of King Charles II of England contained folios on the human body – folios that were made by Leonardo da Vinci.

The world would have to wait until the 19th century for a complete facsimile edition of the collection kept at Windsor Castle.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Isometric exercise training emerged as the most effective mode to reduce blood pressure in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 270 randomized trials with close to 16,000 participants.

The findings support the development of new exercise guidelines for blood pressure control, the authors said.

Previous research, based on older data that excluded high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and isometric exercise training (IET), led to aerobic exercise training (AET) being recommended for managing blood pressure, according to the authors.

Although AET, HIIT, dynamic resistance training (RT), and combined training (CT) are also effective in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the new analysis suggests that IET does it best.

The analysis showed reductions in blood pressure of 8.24/4 mm Hg after IET, compared with 4.49/2.53 mm Hg after AET; 4.55/3.04 mm Hg after RT; 6.04/2.54 mm Hg after CT; and 4.08/2.50 mm Hg after HIIT.

“These findings mirror our smaller-scale trials, and therefore we anticipated that isometrics would be largely effective,” Jamie O’Driscoll, PhD, of Canterbury (England) Christ Church University, said in an interview. However, “the magnitude of difference between isometrics and some other modes was surprising.”

The study was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

All modes effective

The investigators analyzed data from 270 randomized controlled trials including 15,827 people published between 1990 and February 2023. For consistency, the protocol/intensity of each included paper was screened against the Exercise Prescription in Everyday Practice and Rehabilitative Training tool to be defined and categorized.

All protocols were then stratified as AET, RT, CT, HIIT or IET.

As appropriate, protocols were then further stratified into subgroups: AET included walking, running, and cycling; HIIT included sprint interval training and aerobic interval training; and IET included isometric leg extension and isometric wall squat.

Healthy resting blood pressure was defined as a reading below 130/85 mm Hg, prehypertension as 130-139/85-89 mm Hg, and hypertension as 140/90 mm Hg or higher.

All exercise modes led to statistically significant reductions in systolic BP in normal blood pressure cohorts; however, all reductions were substantially larger in individuals with hypertension.

Pairwise analyses showed significant reductions in resting systolic BP and diastolic BP following AET (−4.49/–2.53 mm Hg); RT (–4.55/–3.04 mm Hg), CT (–6.04/–2.54 mm Hg), HIT (–4.08/–2.50 mm Hg); and IET (–8.24/–4.00 mm Hg).

In the network meta-analysis, the rank order of effectiveness for systolic BP based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were IET (SUCRA: 98.3%), CT (75.7%), RT (46.1%), AET (40.5%), and HIIT (39.4%).

Secondary network meta-analyses showed that isometric wall squat was the most effective submode for reducing systolic BP (90.4%), followed by isometric leg extension, isometric hand grip, cycling, running, CT, sprint interval training, other aerobic, RT, aerobic interval training, and walking.

Running was the most effective submode for lowering diastolic BP (91.3%), followed by isometric wall squat, isometric handgrip, isometric leg extension, cycling, sprint interval training, RT, AIT, other aerobic, CT, and walking.

The authors acknowledged limitations, including variability in exercise interventions, missing data, variable quality of exercise monitoring and analyses, lack of blinding to group allocation, varying participant populations, and publication bias.

Nevertheless, they concluded, “the results of this analysis should inform future exercise guideline recommendations for the prevention and treatment of arterial hypertension.”
 

Guideline changing?

“There are numerous organizations involved in providing and communicating population exercise guidelines,” including World Health Organization, American and European exercise guidelines, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Dr. O’Driscoll said. “We are currently developing an international collaborative project with other world leaders in the area to develop this line of enquiry.”

In addition, the team is exploring the prescription of IET within England’s National Health Service and extending the study to wider clinical populations.

In a comment, John A. Osborne, MD, PhD, founder and director of State of the Heart Cardiology in Southlake, Tex., said: “This study further lends credence that other forms of exercise, beyond the usually recommended aerobic exercise promulgated in prior guidelines, have significant value for blood pressure lowering, and, potentially, may offer even greater benefits for ... controlling hypertension.”

“This study should inform contemporary nonpharmacological approaches to blood pressure management and allows providers more flexibility in different strategies of exercise to combat high blood pressure,” said Dr. Osborne, a volunteer spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

That said, “while this study by itself is extremely provocative, thoughtful, and rigorously performed, it should be used as hypothesis generating and hopefully [will be followed by] head-to-head studies of aerobic exercise versus resistance training to confirm the findings.”

The study received no funding. Dr. O’Driscoll and Dr. Osborne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Isometric exercise training emerged as the most effective mode to reduce blood pressure in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 270 randomized trials with close to 16,000 participants.

The findings support the development of new exercise guidelines for blood pressure control, the authors said.

Previous research, based on older data that excluded high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and isometric exercise training (IET), led to aerobic exercise training (AET) being recommended for managing blood pressure, according to the authors.

Although AET, HIIT, dynamic resistance training (RT), and combined training (CT) are also effective in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the new analysis suggests that IET does it best.

The analysis showed reductions in blood pressure of 8.24/4 mm Hg after IET, compared with 4.49/2.53 mm Hg after AET; 4.55/3.04 mm Hg after RT; 6.04/2.54 mm Hg after CT; and 4.08/2.50 mm Hg after HIIT.

“These findings mirror our smaller-scale trials, and therefore we anticipated that isometrics would be largely effective,” Jamie O’Driscoll, PhD, of Canterbury (England) Christ Church University, said in an interview. However, “the magnitude of difference between isometrics and some other modes was surprising.”

The study was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

All modes effective

The investigators analyzed data from 270 randomized controlled trials including 15,827 people published between 1990 and February 2023. For consistency, the protocol/intensity of each included paper was screened against the Exercise Prescription in Everyday Practice and Rehabilitative Training tool to be defined and categorized.

