MDedge Emergency Medicine

Better to intervene early with a new valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are asymptomatic, even during exercise, than to wait for the disease to progress and symptoms to emerge before operating, suggests a small, randomized trial that challenges the guidelines.

Of the trial’s 157 patients, all with negative results on stress tests and normal left ventricular (LV) function despite severe AS, those assigned to early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), compared with standard watchful waiting, showed a better-than-50% drop in risk for death or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 2-3 years. The benefit appeared driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and deaths in the early-surgery group.

The findings “advocate for early surgery once aortic stenosis becomes significant and regardless of symptom status,” Marko Banovic, MD, PhD, said during his presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Banovic, from the University of Belgrade Medical School in Serbia, is coprincipal investigator on the trial, called AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis). He is also lead author on the study’s publication in Circulation, timed to coincide with his AHA presentation.

“The AVATAR findings provide additional evidence to help clinicians in guiding their decision when seeing a patient with significant aortic stenosis, normal left ventricular function, overall low surgical risk, and without significant comorbidities,” Dr. Banovic told this news organization.

European and North American Guidelines favor watchful waiting for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, with surgery upon development of symptoms or LV dysfunction, observed Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, an invited discussant for the AVATAR presentation.

AVATAR does suggest that “early surgery in truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction seems to provide better outcomes as compared to the conservative treatment,” she said. “But I think that the long-term follow-up for potential events, such as valve durability or endocarditis, is still needed.”

The trial has strengths, compared with the recent RECOVERY trial, which also concluded in favor of early SAVR over watchful waiting in patients described as asymptomatic with severe aortic stenosis. Dr. Delgado and other observers, however, have pointed out limitations of that trial, including questions about whether the patients were truly asymptomatic – stress testing wasn›t routinely performed.

In AVATAR, all patients were negative at stress testing, which required them to reach their estimated maximum heart rate, Dr. Banovic noted. As he and his colleagues write, the trial expands on RECOVERY “by providing evidence of the benefit of early surgery in a setting representative of a dilemma in decision making, in truly asymptomatic patients with severe but not critical aortic stenosis and normal LV function.”

A role for TAVR?

Guidelines in general “can be very conservative and lag behind evidence a bit,” Patricia A. Pellikka, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who is not associated with AVATAR, said in an interview.

“I think when we see patients clinically, we can advise them that if they don’t have symptoms and they do have severe aortic stenosis,” she said, “they’re likely going to get symptoms within a reasonably short period of time, according to our retrospective databases, and that doing the intervention early may yield better long-term outcomes.”

The results of AVATAR, in which valve replacement consisted only of SAVR, “probably could be extrapolated” to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Dr. Pellikka observed. “Certainly, TAVR is the procedure that patients come asking for. It’s attractive to avoid a major surgery, and it seems very plausible that TAVR would have yielded similar results if that had been a therapy in this trial.”

In practice, patient age and functional status would figure heavily in deciding whether early valve replacement, and which procedure, is appropriate, Dr. Banovic said in an interview. Importantly, the trial’s patients were at low surgical risk and free of major chronic diseases or other important health concerns.

“Frailty and older age are known risk factors for suboptimal recovery” after SAVR, Dr. Banovic said when interviewed. Therefore, frail patients, who were not many in AVATAR, might be “more suitable for TAVR than SAVR, based on the TAVR-vs.-SAVR results in symptomatic AS patients,” he said.

“One might extrapolate experience from AVATAR trial to TAVR, which may lower the bar for TAVR indications,” but that would require more supporting evidence, Dr. Banovic said.

Confirmed asymptomatic

AVATAR, conducted at nine centers in seven countries in the European Union, randomly assigned 157 adults with severe AS by echocardiography and a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% to early SAVR or conservative management. They averaged 67 years in age, and 43% were women.

The trial excluded anyone with dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, angina, or LV dysfunction and anyone with a history of atrial fibrillation or significant cardiac, renal, or lung disease. The cohort’s average Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 1.7%.

The 78 patients in the early-surgery group “were expected” to have the procedure within 8 weeks of randomization, the published report states; the median time was 55 days. Six of them ultimately did not have the surgery. There was only one periprocedural death, for an operative mortality of 1.4%.

The 79 patients assigned to conservative care were later referred for surgery if they developed symptoms, their LVEF dropped below 50%, or they showed a 0.3-m/sec jump in peak aortic jet velocity at follow-up echocardiography. That occurred with 25 patients a median of 400 days after randomization.

The rate of the primary endpoint – death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned HF hospitalization – was 16.6% in the early-surgery group and 32.9% for those managed conservatively over a median of 32 months. The hazard ratio by intention-to-treat analysis was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.90; P = .02). The HR for death from any cause or HF hospitalization was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19-0.84; P = .013). Any differences in the individual endpoints of death, first HF hospitalizations, thromboembolic complications, or major bleeding were not significant.

If early aortic valve replacement is better for patients like those in AVATAR, some sort of screening for previously unknown severe aortic stenosis may seem attractive for selected populations. “Echocardiography would be the screening test for aortic stenosis, but it’s fairly expensive and therefore has never been advocated as a test to screen everyone,” Dr. Pellikka observed.

“But things are changing,” given innovations such as point-of-care ultrasonography and machine learning, she noted. “Artificial intelligence is progressing in its application to echocardiography, and it’s conceivable that in the future, there might be some abbreviated or screening type of test. But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

Dr. Banovic had no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Delgado disclosed speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and GE Healthcare and unrestricted research grants to her institution from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Ionis, and Medtronic. Dr. Pellikka disclosed receiving a research grant from Ultromics and having unspecified modest relationships with GE Healthcare, Lantheus, and OxThera.

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

Better to intervene early with a new valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are asymptomatic, even during exercise, than to wait for the disease to progress and symptoms to emerge before operating, suggests a small, randomized trial that challenges the guidelines.

Of the trial’s 157 patients, all with negative results on stress tests and normal left ventricular (LV) function despite severe AS, those assigned to early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), compared with standard watchful waiting, showed a better-than-50% drop in risk for death or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 2-3 years. The benefit appeared driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and deaths in the early-surgery group.

The findings “advocate for early surgery once aortic stenosis becomes significant and regardless of symptom status,” Marko Banovic, MD, PhD, said during his presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Banovic, from the University of Belgrade Medical School in Serbia, is coprincipal investigator on the trial, called AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis). He is also lead author on the study’s publication in Circulation, timed to coincide with his AHA presentation.

“The AVATAR findings provide additional evidence to help clinicians in guiding their decision when seeing a patient with significant aortic stenosis, normal left ventricular function, overall low surgical risk, and without significant comorbidities,” Dr. Banovic told this news organization.

European and North American Guidelines favor watchful waiting for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, with surgery upon development of symptoms or LV dysfunction, observed Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, an invited discussant for the AVATAR presentation.

AVATAR does suggest that “early surgery in truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction seems to provide better outcomes as compared to the conservative treatment,” she said. “But I think that the long-term follow-up for potential events, such as valve durability or endocarditis, is still needed.”

The trial has strengths, compared with the recent RECOVERY trial, which also concluded in favor of early SAVR over watchful waiting in patients described as asymptomatic with severe aortic stenosis. Dr. Delgado and other observers, however, have pointed out limitations of that trial, including questions about whether the patients were truly asymptomatic – stress testing wasn›t routinely performed.