All protocols were then stratified as AET, RT, CT, HIIT or IET.

As appropriate, protocols were then further stratified into subgroups: AET included walking, running, and cycling; HIIT included sprint interval training and aerobic interval training; and IET included isometric leg extension and isometric wall squat.

Healthy resting blood pressure was defined as a reading below 130/85 mm Hg, prehypertension as 130-139/85-89 mm Hg, and hypertension as 140/90 mm Hg or higher.

All exercise modes led to statistically significant reductions in systolic BP in normal blood pressure cohorts; however, all reductions were substantially larger in individuals with hypertension.

Pairwise analyses showed significant reductions in resting systolic BP and diastolic BP following AET (−4.49/–2.53 mm Hg); RT (–4.55/–3.04 mm Hg), CT (–6.04/–2.54 mm Hg), HIT (–4.08/–2.50 mm Hg); and IET (–8.24/–4.00 mm Hg).

In the network meta-analysis, the rank order of effectiveness for systolic BP based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were IET (SUCRA: 98.3%), CT (75.7%), RT (46.1%), AET (40.5%), and HIIT (39.4%).

Secondary network meta-analyses showed that isometric wall squat was the most effective submode for reducing systolic BP (90.4%), followed by isometric leg extension, isometric hand grip, cycling, running, CT, sprint interval training, other aerobic, RT, aerobic interval training, and walking.

Running was the most effective submode for lowering diastolic BP (91.3%), followed by isometric wall squat, isometric handgrip, isometric leg extension, cycling, sprint interval training, RT, AIT, other aerobic, CT, and walking.

The authors acknowledged limitations, including variability in exercise interventions, missing data, variable quality of exercise monitoring and analyses, lack of blinding to group allocation, varying participant populations, and publication bias.

Nevertheless, they concluded, “the results of this analysis should inform future exercise guideline recommendations for the prevention and treatment of arterial hypertension.”
 

Guideline changing?

“There are numerous organizations involved in providing and communicating population exercise guidelines,” including World Health Organization, American and European exercise guidelines, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Dr. O’Driscoll said. “We are currently developing an international collaborative project with other world leaders in the area to develop this line of enquiry.”

In addition, the team is exploring the prescription of IET within England’s National Health Service and extending the study to wider clinical populations.

In a comment, John A. Osborne, MD, PhD, founder and director of State of the Heart Cardiology in Southlake, Tex., said: “This study further lends credence that other forms of exercise, beyond the usually recommended aerobic exercise promulgated in prior guidelines, have significant value for blood pressure lowering, and, potentially, may offer even greater benefits for ... controlling hypertension.”

“This study should inform contemporary nonpharmacological approaches to blood pressure management and allows providers more flexibility in different strategies of exercise to combat high blood pressure,” said Dr. Osborne, a volunteer spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

That said, “while this study by itself is extremely provocative, thoughtful, and rigorously performed, it should be used as hypothesis generating and hopefully [will be followed by] head-to-head studies of aerobic exercise versus resistance training to confirm the findings.”

The study received no funding. Dr. O’Driscoll and Dr. Osborne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Isometric exercise training emerged as the most effective mode to reduce blood pressure in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 270 randomized trials with close to 16,000 participants.

The findings support the development of new exercise guidelines for blood pressure control, the authors said.

Previous research, based on older data that excluded high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and isometric exercise training (IET), led to aerobic exercise training (AET) being recommended for managing blood pressure, according to the authors.

Although AET, HIIT, dynamic resistance training (RT), and combined training (CT) are also effective in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure, the new analysis suggests that IET does it best.

The analysis showed reductions in blood pressure of 8.24/4 mm Hg after IET, compared with 4.49/2.53 mm Hg after AET; 4.55/3.04 mm Hg after RT; 6.04/2.54 mm Hg after CT; and 4.08/2.50 mm Hg after HIIT.

“These findings mirror our smaller-scale trials, and therefore we anticipated that isometrics would be largely effective,” Jamie O’Driscoll, PhD, of Canterbury (England) Christ Church University, said in an interview. However, “the magnitude of difference between isometrics and some other modes was surprising.”

The study was published online in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
 

All modes effective

The investigators analyzed data from 270 randomized controlled trials including 15,827 people published between 1990 and February 2023. For consistency, the protocol/intensity of each included paper was screened against the Exercise Prescription in Everyday Practice and Rehabilitative Training tool to be defined and categorized.

All protocols were then stratified as AET, RT, CT, HIIT or IET.

As appropriate, protocols were then further stratified into subgroups: AET included walking, running, and cycling; HIIT included sprint interval training and aerobic interval training; and IET included isometric leg extension and isometric wall squat.

Healthy resting blood pressure was defined as a reading below 130/85 mm Hg, prehypertension as 130-139/85-89 mm Hg, and hypertension as 140/90 mm Hg or higher.

All exercise modes led to statistically significant reductions in systolic BP in normal blood pressure cohorts; however, all reductions were substantially larger in individuals with hypertension.

Pairwise analyses showed significant reductions in resting systolic BP and diastolic BP following AET (−4.49/–2.53 mm Hg); RT (–4.55/–3.04 mm Hg), CT (–6.04/–2.54 mm Hg), HIT (–4.08/–2.50 mm Hg); and IET (–8.24/–4.00 mm Hg).

In the network meta-analysis, the rank order of effectiveness for systolic BP based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were IET (SUCRA: 98.3%), CT (75.7%), RT (46.1%), AET (40.5%), and HIIT (39.4%).

Secondary network meta-analyses showed that isometric wall squat was the most effective submode for reducing systolic BP (90.4%), followed by isometric leg extension, isometric hand grip, cycling, running, CT, sprint interval training, other aerobic, RT, aerobic interval training, and walking.