In AVATAR, all patients were negative at stress testing, which required them to reach their estimated maximum heart rate, Dr. Banovic noted. As he and his colleagues write, the trial expands on RECOVERY “by providing evidence of the benefit of early surgery in a setting representative of a dilemma in decision making, in truly asymptomatic patients with severe but not critical aortic stenosis and normal LV function.”

A role for TAVR?

Guidelines in general “can be very conservative and lag behind evidence a bit,” Patricia A. Pellikka, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who is not associated with AVATAR, said in an interview.

“I think when we see patients clinically, we can advise them that if they don’t have symptoms and they do have severe aortic stenosis,” she said, “they’re likely going to get symptoms within a reasonably short period of time, according to our retrospective databases, and that doing the intervention early may yield better long-term outcomes.”

The results of AVATAR, in which valve replacement consisted only of SAVR, “probably could be extrapolated” to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Dr. Pellikka observed. “Certainly, TAVR is the procedure that patients come asking for. It’s attractive to avoid a major surgery, and it seems very plausible that TAVR would have yielded similar results if that had been a therapy in this trial.”

In practice, patient age and functional status would figure heavily in deciding whether early valve replacement, and which procedure, is appropriate, Dr. Banovic said in an interview. Importantly, the trial’s patients were at low surgical risk and free of major chronic diseases or other important health concerns.

“Frailty and older age are known risk factors for suboptimal recovery” after SAVR, Dr. Banovic said when interviewed. Therefore, frail patients, who were not many in AVATAR, might be “more suitable for TAVR than SAVR, based on the TAVR-vs.-SAVR results in symptomatic AS patients,” he said.

“One might extrapolate experience from AVATAR trial to TAVR, which may lower the bar for TAVR indications,” but that would require more supporting evidence, Dr. Banovic said.

Confirmed asymptomatic

AVATAR, conducted at nine centers in seven countries in the European Union, randomly assigned 157 adults with severe AS by echocardiography and a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% to early SAVR or conservative management. They averaged 67 years in age, and 43% were women.

The trial excluded anyone with dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, angina, or LV dysfunction and anyone with a history of atrial fibrillation or significant cardiac, renal, or lung disease. The cohort’s average Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 1.7%.

The 78 patients in the early-surgery group “were expected” to have the procedure within 8 weeks of randomization, the published report states; the median time was 55 days. Six of them ultimately did not have the surgery. There was only one periprocedural death, for an operative mortality of 1.4%.

The 79 patients assigned to conservative care were later referred for surgery if they developed symptoms, their LVEF dropped below 50%, or they showed a 0.3-m/sec jump in peak aortic jet velocity at follow-up echocardiography. That occurred with 25 patients a median of 400 days after randomization.

The rate of the primary endpoint – death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned HF hospitalization – was 16.6% in the early-surgery group and 32.9% for those managed conservatively over a median of 32 months. The hazard ratio by intention-to-treat analysis was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.90; P = .02). The HR for death from any cause or HF hospitalization was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19-0.84; P = .013). Any differences in the individual endpoints of death, first HF hospitalizations, thromboembolic complications, or major bleeding were not significant.

If early aortic valve replacement is better for patients like those in AVATAR, some sort of screening for previously unknown severe aortic stenosis may seem attractive for selected populations. “Echocardiography would be the screening test for aortic stenosis, but it’s fairly expensive and therefore has never been advocated as a test to screen everyone,” Dr. Pellikka observed.

“But things are changing,” given innovations such as point-of-care ultrasonography and machine learning, she noted. “Artificial intelligence is progressing in its application to echocardiography, and it’s conceivable that in the future, there might be some abbreviated or screening type of test. But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

Dr. Banovic had no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Delgado disclosed speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and GE Healthcare and unrestricted research grants to her institution from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Ionis, and Medtronic. Dr. Pellikka disclosed receiving a research grant from Ultromics and having unspecified modest relationships with GE Healthcare, Lantheus, and OxThera.

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

Better to intervene early with a new valve in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are asymptomatic, even during exercise, than to wait for the disease to progress and symptoms to emerge before operating, suggests a small, randomized trial that challenges the guidelines.

Of the trial’s 157 patients, all with negative results on stress tests and normal left ventricular (LV) function despite severe AS, those assigned to early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), compared with standard watchful waiting, showed a better-than-50% drop in risk for death or major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 2-3 years. The benefit appeared driven by fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) and deaths in the early-surgery group.

The findings “advocate for early surgery once aortic stenosis becomes significant and regardless of symptom status,” Marko Banovic, MD, PhD, said during his presentation at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Dr. Banovic, from the University of Belgrade Medical School in Serbia, is coprincipal investigator on the trial, called AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement vs. Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis). He is also lead author on the study’s publication in Circulation, timed to coincide with his AHA presentation.

“The AVATAR findings provide additional evidence to help clinicians in guiding their decision when seeing a patient with significant aortic stenosis, normal left ventricular function, overall low surgical risk, and without significant comorbidities,” Dr. Banovic told this news organization.

European and North American Guidelines favor watchful waiting for asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis, with surgery upon development of symptoms or LV dysfunction, observed Victoria Delgado, MD, PhD, Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, an invited discussant for the AVATAR presentation.

AVATAR does suggest that “early surgery in truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis and preserved ejection fraction seems to provide better outcomes as compared to the conservative treatment,” she said. “But I think that the long-term follow-up for potential events, such as valve durability or endocarditis, is still needed.”

The trial has strengths, compared with the recent RECOVERY trial, which also concluded in favor of early SAVR over watchful waiting in patients described as asymptomatic with severe aortic stenosis. Dr. Delgado and other observers, however, have pointed out limitations of that trial, including questions about whether the patients were truly asymptomatic – stress testing wasn›t routinely performed.

In AVATAR, all patients were negative at stress testing, which required them to reach their estimated maximum heart rate, Dr. Banovic noted. As he and his colleagues write, the trial expands on RECOVERY “by providing evidence of the benefit of early surgery in a setting representative of a dilemma in decision making, in truly asymptomatic patients with severe but not critical aortic stenosis and normal LV function.”

A role for TAVR?

Guidelines in general “can be very conservative and lag behind evidence a bit,” Patricia A. Pellikka, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who is not associated with AVATAR, said in an interview.

“I think when we see patients clinically, we can advise them that if they don’t have symptoms and they do have severe aortic stenosis,” she said, “they’re likely going to get symptoms within a reasonably short period of time, according to our retrospective databases, and that doing the intervention early may yield better long-term outcomes.”

The results of AVATAR, in which valve replacement consisted only of SAVR, “probably could be extrapolated” to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), Dr. Pellikka observed. “Certainly, TAVR is the procedure that patients come asking for. It’s attractive to avoid a major surgery, and it seems very plausible that TAVR would have yielded similar results if that had been a therapy in this trial.”

In practice, patient age and functional status would figure heavily in deciding whether early valve replacement, and which procedure, is appropriate, Dr. Banovic said in an interview. Importantly, the trial’s patients were at low surgical risk and free of major chronic diseases or other important health concerns.

“Frailty and older age are known risk factors for suboptimal recovery” after SAVR, Dr. Banovic said when interviewed. Therefore, frail patients, who were not many in AVATAR, might be “more suitable for TAVR than SAVR, based on the TAVR-vs.-SAVR results in symptomatic AS patients,” he said.

“One might extrapolate experience from AVATAR trial to TAVR, which may lower the bar for TAVR indications,” but that would require more supporting evidence, Dr. Banovic said.

Confirmed asymptomatic

AVATAR, conducted at nine centers in seven countries in the European Union, randomly assigned 157 adults with severe AS by echocardiography and a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 50% to early SAVR or conservative management. They averaged 67 years in age, and 43% were women.

The trial excluded anyone with dyspnea, syncope, presyncope, angina, or LV dysfunction and anyone with a history of atrial fibrillation or significant cardiac, renal, or lung disease. The cohort’s average Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) score was 1.7%.

The 78 patients in the early-surgery group “were expected” to have the procedure within 8 weeks of randomization, the published report states; the median time was 55 days. Six of them ultimately did not have the surgery. There was only one periprocedural death, for an operative mortality of 1.4%.

The 79 patients assigned to conservative care were later referred for surgery if they developed symptoms, their LVEF dropped below 50%, or they showed a 0.3-m/sec jump in peak aortic jet velocity at follow-up echocardiography. That occurred with 25 patients a median of 400 days after randomization.

The rate of the primary endpoint – death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned HF hospitalization – was 16.6% in the early-surgery group and 32.9% for those managed conservatively over a median of 32 months. The hazard ratio by intention-to-treat analysis was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.90; P = .02). The HR for death from any cause or HF hospitalization was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.19-0.84; P = .013). Any differences in the individual endpoints of death, first HF hospitalizations, thromboembolic complications, or major bleeding were not significant.

If early aortic valve replacement is better for patients like those in AVATAR, some sort of screening for previously unknown severe aortic stenosis may seem attractive for selected populations. “Echocardiography would be the screening test for aortic stenosis, but it’s fairly expensive and therefore has never been advocated as a test to screen everyone,” Dr. Pellikka observed.

“But things are changing,” given innovations such as point-of-care ultrasonography and machine learning, she noted. “Artificial intelligence is progressing in its application to echocardiography, and it’s conceivable that in the future, there might be some abbreviated or screening type of test. But I don’t think we’re quite there yet.”

Dr. Banovic had no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Delgado disclosed speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and GE Healthcare and unrestricted research grants to her institution from Abbott Vascular, Bayer, Biotronik, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, GE Healthcare, Ionis, and Medtronic. Dr. Pellikka disclosed receiving a research grant from Ultromics and having unspecified modest relationships with GE Healthcare, Lantheus, and OxThera.

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes who have been taking the antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor, and who need coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may be able to safely have the procedure earlier than typically recommended, a new randomized trial suggests.

The RAPID CABG trial found that early surgery 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation was noninferior in incurring severe or massive perioperative bleeding, compared with waiting 5-7 days. There was also no significant difference in TIMI CABG or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 4 or 5 bleeding.

Patients in the delayed group had a numerically higher number of ischemic events requiring earlier surgery and had a longer hospital stay.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“RAPID CABG is the first and only randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety of early surgery in patients taking ticagrelor,” said lead investigator Derek So, MD.

Dr. So, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and a professor at the University of Ottawa, explained that ticagrelor is a first-line antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but around 10% of patients presenting with ACS require CABG surgery.

A major concern among patients requiring bypass surgery is perioperative bleeding, and it has been shown that patients undergoing urgent bypass within 24 hours of the last dose of ticagrelor have increased mortality. Accordingly, guidelines suggest a waiting period for patients not requiring urgent bypass surgery, Dr. So noted.

Current North American guidelines suggest a waiting period of at least 5 days after stopping ticagrelor before bypass surgery. In contrast, the updated European and Japanese guidelines suggest a waiting period of 3 days.

Dr. So noted that all of the guidelines are based on cohort studies and pharmacodynamic studies, with no randomized evidence. Pharmacodynamic studies have shown that at 48 hours after the last dose of ticagrelor, the level of platelet inhibition drops to the same levels seen with long-term treatment with clopidogrel, a weaker antiplatelet drug, and after 120 hours (5 days) the effect has completely worn off.

Dr. So concluded that these new results from the RAPID CABG trial “may influence future iterations of North American guidelines with reduced waiting prior to bypass surgery” for patients receiving ticagrelor, and “they could also strengthen the level of evidence in European and Asian guidelines.”

Designated discussant of the RAPID CABG trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said this was a “very important study,” being the only randomized trial to look at this issue to date.

Dr. Mehran noted that the results showed a similar number of major life-threatening bleeding events in the early and delayed groups and met the noninferiority endpoint, but she pointed out that the trial had a small sample size and a small number of events. “Therefore, larger trials are needed to verify these important and encouraging results.”

However, she concluded that these results should be considered in decisions about the timing of bypass surgery in patients receiving ticagrelor. “I will be changing my practice and sending patients earlier based on this data,” she said.

 RAPID CABG

RAPID CABG was a physician-initiated multicenter randomized study evaluating the safety of early surgery at 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation, compared with a delay of 5-7 days among patients presenting with ACS who required nonemergency CABG surgery.

The study enrolled 143 patients with ACS who were receiving ticagrelor and needed CABG surgery. Patients with stenting for culprit lesions, those requiring urgent surgery (less than 24 hours after presentation), and those requiring valve surgery were excluded.   

Three patients declined surgery, and several others underwent surgery outside the assigned time window, so the results were based on the per protocol analysis of patients who actually had CABG in the assigned time window: 65 patients in the early CABG group and 58 in the delayed group.

The mean time from last ticagrelor dose to surgery was 3 days in the early group and 6 days in the delayed group.

Platelet reactivity on the VerifyNow test showed more residual antiplatelet activity in the early group, with P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) levels of 200 (vs. 251 in the delayed group). This test measures the extent of platelet aggregation in the presence of P2Y12-inhibitor drugs, with lower PRU levels showing stronger antiplatelet effects.

The primary outcome of the study was severe or massive bleeding by Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) class 3 or 4. This is defined as a blood transfusions of more than 5 units of red blood cells or plasma within 24 hours of surgical closure, chest tube drainage of over 1,000 mL in the first 12 hours, and reoperation for bleeding.

Results showed that 4.6% of the early-surgery group had a primary outcome bleeding event, compared with 5.2% of the delayed surgery group, meeting the criteria for noninferiority (P = .0253 for noninferiority).

Individual components of the primary endpoint showed three class 3 (severe) bleeding events in both groups and no class 4 (massive) bleeding events in either group.  

In terms of other bleeding outcomes, TIMI CABG bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early-surgery group vs. no patients in the delayed group; BARC 4 bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early group versus none in the delayed group, and there were no BARC 5 bleeding events in either group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, ischemic events before surgery occurred in six patients (8.7%) in the delayed group (one myocardial infarction, four cases of recurrent ischemia, and one ventricular tachycardia) versus none in the early group.

Cumulative 6-month ischemic events occurred in nine patients (13.0%) in the delayed group vs. four patients (5.6%) in the early group, the difference being driven by nonfatal MI and recurrent ischemia.  