Running was the most effective submode for lowering diastolic BP (91.3%), followed by isometric wall squat, isometric handgrip, isometric leg extension, cycling, sprint interval training, RT, AIT, other aerobic, CT, and walking.

The authors acknowledged limitations, including variability in exercise interventions, missing data, variable quality of exercise monitoring and analyses, lack of blinding to group allocation, varying participant populations, and publication bias.

Nevertheless, they concluded, “the results of this analysis should inform future exercise guideline recommendations for the prevention and treatment of arterial hypertension.”
 

Guideline changing?

“There are numerous organizations involved in providing and communicating population exercise guidelines,” including World Health Organization, American and European exercise guidelines, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Dr. O’Driscoll said. “We are currently developing an international collaborative project with other world leaders in the area to develop this line of enquiry.”

In addition, the team is exploring the prescription of IET within England’s National Health Service and extending the study to wider clinical populations.

In a comment, John A. Osborne, MD, PhD, founder and director of State of the Heart Cardiology in Southlake, Tex., said: “This study further lends credence that other forms of exercise, beyond the usually recommended aerobic exercise promulgated in prior guidelines, have significant value for blood pressure lowering, and, potentially, may offer even greater benefits for ... controlling hypertension.”

“This study should inform contemporary nonpharmacological approaches to blood pressure management and allows providers more flexibility in different strategies of exercise to combat high blood pressure,” said Dr. Osborne, a volunteer spokesperson for the American Heart Association.

That said, “while this study by itself is extremely provocative, thoughtful, and rigorously performed, it should be used as hypothesis generating and hopefully [will be followed by] head-to-head studies of aerobic exercise versus resistance training to confirm the findings.”

The study received no funding. Dr. O’Driscoll and Dr. Osborne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young people diagnosed with a genetic heart disease (GHD) predisposing them to ventricular arrhythmia are at very low risk for a cardiac event while playing video games or other electronic games, provided their condition is properly treated, say researchers based on their large, single-center study.

Among more than 3,000 patients in the study with such a genetic vulnerability, just 6 – or less than 0.2% – experienced an electronic gaming–associated cardiac event.

A previous study had concluded that e-gaming, particularly with war games, might trigger potentially fatal arrhythmias in some vulnerable children. That study “sparked controversy in the field, with both clinicians and patients wondering whether electronic gaming is safe for patients with GHDs,” Michael J. Ackerman, MD, PhD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Dr. Ackerman and colleagues conducted the current study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, to determine just how often e-gaming triggered cardiac events (CE) in these patients – and who was most at risk.
 

‘Extremely low’ risk

The investigators looked at records from all patients evaluated and treated at the Mayo Clinic’s genetic heart rhythm clinic from 2000 to 2022. They identified those with a history of playing electronic games at the time of their CE, defined here as such an event occurring before diagnosis, or breakthrough cardiac event (BCE), meaning an event occurring after diagnosis.

A total of 3,370 patients with a GHD (55% female) were included in the analysis. More than half (52%) were diagnosed with long-QT syndrome (LQTS). The remainder had various GHDs including, among others, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

The mean age at first evaluation was 27; 14% of the participants were age 6 or younger, 33% were age 7-20, and 53% were 21 or older. Most patients in each of the three age groups were diagnosed with either LQTS or CPVT.

Of the 3,370 GHD patients, 1,079 (32%) had a CE before diagnosis.

Six patients (0.5%) had a CE in the setting of e-gaming, including five for whom it was the sentinel CE. Five also had CEs in settings not involving e-gaming. Their average age at the time of the CE was 13.

Three of the six patients were diagnosed with CPVT (including two CPVT1 and one CPVT2). Of the others, one was diagnosed with LQT1, one with ventricular fibrillation triggered by premature ventricular contractions, and one with catecholamine-sensitive right ventricular outflow tract ventricular tachycardia (RVOT-VT).

After appropriate treatment, none of the six experienced a BCE during follow-ups ranging from 7 months to 4 years.

Among the full cohort of 3370 patients with GHD, 431 (13%) experienced one or more BCE during follow-up. Of those, one with catecholamine-sensitive RVOT-VT experienced an e-gaming–associated BCE.

“Although anecdotal e-gaming–associated cardiac events, including [sudden cardiac death], have been reported, the absolute risk is extremely low,” the authors wrote.

“Although there are no clear health benefits associated with e-gaming,” Dr. Ackerman said, “the risk of sudden death should not be used as an argument in an effort to curtail the amount of time patients spend e-gaming.”

Furthermore, he added, e-gaming is important to some patients’ quality of life. If patients are “properly diagnosed, risk stratified, and treated, it is okay to engage in e-gaming.”

However, “given that e-gaming may pose some risks, especially when compounded with additional factors such as dehydration, sleep deprivation, and use of performance-enhancing substances such as energy drinks, patients need to be counseled on the potential adverse health consequences,” Dr. Ackerman said.

“To this end,” he added, “we are proponents of incorporating e-gaming status into the clinical evaluation and electronic health record.”

“We would continue to urge common sense and individual risk assessment, with shared decision-making, for those where this may be an issue,” Claire M. Lawley, MBBS, PhD, Children’s Hospital at Westmead (Australia), said in an interview.

“Additionally, syncope during electronic gaming should prompt medical review,” said Dr. Lawley, lead author of the study that prompted Ackerman and colleagues to investigate the issue further.
 

Buddy system

Maully J. Shah, MBBS, led a study published in 2020 focusing on two case reports of syncope and potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias provoked by emotional surges during play with violent video games. 