There were no cardiovascular deaths in either group and one all-cause death in both groups.

Patients undergoing early surgery also had a shorter hospitalization, with a median length of stay of 9 days versus 12 days in the delayed group.

Larger trial needed

Commenting on the RAPID CABG study at an AHA press conference, Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of the cardiac surgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were in line with her practice.

“These results confirm what I already think is safe,” she said. “I’m comfortable going within 48 hours. But we individualize our approach, so it was helpful that the study investigators included platelet reactivity data. The interesting thing for me in this study was the number of adverse events in patients who waited longer.” 

Dr. Chikwe said her top-line message was that “Surgery looked incredibly safe; there was amazingly low mortality. And if a patient has an indication for surgery, waiting does not serve you well.”

However, she also cautioned that the trial was somewhat underpowered, with a small number of events that drove the primary outcome, leading to some uncertainty on the results.

“The RAPID trial was helpful, and although it confirms my practice, I think physicians may want to see a larger-powered trial to be convincingly compelled that they should change their practice,” Dr. Chikwe noted.  

She added that clinical trials in cardiac surgery are driven by inherent challenges. “Cardiac surgery is not very common, and it is hard to recruit patients into these trials, so you are generally tied to a small number of patients, and you therefore have to be extremely thoughtful about the study design. It is almost a given that you will need to use surrogate endpoints, and the choice of the surrogate endpoint can determine which way the trial goes.”

The RAPID CABG study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. So reports research support, consultancy, or speaker’s fees from AggreDyne, Roche Diagnostics, Fujimori Kogyo, and AstraZeneca Canada. Dr. Mehran reports that her institution has received significant trial funding from AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of ticagrelor).  

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes who have been taking the antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor, and who need coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may be able to safely have the procedure earlier than typically recommended, a new randomized trial suggests.

The RAPID CABG trial found that early surgery 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation was noninferior in incurring severe or massive perioperative bleeding, compared with waiting 5-7 days. There was also no significant difference in TIMI CABG or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 4 or 5 bleeding.

Patients in the delayed group had a numerically higher number of ischemic events requiring earlier surgery and had a longer hospital stay.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“RAPID CABG is the first and only randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety of early surgery in patients taking ticagrelor,” said lead investigator Derek So, MD.

Dr. So, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and a professor at the University of Ottawa, explained that ticagrelor is a first-line antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but around 10% of patients presenting with ACS require CABG surgery.

A major concern among patients requiring bypass surgery is perioperative bleeding, and it has been shown that patients undergoing urgent bypass within 24 hours of the last dose of ticagrelor have increased mortality. Accordingly, guidelines suggest a waiting period for patients not requiring urgent bypass surgery, Dr. So noted.

Current North American guidelines suggest a waiting period of at least 5 days after stopping ticagrelor before bypass surgery. In contrast, the updated European and Japanese guidelines suggest a waiting period of 3 days.

Dr. So noted that all of the guidelines are based on cohort studies and pharmacodynamic studies, with no randomized evidence. Pharmacodynamic studies have shown that at 48 hours after the last dose of ticagrelor, the level of platelet inhibition drops to the same levels seen with long-term treatment with clopidogrel, a weaker antiplatelet drug, and after 120 hours (5 days) the effect has completely worn off.

Dr. So concluded that these new results from the RAPID CABG trial “may influence future iterations of North American guidelines with reduced waiting prior to bypass surgery” for patients receiving ticagrelor, and “they could also strengthen the level of evidence in European and Asian guidelines.”

Designated discussant of the RAPID CABG trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said this was a “very important study,” being the only randomized trial to look at this issue to date.

Dr. Mehran noted that the results showed a similar number of major life-threatening bleeding events in the early and delayed groups and met the noninferiority endpoint, but she pointed out that the trial had a small sample size and a small number of events. “Therefore, larger trials are needed to verify these important and encouraging results.”

However, she concluded that these results should be considered in decisions about the timing of bypass surgery in patients receiving ticagrelor. “I will be changing my practice and sending patients earlier based on this data,” she said.

 RAPID CABG

RAPID CABG was a physician-initiated multicenter randomized study evaluating the safety of early surgery at 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation, compared with a delay of 5-7 days among patients presenting with ACS who required nonemergency CABG surgery.

The study enrolled 143 patients with ACS who were receiving ticagrelor and needed CABG surgery. Patients with stenting for culprit lesions, those requiring urgent surgery (less than 24 hours after presentation), and those requiring valve surgery were excluded.   

Three patients declined surgery, and several others underwent surgery outside the assigned time window, so the results were based on the per protocol analysis of patients who actually had CABG in the assigned time window: 65 patients in the early CABG group and 58 in the delayed group.

The mean time from last ticagrelor dose to surgery was 3 days in the early group and 6 days in the delayed group.

Platelet reactivity on the VerifyNow test showed more residual antiplatelet activity in the early group, with P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) levels of 200 (vs. 251 in the delayed group). This test measures the extent of platelet aggregation in the presence of P2Y12-inhibitor drugs, with lower PRU levels showing stronger antiplatelet effects.

The primary outcome of the study was severe or massive bleeding by Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) class 3 or 4. This is defined as a blood transfusions of more than 5 units of red blood cells or plasma within 24 hours of surgical closure, chest tube drainage of over 1,000 mL in the first 12 hours, and reoperation for bleeding.

Results showed that 4.6% of the early-surgery group had a primary outcome bleeding event, compared with 5.2% of the delayed surgery group, meeting the criteria for noninferiority (P = .0253 for noninferiority).

Individual components of the primary endpoint showed three class 3 (severe) bleeding events in both groups and no class 4 (massive) bleeding events in either group.  

In terms of other bleeding outcomes, TIMI CABG bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early-surgery group vs. no patients in the delayed group; BARC 4 bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early group versus none in the delayed group, and there were no BARC 5 bleeding events in either group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, ischemic events before surgery occurred in six patients (8.7%) in the delayed group (one myocardial infarction, four cases of recurrent ischemia, and one ventricular tachycardia) versus none in the early group.

Cumulative 6-month ischemic events occurred in nine patients (13.0%) in the delayed group vs. four patients (5.6%) in the early group, the difference being driven by nonfatal MI and recurrent ischemia.  

There were no cardiovascular deaths in either group and one all-cause death in both groups.

Patients undergoing early surgery also had a shorter hospitalization, with a median length of stay of 9 days versus 12 days in the delayed group.

Larger trial needed

Commenting on the RAPID CABG study at an AHA press conference, Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of the cardiac surgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were in line with her practice.

“These results confirm what I already think is safe,” she said. “I’m comfortable going within 48 hours. But we individualize our approach, so it was helpful that the study investigators included platelet reactivity data. The interesting thing for me in this study was the number of adverse events in patients who waited longer.” 

Dr. Chikwe said her top-line message was that “Surgery looked incredibly safe; there was amazingly low mortality. And if a patient has an indication for surgery, waiting does not serve you well.”

However, she also cautioned that the trial was somewhat underpowered, with a small number of events that drove the primary outcome, leading to some uncertainty on the results.

“The RAPID trial was helpful, and although it confirms my practice, I think physicians may want to see a larger-powered trial to be convincingly compelled that they should change their practice,” Dr. Chikwe noted.  

She added that clinical trials in cardiac surgery are driven by inherent challenges. “Cardiac surgery is not very common, and it is hard to recruit patients into these trials, so you are generally tied to a small number of patients, and you therefore have to be extremely thoughtful about the study design. It is almost a given that you will need to use surrogate endpoints, and the choice of the surrogate endpoint can determine which way the trial goes.”

The RAPID CABG study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. So reports research support, consultancy, or speaker’s fees from AggreDyne, Roche Diagnostics, Fujimori Kogyo, and AstraZeneca Canada. Dr. Mehran reports that her institution has received significant trial funding from AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of ticagrelor).  

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

Patients with acute coronary syndromes who have been taking the antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor, and who need coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may be able to safely have the procedure earlier than typically recommended, a new randomized trial suggests.

The RAPID CABG trial found that early surgery 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation was noninferior in incurring severe or massive perioperative bleeding, compared with waiting 5-7 days. There was also no significant difference in TIMI CABG or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 4 or 5 bleeding.

Patients in the delayed group had a numerically higher number of ischemic events requiring earlier surgery and had a longer hospital stay.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“RAPID CABG is the first and only randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety of early surgery in patients taking ticagrelor,” said lead investigator Derek So, MD.

Dr. So, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and a professor at the University of Ottawa, explained that ticagrelor is a first-line antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but around 10% of patients presenting with ACS require CABG surgery.

A major concern among patients requiring bypass surgery is perioperative bleeding, and it has been shown that patients undergoing urgent bypass within 24 hours of the last dose of ticagrelor have increased mortality. Accordingly, guidelines suggest a waiting period for patients not requiring urgent bypass surgery, Dr. So noted.

Current North American guidelines suggest a waiting period of at least 5 days after stopping ticagrelor before bypass surgery. In contrast, the updated European and Japanese guidelines suggest a waiting period of 3 days.

Dr. So noted that all of the guidelines are based on cohort studies and pharmacodynamic studies, with no randomized evidence. Pharmacodynamic studies have shown that at 48 hours after the last dose of ticagrelor, the level of platelet inhibition drops to the same levels seen with long-term treatment with clopidogrel, a weaker antiplatelet drug, and after 120 hours (5 days) the effect has completely worn off.

Dr. So concluded that these new results from the RAPID CABG trial “may influence future iterations of North American guidelines with reduced waiting prior to bypass surgery” for patients receiving ticagrelor, and “they could also strengthen the level of evidence in European and Asian guidelines.”

Designated discussant of the RAPID CABG trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said this was a “very important study,” being the only randomized trial to look at this issue to date.

Dr. Mehran noted that the results showed a similar number of major life-threatening bleeding events in the early and delayed groups and met the noninferiority endpoint, but she pointed out that the trial had a small sample size and a small number of events. “Therefore, larger trials are needed to verify these important and encouraging results.”

However, she concluded that these results should be considered in decisions about the timing of bypass surgery in patients receiving ticagrelor. “I will be changing my practice and sending patients earlier based on this data,” she said.

 RAPID CABG

RAPID CABG was a physician-initiated multicenter randomized study evaluating the safety of early surgery at 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation, compared with a delay of 5-7 days among patients presenting with ACS who required nonemergency CABG surgery.

The study enrolled 143 patients with ACS who were receiving ticagrelor and needed CABG surgery. Patients with stenting for culprit lesions, those requiring urgent surgery (less than 24 hours after presentation), and those requiring valve surgery were excluded.   

Three patients declined surgery, and several others underwent surgery outside the assigned time window, so the results were based on the per protocol analysis of patients who actually had CABG in the assigned time window: 65 patients in the early CABG group and 58 in the delayed group.

The mean time from last ticagrelor dose to surgery was 3 days in the early group and 6 days in the delayed group.

Platelet reactivity on the VerifyNow test showed more residual antiplatelet activity in the early group, with P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) levels of 200 (vs. 251 in the delayed group). This test measures the extent of platelet aggregation in the presence of P2Y12-inhibitor drugs, with lower PRU levels showing stronger antiplatelet effects.

The primary outcome of the study was severe or massive bleeding by Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) class 3 or 4. This is defined as a blood transfusions of more than 5 units of red blood cells or plasma within 24 hours of surgical closure, chest tube drainage of over 1,000 mL in the first 12 hours, and reoperation for bleeding.

Results showed that 4.6% of the early-surgery group had a primary outcome bleeding event, compared with 5.2% of the delayed surgery group, meeting the criteria for noninferiority (P = .0253 for noninferiority).

Individual components of the primary endpoint showed three class 3 (severe) bleeding events in both groups and no class 4 (massive) bleeding events in either group.  

In terms of other bleeding outcomes, TIMI CABG bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early-surgery group vs. no patients in the delayed group; BARC 4 bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early group versus none in the delayed group, and there were no BARC 5 bleeding events in either group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, ischemic events before surgery occurred in six patients (8.7%) in the delayed group (one myocardial infarction, four cases of recurrent ischemia, and one ventricular tachycardia) versus none in the early group.

Cumulative 6-month ischemic events occurred in nine patients (13.0%) in the delayed group vs. four patients (5.6%) in the early group, the difference being driven by nonfatal MI and recurrent ischemia.  

There were no cardiovascular deaths in either group and one all-cause death in both groups.

Patients undergoing early surgery also had a shorter hospitalization, with a median length of stay of 9 days versus 12 days in the delayed group.

Larger trial needed

Commenting on the RAPID CABG study at an AHA press conference, Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of the cardiac surgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were in line with her practice.

“These results confirm what I already think is safe,” she said. “I’m comfortable going within 48 hours. But we individualize our approach, so it was helpful that the study investigators included platelet reactivity data. The interesting thing for me in this study was the number of adverse events in patients who waited longer.” 

Dr. Chikwe said her top-line message was that “Surgery looked incredibly safe; there was amazingly low mortality. And if a patient has an indication for surgery, waiting does not serve you well.”

However, she also cautioned that the trial was somewhat underpowered, with a small number of events that drove the primary outcome, leading to some uncertainty on the results.

“The RAPID trial was helpful, and although it confirms my practice, I think physicians may want to see a larger-powered trial to be convincingly compelled that they should change their practice,” Dr. Chikwe noted.  

She added that clinical trials in cardiac surgery are driven by inherent challenges. “Cardiac surgery is not very common, and it is hard to recruit patients into these trials, so you are generally tied to a small number of patients, and you therefore have to be extremely thoughtful about the study design. It is almost a given that you will need to use surrogate endpoints, and the choice of the surrogate endpoint can determine which way the trial goes.”

The RAPID CABG study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. So reports research support, consultancy, or speaker’s fees from AggreDyne, Roche Diagnostics, Fujimori Kogyo, and AstraZeneca Canada. Dr. Mehran reports that her institution has received significant trial funding from AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of ticagrelor).  

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

In large-vessel occlusion stroke, results of a randomized trial failed to show noninferiority of direct mechanical thrombectomy using the Solitaire device to the combination of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy.