Nevertheless, “we do not restrict patients from participating in e-games,” Dr. Shah, a pediatric cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cardiac Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “We inform them about the available data regarding the very rare but possible occurrence of an event from e-gaming so that they can make an informed decision.”

Dr. Shah agreed that, “even in children not known to have a cardiac condition, syncope associated with emotional responses during violent video games should prompt cardiac evaluation, similar to exercise-induced syncope.”

If a patient wishes to play e-games, clinicians should ensure medication compliance and recommend a “buddy” system. “Don’t be alone while playing,” she said.

“The present study and previous reports make one pause to think whether these CEs and catecholaminergic drives can occur with sports only. If we now consider electronic gaming as a potential risk, what other activities need to be included?” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Shankar Baskar, MD, Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center.

“A catecholaminergic drive can occur in many settings with activities of daily living or activities not considered to be competitive,” the editorialists wrote. “Ultimately these events [are] rare, but they can have life-threatening consequences, and at the same time they might not be altogether preventable and, as in electronic gaming, might be an activity that improves quality of life, especially in those who might be restricted from other sports.”

Dr. Ackerman disclosed consulting for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Invitae, Medtronic, Tenaya Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Ackerman and the Mayo Clinic have license agreements with AliveCor, Anumana, ARMGO Pharma, Pfizer, and Thryv Therapeutics. The other coauthors reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Baskar and colleagues reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Shah disclosed she is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

Young people diagnosed with a genetic heart disease (GHD) predisposing them to ventricular arrhythmia are at very low risk for a cardiac event while playing video games or other electronic games, provided their condition is properly treated, say researchers based on their large, single-center study.

Among more than 3,000 patients in the study with such a genetic vulnerability, just 6 – or less than 0.2% – experienced an electronic gaming–associated cardiac event.

A previous study had concluded that e-gaming, particularly with war games, might trigger potentially fatal arrhythmias in some vulnerable children. That study “sparked controversy in the field, with both clinicians and patients wondering whether electronic gaming is safe for patients with GHDs,” Michael J. Ackerman, MD, PhD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Dr. Ackerman and colleagues conducted the current study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, to determine just how often e-gaming triggered cardiac events (CE) in these patients – and who was most at risk.
 

‘Extremely low’ risk

The investigators looked at records from all patients evaluated and treated at the Mayo Clinic’s genetic heart rhythm clinic from 2000 to 2022. They identified those with a history of playing electronic games at the time of their CE, defined here as such an event occurring before diagnosis, or breakthrough cardiac event (BCE), meaning an event occurring after diagnosis.

A total of 3,370 patients with a GHD (55% female) were included in the analysis. More than half (52%) were diagnosed with long-QT syndrome (LQTS). The remainder had various GHDs including, among others, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

The mean age at first evaluation was 27; 14% of the participants were age 6 or younger, 33% were age 7-20, and 53% were 21 or older. Most patients in each of the three age groups were diagnosed with either LQTS or CPVT.

Of the 3,370 GHD patients, 1,079 (32%) had a CE before diagnosis.

Six patients (0.5%) had a CE in the setting of e-gaming, including five for whom it was the sentinel CE. Five also had CEs in settings not involving e-gaming. Their average age at the time of the CE was 13.

Three of the six patients were diagnosed with CPVT (including two CPVT1 and one CPVT2). Of the others, one was diagnosed with LQT1, one with ventricular fibrillation triggered by premature ventricular contractions, and one with catecholamine-sensitive right ventricular outflow tract ventricular tachycardia (RVOT-VT).

After appropriate treatment, none of the six experienced a BCE during follow-ups ranging from 7 months to 4 years.

Among the full cohort of 3370 patients with GHD, 431 (13%) experienced one or more BCE during follow-up. Of those, one with catecholamine-sensitive RVOT-VT experienced an e-gaming–associated BCE.

“Although anecdotal e-gaming–associated cardiac events, including [sudden cardiac death], have been reported, the absolute risk is extremely low,” the authors wrote.

“Although there are no clear health benefits associated with e-gaming,” Dr. Ackerman said, “the risk of sudden death should not be used as an argument in an effort to curtail the amount of time patients spend e-gaming.”

Furthermore, he added, e-gaming is important to some patients’ quality of life. If patients are “properly diagnosed, risk stratified, and treated, it is okay to engage in e-gaming.”

However, “given that e-gaming may pose some risks, especially when compounded with additional factors such as dehydration, sleep deprivation, and use of performance-enhancing substances such as energy drinks, patients need to be counseled on the potential adverse health consequences,” Dr. Ackerman said.

“To this end,” he added, “we are proponents of incorporating e-gaming status into the clinical evaluation and electronic health record.”

“We would continue to urge common sense and individual risk assessment, with shared decision-making, for those where this may be an issue,” Claire M. Lawley, MBBS, PhD, Children’s Hospital at Westmead (Australia), said in an interview.

“Additionally, syncope during electronic gaming should prompt medical review,” said Dr. Lawley, lead author of the study that prompted Ackerman and colleagues to investigate the issue further.
 

Buddy system

Maully J. Shah, MBBS, led a study published in 2020 focusing on two case reports of syncope and potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias provoked by emotional surges during play with violent video games. 

Nevertheless, “we do not restrict patients from participating in e-games,” Dr. Shah, a pediatric cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cardiac Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “We inform them about the available data regarding the very rare but possible occurrence of an event from e-gaming so that they can make an informed decision.”

Dr. Shah agreed that, “even in children not known to have a cardiac condition, syncope associated with emotional responses during violent video games should prompt cardiac evaluation, similar to exercise-induced syncope.”

If a patient wishes to play e-games, clinicians should ensure medication compliance and recommend a “buddy” system. “Don’t be alone while playing,” she said.

“The present study and previous reports make one pause to think whether these CEs and catecholaminergic drives can occur with sports only. If we now consider electronic gaming as a potential risk, what other activities need to be included?” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Shankar Baskar, MD, Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center.

“A catecholaminergic drive can occur in many settings with activities of daily living or activities not considered to be competitive,” the editorialists wrote. “Ultimately these events [are] rare, but they can have life-threatening consequences, and at the same time they might not be altogether preventable and, as in electronic gaming, might be an activity that improves quality of life, especially in those who might be restricted from other sports.”

Dr. Ackerman disclosed consulting for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Invitae, Medtronic, Tenaya Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Ackerman and the Mayo Clinic have license agreements with AliveCor, Anumana, ARMGO Pharma, Pfizer, and Thryv Therapeutics. The other coauthors reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Baskar and colleagues reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Shah disclosed she is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

Young people diagnosed with a genetic heart disease (GHD) predisposing them to ventricular arrhythmia are at very low risk for a cardiac event while playing video games or other electronic games, provided their condition is properly treated, say researchers based on their large, single-center study.

Among more than 3,000 patients in the study with such a genetic vulnerability, just 6 – or less than 0.2% – experienced an electronic gaming–associated cardiac event.

A previous study had concluded that e-gaming, particularly with war games, might trigger potentially fatal arrhythmias in some vulnerable children. That study “sparked controversy in the field, with both clinicians and patients wondering whether electronic gaming is safe for patients with GHDs,” Michael J. Ackerman, MD, PhD, of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said in an interview.

Dr. Ackerman and colleagues conducted the current study, published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, to determine just how often e-gaming triggered cardiac events (CE) in these patients – and who was most at risk.
 

‘Extremely low’ risk

The investigators looked at records from all patients evaluated and treated at the Mayo Clinic’s genetic heart rhythm clinic from 2000 to 2022. They identified those with a history of playing electronic games at the time of their CE, defined here as such an event occurring before diagnosis, or breakthrough cardiac event (BCE), meaning an event occurring after diagnosis.

A total of 3,370 patients with a GHD (55% female) were included in the analysis. More than half (52%) were diagnosed with long-QT syndrome (LQTS). The remainder had various GHDs including, among others, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).

The mean age at first evaluation was 27; 14% of the participants were age 6 or younger, 33% were age 7-20, and 53% were 21 or older. Most patients in each of the three age groups were diagnosed with either LQTS or CPVT.

Of the 3,370 GHD patients, 1,079 (32%) had a CE before diagnosis.

Six patients (0.5%) had a CE in the setting of e-gaming, including five for whom it was the sentinel CE. Five also had CEs in settings not involving e-gaming. Their average age at the time of the CE was 13.

Three of the six patients were diagnosed with CPVT (including two CPVT1 and one CPVT2). Of the others, one was diagnosed with LQT1, one with ventricular fibrillation triggered by premature ventricular contractions, and one with catecholamine-sensitive right ventricular outflow tract ventricular tachycardia (RVOT-VT).

After appropriate treatment, none of the six experienced a BCE during follow-ups ranging from 7 months to 4 years.

Among the full cohort of 3370 patients with GHD, 431 (13%) experienced one or more BCE during follow-up. Of those, one with catecholamine-sensitive RVOT-VT experienced an e-gaming–associated BCE.

“Although anecdotal e-gaming–associated cardiac events, including [sudden cardiac death], have been reported, the absolute risk is extremely low,” the authors wrote.

“Although there are no clear health benefits associated with e-gaming,” Dr. Ackerman said, “the risk of sudden death should not be used as an argument in an effort to curtail the amount of time patients spend e-gaming.”

Furthermore, he added, e-gaming is important to some patients’ quality of life. If patients are “properly diagnosed, risk stratified, and treated, it is okay to engage in e-gaming.”

However, “given that e-gaming may pose some risks, especially when compounded with additional factors such as dehydration, sleep deprivation, and use of performance-enhancing substances such as energy drinks, patients need to be counseled on the potential adverse health consequences,” Dr. Ackerman said.

“To this end,” he added, “we are proponents of incorporating e-gaming status into the clinical evaluation and electronic health record.”

“We would continue to urge common sense and individual risk assessment, with shared decision-making, for those where this may be an issue,” Claire M. Lawley, MBBS, PhD, Children’s Hospital at Westmead (Australia), said in an interview.

“Additionally, syncope during electronic gaming should prompt medical review,” said Dr. Lawley, lead author of the study that prompted Ackerman and colleagues to investigate the issue further.
 

Buddy system

Maully J. Shah, MBBS, led a study published in 2020 focusing on two case reports of syncope and potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias provoked by emotional surges during play with violent video games. 

Nevertheless, “we do not restrict patients from participating in e-games,” Dr. Shah, a pediatric cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cardiac Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “We inform them about the available data regarding the very rare but possible occurrence of an event from e-gaming so that they can make an informed decision.”

Dr. Shah agreed that, “even in children not known to have a cardiac condition, syncope associated with emotional responses during violent video games should prompt cardiac evaluation, similar to exercise-induced syncope.”

If a patient wishes to play e-games, clinicians should ensure medication compliance and recommend a “buddy” system. “Don’t be alone while playing,” she said.

“The present study and previous reports make one pause to think whether these CEs and catecholaminergic drives can occur with sports only. If we now consider electronic gaming as a potential risk, what other activities need to be included?” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, led by Shankar Baskar, MD, Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center.

“A catecholaminergic drive can occur in many settings with activities of daily living or activities not considered to be competitive,” the editorialists wrote. “Ultimately these events [are] rare, but they can have life-threatening consequences, and at the same time they might not be altogether preventable and, as in electronic gaming, might be an activity that improves quality of life, especially in those who might be restricted from other sports.”