In the prospective, multicenter trial, the rate of good functional outcome was 57% for patients who underwent direct thrombectomy and 65% among patients who received IV thrombolysis before undergoing thrombectomy. This result failed to demonstrate noninferiority of direct mechanical thrombectomy compared to combination therapy, the researchers conclude.

“Good outcome was high in both treatment arms, with the point estimate in favor of the bridging cohort,” said lead investigator Urs Fischer, MD, co-chair of the stroke center at Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, during his presentation. “Postinterventional reperfusion was very high in both treatment arms and higher in patients with bridging thrombolysis, compared to direct mechanical thrombectomy.”

The findings were presented at the 13th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2021.
 

Two views of thrombolysis

The value of bridging thrombolysis for patients who undergo mechanical thrombectomy is a matter of debate. One argument is that, for patients with large-vessel occlusion, IV thrombolysis may improve reperfusion before and after thrombectomy and yield better clinical outcomes. The opposing argument is that bridging thrombolysis may increase the risk for distal emboli, delay mechanical thrombectomy, and increase the rate of hemorrhage.

The researchers conducted the SWIFT DIRECT trial to investigate this question. They enrolled patients with acute ischemic stroke due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery.

The trial was conducted at 48 sites in seven European countries and Canada. The investigators randomly assigned patients to receive IV alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) plus mechanical thrombectomy with the Solitaire device or to receive direct mechanical thrombectomy with the same device. Treatment was open label, but the assessment of endpoints was blinded.

Investigators assigned 423 patients to treatment, and 408 were included in the full analysis set. Of this group, 201 participants received direct mechanical thrombectomy, and 207 received IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy. There were three crossovers in each treatment arm.

The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, mRS shift, change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24 hours, successful reperfusion, and symptomatic and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
 

Noninferiority not demonstrated

At baseline, patient characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. The median age of the patients was 72 years, and about 50% of participants were women. The median NIHSS score was 17 in both arms.

Approximately 57% of patients who underwent direct thrombectomy and 65% of those who received IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy were functionally independent at 90 days, the primary outcome.

In addition, the researchers found no difference in mRS shift, mortality at 90 days, or change in NIHSS score at 24 hours. Postinterventional reperfusion was very high in both arms and was higher in patients who received IV tissue plasminogen activator, compared with those who received direct mechanical thrombectomy, said Dr. Fischer.

The rate of successful postinterventional reperfusion, however, was higher among patients who received thrombolysis than among those who underwent direct thrombectomy. The rate of symptomatic ICH was 1.5% in the direct thrombectomy group and 4.9% in the thrombolysis-plus-thrombectomy group.
 

New endpoints needed?

The investigators used noninferiority margins of 12%. “This question about the noninferiority margins, that’s a very tricky and difficult one in randomized clinical trials,” said Dr. Fischer. The investigators defined their margin using the 2015 HERMES data because no trials had yet compared direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging thrombolysis at the time.

The researchers are performing a pooled analysis of all the trials that compared bridging thrombolysis with direct mechanical thrombectomy. “We are therefore looking at several margins, and I think this is the way we should look at these noninferiority margins,” said Dr. Fischer. “There’s not a clear-cut level which you can define.”

Enrollment in the trial was well balanced with respect to gender, which is not always the case in stroke studies, said Kevin Sheth, MD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who commented on the study for this news organization.

The findings indicate that the likelihood of there being a difference between groups on this question is low, said Dr. Sheth. Both groups had large-vessel occlusion, both received thrombectomy, and both achieved reperfusion. But the higher rate of successful reperfusion in the bridging cohort was not reflected in any of the clinical endpoints that the investigators examined.

Observing a difference in this context will require very large trials or different endpoints that are more responsive to the intervention, said Dr. Sheth. “This is going to be a challenge for not just this but for any neuroprotection trial in the future,” he said.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL Behring. Dr. Sheth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In large-vessel occlusion stroke, results of a randomized trial failed to show noninferiority of direct mechanical thrombectomy using the Solitaire device to the combination of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy.

In the prospective, multicenter trial, the rate of good functional outcome was 57% for patients who underwent direct thrombectomy and 65% among patients who received IV thrombolysis before undergoing thrombectomy. This result failed to demonstrate noninferiority of direct mechanical thrombectomy compared to combination therapy, the researchers conclude.

“Good outcome was high in both treatment arms, with the point estimate in favor of the bridging cohort,” said lead investigator Urs Fischer, MD, co-chair of the stroke center at Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, during his presentation. “Postinterventional reperfusion was very high in both treatment arms and higher in patients with bridging thrombolysis, compared to direct mechanical thrombectomy.”

The findings were presented at the 13th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2021.
 

Two views of thrombolysis

The value of bridging thrombolysis for patients who undergo mechanical thrombectomy is a matter of debate. One argument is that, for patients with large-vessel occlusion, IV thrombolysis may improve reperfusion before and after thrombectomy and yield better clinical outcomes. The opposing argument is that bridging thrombolysis may increase the risk for distal emboli, delay mechanical thrombectomy, and increase the rate of hemorrhage.

The researchers conducted the SWIFT DIRECT trial to investigate this question. They enrolled patients with acute ischemic stroke due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery.

The trial was conducted at 48 sites in seven European countries and Canada. The investigators randomly assigned patients to receive IV alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) plus mechanical thrombectomy with the Solitaire device or to receive direct mechanical thrombectomy with the same device. Treatment was open label, but the assessment of endpoints was blinded.

Investigators assigned 423 patients to treatment, and 408 were included in the full analysis set. Of this group, 201 participants received direct mechanical thrombectomy, and 207 received IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy. There were three crossovers in each treatment arm.

The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, mRS shift, change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24 hours, successful reperfusion, and symptomatic and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
 

Noninferiority not demonstrated

At baseline, patient characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. The median age of the patients was 72 years, and about 50% of participants were women. The median NIHSS score was 17 in both arms.

Approximately 57% of patients who underwent direct thrombectomy and 65% of those who received IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy were functionally independent at 90 days, the primary outcome.

In addition, the researchers found no difference in mRS shift, mortality at 90 days, or change in NIHSS score at 24 hours. Postinterventional reperfusion was very high in both arms and was higher in patients who received IV tissue plasminogen activator, compared with those who received direct mechanical thrombectomy, said Dr. Fischer.

The rate of successful postinterventional reperfusion, however, was higher among patients who received thrombolysis than among those who underwent direct thrombectomy. The rate of symptomatic ICH was 1.5% in the direct thrombectomy group and 4.9% in the thrombolysis-plus-thrombectomy group.
 

New endpoints needed?

The investigators used noninferiority margins of 12%. “This question about the noninferiority margins, that’s a very tricky and difficult one in randomized clinical trials,” said Dr. Fischer. The investigators defined their margin using the 2015 HERMES data because no trials had yet compared direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging thrombolysis at the time.

The researchers are performing a pooled analysis of all the trials that compared bridging thrombolysis with direct mechanical thrombectomy. “We are therefore looking at several margins, and I think this is the way we should look at these noninferiority margins,” said Dr. Fischer. “There’s not a clear-cut level which you can define.”

Enrollment in the trial was well balanced with respect to gender, which is not always the case in stroke studies, said Kevin Sheth, MD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who commented on the study for this news organization.