Dr. Ackerman disclosed consulting for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Invitae, Medtronic, Tenaya Therapeutics, and UpToDate. Dr. Ackerman and the Mayo Clinic have license agreements with AliveCor, Anumana, ARMGO Pharma, Pfizer, and Thryv Therapeutics. The other coauthors reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Baskar and colleagues reported no relevant relationships. Dr. Shah disclosed she is a consultant to Medtronic.

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

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Andrea Partida, DO, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Enid, Okla., loves her new assistant.

The 15 or 20 minutes she used to spend on documentation for each patient visit is now 3. The 2-3 hours she’d spend charting outside clinic hours is maybe 1.

All that time saved allows her to see two to five more patients a day, provide better care to each patient, and get more involved in hospital leadership at Integris Health, where she works.

“I have a better work-life balance with my family,” Dr. Partida said. “I leave work at work and get home earlier.”

You’ve probably figured out the plot twist: Dr. Partida’s assistant is not a person – it’s artificial intelligence (AI).

Dr. Partida uses IRIS, a tool from OnPoint Healthcare Partners, part of a fast-growing niche of AI medical scribes designed to automate onerous data entry. The evolution of generative AI – specifically, large language models, such as ChatGPT – has led to a rapid explosion of these tools. Other companies in the space include Abridge, Ambience Healthcare, Augmedix, DeepScribe, Nuance (part of Microsoft), and Suki. The newest kid on the block, Amazon Web Services, announced the launch of HealthScribe in July.

These tools – some of which are already on the market, with more on the way – record patient visits and generate notes for treatment and billing. Earlier iterations combine AI with offsite human scribes who provide quality control. But more and more are fully automated, no human required. Some also offer video recording and foreign language translation.

The promise is alluring: Ease your workload and reclaim hours in your day so you can spend more time with patients or try that “work-life balance” thing you’ve heard so much about.

But do these tools fulfill that promise?

According to Dr. Partida and other doctors who spoke with this news organization, the answer is a resounding yes.
 

A tech solution for a tech problem

“I believe a lot of doctors see patients for free. They get paid to do paperwork,” said Anthony J. Mazzarelli, MD, JD, MBE, co-president and CEO of Cooper University Health Care, in Camden, N.J.

Indeed, for every hour U.S. clinicians spend with their patients, they may spend 2 more hours documenting in electronic health records (EHRs), estimates show. About half of doctors, especially those in primary care, report feeling burned out, and some 42% say they want to quit clinical practice.

Enter AI scribes.

“The holy grail in medicine right now is improving burnout while also maintaining or improving productivity and quality,” said Patricia Garcia, MD, associate clinical information officer for ambulatory care at Stanford (Calif.) Health Care. “These ambient digital scribes have the potential to do just that.”

While anyone can buy these products, their use has been mostly limited to pilot programs and early adopters so far, said Dr. Garcia, who has been helping to pilot Nuance’s digital scribe, DAX, at Stanford.

But that’s expected to change quickly. “I don’t think the time horizon is a decade,” Dr. Garcia said. “I think within a matter of 2 or 3 years, these tools will be pervasive throughout health care.”

Since introducing these tools at Cooper, “our doctors’ paperwork burden is significantly lighter,” said Dr. Mazzarelli, who decides which technologies Cooper should invest in and who monitors their results. In Cooper studies, physicians who used DAX more than half the time spent 43% less time working on notes.

“They spend more time connecting with their patients, talking with them, and looking them in the eye,” Dr. Mazzarelli said. That, in turn, seems to improve patient outcomes, reduce doctor burnout and turnover, and lower costs.

The AI scribes, by virtue of eliminating the distraction of note taking, also allow doctors to give their full attention to the patient. “The patient relationship is the most important aspect of medicine,” said Raul Ayala, MD, MHCM, a family medicine physician at Adventist Health, in Hanford, Calif., who uses Augmedix. The digital scribe “helps us strengthen that relationship.”
 

What’s it like to use an AI medical scribe?

The scribes feature hardware (typically a smartphone or tablet) and software built on automatic speech recognition, natural language processing, and machine learning. Download an app to your device, and you’re ready to go. Use it to record in-person or telehealth visits.

In the first week, a company may help train you to use the hardware and software. You’ll likely start by using it for a few patient visits per day, ramping up gradually. Dr. Partida said she was comfortable using the system for all her patients in 6 weeks.

Each day, Dr. Partida logs in to a dedicated smartphone or tablet, opens the app, and reviews her schedule, including details she needs to prepare for each patient.

At the start of each patient visit, Dr. Partida taps the app icon to begin recording and lays the device nearby. She can pause as needed. At the end of the visit, she taps the icon again to stop recording.

The AI listens, creates the note, and updates relevant data in the EHR. The note includes patient problems, assessment, treatment plan, patient history, orders, and tasks for staff, along with medications, referrals, and preauthorizations. A human scribe, who is also a physician, reviews the information for accuracy and edits it as needed. By the next morning, the data are ready for Dr. Partida to review.

Fully automated versions can generate notes much faster. Jack Shilling, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon at Cooper University Health Care, in Voorhees, N.J., uses DAX. A new feature called DAX Express – which uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 but no humans – provides him with a draft of his clinical notes in just seconds.
 

How accurate are AI notes?

The accuracy of those notes remains an open question, Dr. Garcia said – mostly because accuracy can be hard to define.

“If you asked five docs to write a note based on the same patient encounter, you’d get five different notes,” Dr. Garcia said. “That makes it hard to assess these technologies in a scientifically rigorous way.”

Still, the onus is on the physician to review the notes and edit them as needed, Dr. Garcia said. How light or heavy those edits are can depend on your unique preferences.

Dr. Shilling said he may need to lightly edit transcripts of his conversations with patients. “When someone tells me how long their knee hurts, slight variability in their transcribed words is tolerable,” he said. But for some things – such as physical exam notes and x-ray readings – he dictates directly into the device, speaking at a closer range and being less conversational, more exact in his speech.
 

Should you let patients know they’re being recorded?

The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does not require providers to inform patients that their face-to-face conversations are being recorded, said Daniel Lebovic, JD, corporate legal counsel at Compliancy Group, in Greenlawn, N.Y., a company that helps providers adhere to HIPAA rules.

But make sure you know the laws in your state and the policies at your health care practice. State laws may require providers to inform patients and to get patients’ consent in advance of being recorded.

All the doctors who spoke to this news organization said their patients are informed that they’ll be recorded and that they can opt out if they wish.
 

How much do AI scribes cost?

As the marketplace for these tools expands, companies are offering more products and services at different price points that target a range of organizations, from large health care systems to small private practices.

Price models vary, said Dr. Garcia. Some are based on the number of users, others on the number of notes, and still others on minutes.

Amazon’s HealthScribe is priced at 10 cents per minute. For 1,000 consultation transcripts per month, with each call averaging 15 minutes, it would take 15,000 minutes at a total cost of $1,500 for the month.

In general, the rapidly growing competition in this space could mean prices become more affordable, Dr. Garcia said. “It’s good that so many are getting into this game, because that means the price will come down and it will be a lot more accessible to everybody.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

The popular but expensive weight loss drug semaglutide (Wegovy, significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 20% when given to patients, compared with those receiving placebo, in the pivotal SELECT trial, with more than 17,000 enrolled people with overweight or obesity and established cardiovascular disease (CVD), but no diabetes.

The finding should fuel improved patient access to this glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist weight-loss agent that has historically been hindered by skepticism among U.S. payers, many of whom have criticized the health benefits and cost effectiveness of this drug in people whose only indication for treatment is overweight or obesity.

According to top-line results from SELECT released by Novo Nordisk on Aug. 8, the people randomly assigned to receive weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injections of semaglutide showed a significant 20% reduction in their incidence of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The announcement added that semaglutide treatment also significantly linked with a drop in the incidence of each of these individual three endpoints; the magnitude of these reductions, however, wasn’t specified, nor was the duration of treatment and follow-up.

The results also showed a level of safety and patient tolerance for weekly 2.4-mg injections of semaglutide that were consistent with prior reports on the agent. Semaglutide as Wegovy received marketing approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 for weight loss, and in 2017 for glucose control in people with type 2 diabetes, at a weekly maximum dose of 2.0 mg (for which it’s marketed as Ozempic).

SELECT began in 2018 and randomly assigned 17,604 adults aged 45 years and older at more than 800 sites in 41 countries. The company’s announcement noted that the trial had accrued a total of 1,270 study participants with a first MACE event but did not break this total down based on treatment received.
 

‘A good result for patients’

“The topline results from SELECT are exciting, as preventing heart attacks and stroke with a drug that also lowers weight is very important for many patients, especially if the data also show – as I suspect they will – a meaningful improvement of quality of life for patients due to associated weight loss,” commented Naveed Sattar, PhD, a professor of metabolic medicine at the University of Glasgow who was not involved with the study.

Changing how obesity is regarded

“To date, there are no approved weight management medications proven to deliver effective weight management while also reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, or cardiovascular death,” said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for development at Novo Nordisk, in the company’s press release.

“SELECT is a landmark trial and has demonstrated that semaglutide 2.4 mg has the potential to change how obesity is regarded and treated.”

Several of the early medical options for aiding weight loss had substantial adverse effects, including increased MACE rates, a history that led to pervasive wariness among physicians over the safety of antiobesity agents and the wisdom of using medically aided weight loss to produce health benefits.

This attitude also helped dampen health insurance coverage of weight-loss treatments. For example, Medicare has a long-standing policy against reimbursing the cost for medications that are used for the indication of weight loss, and a 2003 U.S. law prohibited part D plans from providing this coverage.

Semaglutide belongs to the class of agents that mimic the action of the incretin GLP-1. The introduction of this class of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss began in 2014 with the FDA’s approval of liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection that marked the first step toward establishing the class as safe and effective for weight loss and launching a new era in weight-loss treatment.

According to the Novo Nordisk announcement, a full report on results from SELECT will occur “at a scientific meeting later in 2023.”

SELECT is sponsored by Novo Nordisk, the company that markets semaglutide (Wegovy). Dr. Sattar is a consultant to several companies that market GLP-1 receptor agonists, including Novo Nordisk and Lilly, but has had no involvement in SELECT.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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

Zolpidem (Ambien) is a well-known sedative for sleep. Letairis (Ambrisentan) is a vasodilator for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Citalopram (Celexa) is an antidepressant; escitalopram (Lexapro) is prescribed for anxiety and depression.
 

Those are just 4 of the more than 80 pairs of drug names that the Institute for Safe Medication Practices recently added to its list of confusing drug names. The aim is to increase awareness about the potential for a serious medication mistake when the wrong drug is given because of drug names that look and sound similar.

Awareness of these drug names, however, is just the first step in preventing medication mistakes. Health care providers should take a number of other steps as well, experts said.

ISMP launched its confusing drug names list, previously called look-alike, sound-alike (LASA) drugs, in 2008. The new list is an update of the 2019 version, said Michael J. Gaunt, PharmD, senior manager of error reporting programs for the ISMP, which focuses on the prevention of medication mistakes. The new entries were chosen on the basis of a number of factors, including ISMP’s analysis of recent medication mishap reports that were submitted to it.

The ISMP list now includes about 528 drug pairs, Dr. Gaunt said. The list is long, he said, partly because each pair is listed twice, so readers can cross reference. For instance, hydralazine and hydroxyzine are listed in one entry in the list, and hydroxyzine and hydralazine are listed in another.