The findings indicate that the likelihood of there being a difference between groups on this question is low, said Dr. Sheth. Both groups had large-vessel occlusion, both received thrombectomy, and both achieved reperfusion. But the higher rate of successful reperfusion in the bridging cohort was not reflected in any of the clinical endpoints that the investigators examined.

Observing a difference in this context will require very large trials or different endpoints that are more responsive to the intervention, said Dr. Sheth. “This is going to be a challenge for not just this but for any neuroprotection trial in the future,” he said.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL Behring. Dr. Sheth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In large-vessel occlusion stroke, results of a randomized trial failed to show noninferiority of direct mechanical thrombectomy using the Solitaire device to the combination of intravenous (IV) thrombolysis plus mechanical thrombectomy.

In the prospective, multicenter trial, the rate of good functional outcome was 57% for patients who underwent direct thrombectomy and 65% among patients who received IV thrombolysis before undergoing thrombectomy. This result failed to demonstrate noninferiority of direct mechanical thrombectomy compared to combination therapy, the researchers conclude.

“Good outcome was high in both treatment arms, with the point estimate in favor of the bridging cohort,” said lead investigator Urs Fischer, MD, co-chair of the stroke center at Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, Switzerland, during his presentation. “Postinterventional reperfusion was very high in both treatment arms and higher in patients with bridging thrombolysis, compared to direct mechanical thrombectomy.”

The findings were presented at the 13th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2021.
 

Two views of thrombolysis

The value of bridging thrombolysis for patients who undergo mechanical thrombectomy is a matter of debate. One argument is that, for patients with large-vessel occlusion, IV thrombolysis may improve reperfusion before and after thrombectomy and yield better clinical outcomes. The opposing argument is that bridging thrombolysis may increase the risk for distal emboli, delay mechanical thrombectomy, and increase the rate of hemorrhage.

The researchers conducted the SWIFT DIRECT trial to investigate this question. They enrolled patients with acute ischemic stroke due to occlusion of the internal carotid artery or the M1 segment of the middle cerebral artery.

The trial was conducted at 48 sites in seven European countries and Canada. The investigators randomly assigned patients to receive IV alteplase (0.9 mg/kg) plus mechanical thrombectomy with the Solitaire device or to receive direct mechanical thrombectomy with the same device. Treatment was open label, but the assessment of endpoints was blinded.

Investigators assigned 423 patients to treatment, and 408 were included in the full analysis set. Of this group, 201 participants received direct mechanical thrombectomy, and 207 received IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy. There were three crossovers in each treatment arm.

The primary outcome was functional independence, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2, at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at 90 days, mRS shift, change in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at 24 hours, successful reperfusion, and symptomatic and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
 

Noninferiority not demonstrated

At baseline, patient characteristics were well balanced between the treatment groups. The median age of the patients was 72 years, and about 50% of participants were women. The median NIHSS score was 17 in both arms.

Approximately 57% of patients who underwent direct thrombectomy and 65% of those who received IV thrombolysis plus thrombectomy were functionally independent at 90 days, the primary outcome.

In addition, the researchers found no difference in mRS shift, mortality at 90 days, or change in NIHSS score at 24 hours. Postinterventional reperfusion was very high in both arms and was higher in patients who received IV tissue plasminogen activator, compared with those who received direct mechanical thrombectomy, said Dr. Fischer.

The rate of successful postinterventional reperfusion, however, was higher among patients who received thrombolysis than among those who underwent direct thrombectomy. The rate of symptomatic ICH was 1.5% in the direct thrombectomy group and 4.9% in the thrombolysis-plus-thrombectomy group.
 

New endpoints needed?

The investigators used noninferiority margins of 12%. “This question about the noninferiority margins, that’s a very tricky and difficult one in randomized clinical trials,” said Dr. Fischer. The investigators defined their margin using the 2015 HERMES data because no trials had yet compared direct mechanical thrombectomy and bridging thrombolysis at the time.

The researchers are performing a pooled analysis of all the trials that compared bridging thrombolysis with direct mechanical thrombectomy. “We are therefore looking at several margins, and I think this is the way we should look at these noninferiority margins,” said Dr. Fischer. “There’s not a clear-cut level which you can define.”

Enrollment in the trial was well balanced with respect to gender, which is not always the case in stroke studies, said Kevin Sheth, MD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who commented on the study for this news organization.

The findings indicate that the likelihood of there being a difference between groups on this question is low, said Dr. Sheth. Both groups had large-vessel occlusion, both received thrombectomy, and both achieved reperfusion. But the higher rate of successful reperfusion in the bridging cohort was not reflected in any of the clinical endpoints that the investigators examined.

Observing a difference in this context will require very large trials or different endpoints that are more responsive to the intervention, said Dr. Sheth. “This is going to be a challenge for not just this but for any neuroprotection trial in the future,” he said.

The study was supported by Medtronic. Dr. Fischer has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Stryker, and CSL Behring. Dr. Sheth has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 has been difficult for parents trying to balance careers, home life, and keeping their loved ones safe. A new study indicates that, not only are physicians not immune to these stressors, but the long-term effects could be devastating for health care overall.

Juanmonino/Getty Images

In a study published Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open , researchers found that stresses to work/life balance and family life caused by the pandemic have differed among men and women physicians. Women physicians have borne more of the burden, and the consequences could reach far beyond home.

Physicians and other health care workers have been at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their work lives have been the focus of a lot of attention in the media and by researchers. Their family lives, not so much. But physicians have families, and the pandemic has upended almost everything about their lives, particularly where work life and home life intersect. School and day care closures, working from home, working extra hours, or working less – all of these changes have consequences on family life and the mental health of parents who are also physicians.

Findings from a Medscape survey published in early 2021 indicate that more female physicians than male physicians were either “conflicted” or “very conflicted” as parents because of work demands (42% vs. 23%) nearly 6 months into the pandemic.

In the current study, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the Medical University of South Carolina teamed up to investigate gender differences in how work/family factors affected the mental health of early-career physician parents in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that the pandemic has increased gender disparity and added disproportionately to the burden of female physicians.
 

Managing the household falls mostly on moms

Participants were physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that regularly surveys medical interns in the United States to assess stress and mood. When researchers compared survey results from before the onset of the pandemic (2018) with later results (2020), they found a striking gender difference in how the pandemic has changed family and work duties for physicians.

The authors of the study pointed out that previous research had found that female physicians take on a greater share of household and childcare duties than male physicians. The current study found that their share had increased with the pandemic. Physician moms are now 30 times more likely to be in charge of these tasks than physician dads.

In families in which both parents were physicians, none of the men said they took the primary role in managing the extra demands caused by the pandemic. In addition, women were twice as likely as men to work primarily from home and to work reduced hours.

The extra stress seems to be taking a toll on women physicians. In the 2020 survey, physician mothers had higher scores for anxiety and depression symptoms, compared with men. Notably, the 2018 survey did not show a significant difference in depression scores between men and women. Nor were there significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between women and men who were not parents or in reports of work/family conflict before and after the pandemic.

In general, the results indicate that the pandemic has only widened the gender gap between women and men physicians when it comes to managing family life and dealing with the stresses of maintaining a suitable work-life balance.
 