Brand Institute in Miami has named, among other drugs, Entresto, Rybelsus, and Lunesta. The regulatory arm of the company, the Drug Safety Institute, “considers drug names that have been confused as an important part of our comprehensive drug name assessments,” Todd Bridges, global president of the institute, said in an emailed statement. Information on the confusing drug names are incorporated into the company’s proprietary algorithm and is used when developing brand names for drugs. “We continually update this algorithm as new drug names that are often confused are identified,” Mr. Bridges said.
 

Confusing drug names: Ongoing issue

The length of the list, as well as the latest additions, are not surprising, said Mary Ann Kliethermes, PharmD, director of medication safety and quality for the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, a membership organization of about 60,000 pharmacists who practice in inpatient and outpatient settings.

“I’ve been in practice over 45 years,” she said, “and this has been a problem ever since I have been in practice.” The sheer volume of new drugs is one reason, she said. From 2013 through 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved an average of 43 novel drugs per year, according to a report from its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “Since the 90s, this [confusion about similar drug names] has happened,” Dr. Kliethermes said.

According to a 2023 report, about 7,000-9,000 people die each year in the United States as the result of a medication error. However, it’s impossible to say for sure what percentage of those errors involve name confusion, Dr. Gaunt said.

Not all the mistakes are reported. Some that are reported are dramatic and deadly. In 2022, a Tennessee nurse was convicted of gross neglect and negligent homicide. She was sentenced to 3 years’ probation after she mistakenly gave vercuronium, an anesthetic agent, instead of the sedative Versed to a patient, and the woman died.
 

Updated list: A closer look

Many of the new drug pairs that are listed in the update are cephalosporins, said Dr. Kliethermes, who reviewed the new list for this news organization. In all, 20 of the latest 82 additions are cephalosporins. These include drugs such as cefazolin, which can be confused with cefotetan, and vice versa. These drugs have been around since the 1980s, she said, but “they needed to be on there.” Even in the 1980s, it was becoming difficult to differentiate them, and there were fewer drugs in that class then, she said.

Influenza vaccines made the new list, too. Fluzone High-Dose Quadrivalent can be confused with fluzone quadrivalent. Other new additions: hydrochlorothiazide and hydroxychloroquine, Lasik and Wakix, Pitressin and Pitocin, Remeron and Rozerem.
 

Beyond the list

While it’s not possible to pinpoint how big a problem name confusion is in causing medication mistakes, “it is certainly still an issue,” Dr. Gaunt said. A variety of practices can reduce that risk substantially, Dr. Gaunt and Dr. Kliethermes agreed.

Tall-man lettering. Both the FDA and the ISMP recommend the use of so-called tall-man lettering (TML), which involves the use of uppercase letters, sometimes in boldface, to distinguish similar names on product labels and elsewhere. Examples include vinBLAStine and vinCRIStine.

Electronic prescribing. “It eliminates the risk of handwriting confusion,” Dr. Gaunt said. However, electronic prescribing can have a downside, Dr. Kliethermes said. When ordering medication, a person may type in a few letters and may then be presented with a prompt that lists several drug names, and it can be easy to click the wrong one. For that reason, ISMP and other experts recommend typing at least five letters when searching for a medication in an electronic system.

Use both brand and generic names on labels and prescriptions.

Write the indication. That can serve as a double check. If a prescription for Ambien says “For sleep,” there’s probably less risk of filling a prescription for ambrisentan, the vasodilator.

Smart formulary additions. When hospitals add medications to their formularies, “part of that formulary assessment should include looking at the potential risk for errors,” Dr. Gaunt said. This involves keeping an eye out for confusing names and similar packaging. “Do that analysis up front and put in strategies to minimize that. Maybe you look for a different drug [for the same use] that has a different name.” Or choose a different manufacturer, so the medication would at least have a different container.

Use bar code scanning. Suppose a pharmacist goes to the shelf and pulls the wrong drug. “Bar code scanning provides the opportunity to catch the error,” Dr. Gaunt said. Many community pharmacies now have bar code scanning. ISMP just issued best practices for community pharmacies, Dr. Gaunt said, and these include the use of bar code scanning and other measures.

Educate consumers. Health care providers can educate consumers on how to minimize the risk of getting the wrong drug, Dr. Gaunt said. When patients are picking up a prescription, suggest they look at the container label; if it looks different from previous prescriptions of the same medicine, ask the pharmacist for an explanation. Some patients just pass it off, Dr. Gaunt said, figuring the pharmacist or health plan switched manufacturers of their medication.

Access the list. The entire list is on the ISMP site and is accessible after free registration.
 

Goal: Preventing confusion

The FDA has provided guidance for industry on naming drugs not yet approved so that the proposed names are not too similar in sound or appearance to those already on the market. Included in the lengthy document are checklists, such as, “Across a range of dialects, are the names consistently pronounced differently?” and “Are the lengths of the names dissimilar when scripted?” (Lengths are considered different if they differ by two or more letters.)

The FDA also offers the phonetic and orthographic computer analysis (POCA) program, a software tool that employs an advanced algorithm to evaluate similarities between two drug names. The data sources are updated regularly as new drugs are approved.
 

Liability update

The problem may be decreasing. In a 2020 report, researchers used pharmacists’ professional liability claim data from the Healthcare Providers Service Organization. They compared 2018 data on claims with 2013 data. The percentage of claims associated with wrong drug dispensing errors declined from 43.8% in 2013 to 36.8% in 2018. Wrong dose claims also declined, from 31.5% to 15.3%.

These researchers concluded that technology and automation have contributed to the prevention of medication errors caused by the use of the wrong drug and the wrong dose, but mistakes continue, owing to system and human errors.

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