‘Long-term repercussions’ for gender equity in medicine

Although these are serious problems for women physicians and their families, the effects go beyond the home and beyond individuals. Even before the pandemic, women in medicine struggled for parity in career advancement and opportunities as well as in pay, and this new setback could make those challenges even greater.

“Even short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact opportunities for promotion, further exacerbating gender inequalities in compensation and advancement,” the study’s authors wrote.

The potential damage extends to the entire profession and the health care system itself. The profession is already struggling to retain young female physicians, and this situation is likely to make that problem worse and have long-term consequences. Citing data showing that female physicians spend more time with patients and that their patients may have better outcomes, the authors wrote that the consequences of losing more early-career female physicians “could be devastating to the U.S. health care system, particularly in the context of a global pandemic and an impending physician shortage.”

The sample size was small (276 U.S. physicians), and the study relied on self-reported data. The findings suggest that more research on this topic is needed, especially research that includes other demographic factors, such as sexual orientation and ethnicity. The authors recommend that institutional and public policymakers take into account the effects of the pandemic on physician mothers to ensure that recent gains in gender equity for women physicians do not fall victim to COVID-19.

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

COVID-19 has been difficult for parents trying to balance careers, home life, and keeping their loved ones safe. A new study indicates that, not only are physicians not immune to these stressors, but the long-term effects could be devastating for health care overall.

Juanmonino/Getty Images

In a study published Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open , researchers found that stresses to work/life balance and family life caused by the pandemic have differed among men and women physicians. Women physicians have borne more of the burden, and the consequences could reach far beyond home.

Physicians and other health care workers have been at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their work lives have been the focus of a lot of attention in the media and by researchers. Their family lives, not so much. But physicians have families, and the pandemic has upended almost everything about their lives, particularly where work life and home life intersect. School and day care closures, working from home, working extra hours, or working less – all of these changes have consequences on family life and the mental health of parents who are also physicians.

Findings from a Medscape survey published in early 2021 indicate that more female physicians than male physicians were either “conflicted” or “very conflicted” as parents because of work demands (42% vs. 23%) nearly 6 months into the pandemic.

In the current study, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the Medical University of South Carolina teamed up to investigate gender differences in how work/family factors affected the mental health of early-career physician parents in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that the pandemic has increased gender disparity and added disproportionately to the burden of female physicians.
 

Managing the household falls mostly on moms

Participants were physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that regularly surveys medical interns in the United States to assess stress and mood. When researchers compared survey results from before the onset of the pandemic (2018) with later results (2020), they found a striking gender difference in how the pandemic has changed family and work duties for physicians.

The authors of the study pointed out that previous research had found that female physicians take on a greater share of household and childcare duties than male physicians. The current study found that their share had increased with the pandemic. Physician moms are now 30 times more likely to be in charge of these tasks than physician dads.

In families in which both parents were physicians, none of the men said they took the primary role in managing the extra demands caused by the pandemic. In addition, women were twice as likely as men to work primarily from home and to work reduced hours.

The extra stress seems to be taking a toll on women physicians. In the 2020 survey, physician mothers had higher scores for anxiety and depression symptoms, compared with men. Notably, the 2018 survey did not show a significant difference in depression scores between men and women. Nor were there significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between women and men who were not parents or in reports of work/family conflict before and after the pandemic.

In general, the results indicate that the pandemic has only widened the gender gap between women and men physicians when it comes to managing family life and dealing with the stresses of maintaining a suitable work-life balance.
 

‘Long-term repercussions’ for gender equity in medicine

Although these are serious problems for women physicians and their families, the effects go beyond the home and beyond individuals. Even before the pandemic, women in medicine struggled for parity in career advancement and opportunities as well as in pay, and this new setback could make those challenges even greater.

“Even short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact opportunities for promotion, further exacerbating gender inequalities in compensation and advancement,” the study’s authors wrote.

The potential damage extends to the entire profession and the health care system itself. The profession is already struggling to retain young female physicians, and this situation is likely to make that problem worse and have long-term consequences. Citing data showing that female physicians spend more time with patients and that their patients may have better outcomes, the authors wrote that the consequences of losing more early-career female physicians “could be devastating to the U.S. health care system, particularly in the context of a global pandemic and an impending physician shortage.”

The sample size was small (276 U.S. physicians), and the study relied on self-reported data. The findings suggest that more research on this topic is needed, especially research that includes other demographic factors, such as sexual orientation and ethnicity. The authors recommend that institutional and public policymakers take into account the effects of the pandemic on physician mothers to ensure that recent gains in gender equity for women physicians do not fall victim to COVID-19.

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

COVID-19 has been difficult for parents trying to balance careers, home life, and keeping their loved ones safe. A new study indicates that, not only are physicians not immune to these stressors, but the long-term effects could be devastating for health care overall.

Juanmonino/Getty Images

In a study published Nov. 11, 2021, in JAMA Network Open , researchers found that stresses to work/life balance and family life caused by the pandemic have differed among men and women physicians. Women physicians have borne more of the burden, and the consequences could reach far beyond home.

Physicians and other health care workers have been at the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, and their work lives have been the focus of a lot of attention in the media and by researchers. Their family lives, not so much. But physicians have families, and the pandemic has upended almost everything about their lives, particularly where work life and home life intersect. School and day care closures, working from home, working extra hours, or working less – all of these changes have consequences on family life and the mental health of parents who are also physicians.

Findings from a Medscape survey published in early 2021 indicate that more female physicians than male physicians were either “conflicted” or “very conflicted” as parents because of work demands (42% vs. 23%) nearly 6 months into the pandemic.

In the current study, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, and the Medical University of South Carolina teamed up to investigate gender differences in how work/family factors affected the mental health of early-career physician parents in the United States during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results suggest that the pandemic has increased gender disparity and added disproportionately to the burden of female physicians.
 

Managing the household falls mostly on moms

Participants were physicians enrolled in the Intern Health Study, a longitudinal study that regularly surveys medical interns in the United States to assess stress and mood. When researchers compared survey results from before the onset of the pandemic (2018) with later results (2020), they found a striking gender difference in how the pandemic has changed family and work duties for physicians.

The authors of the study pointed out that previous research had found that female physicians take on a greater share of household and childcare duties than male physicians. The current study found that their share had increased with the pandemic. Physician moms are now 30 times more likely to be in charge of these tasks than physician dads.

In families in which both parents were physicians, none of the men said they took the primary role in managing the extra demands caused by the pandemic. In addition, women were twice as likely as men to work primarily from home and to work reduced hours.

The extra stress seems to be taking a toll on women physicians. In the 2020 survey, physician mothers had higher scores for anxiety and depression symptoms, compared with men. Notably, the 2018 survey did not show a significant difference in depression scores between men and women. Nor were there significant differences in depression and anxiety scores between women and men who were not parents or in reports of work/family conflict before and after the pandemic.

In general, the results indicate that the pandemic has only widened the gender gap between women and men physicians when it comes to managing family life and dealing with the stresses of maintaining a suitable work-life balance.
 

‘Long-term repercussions’ for gender equity in medicine

Although these are serious problems for women physicians and their families, the effects go beyond the home and beyond individuals. Even before the pandemic, women in medicine struggled for parity in career advancement and opportunities as well as in pay, and this new setback could make those challenges even greater.

“Even short-term adjustments can have serious long-term repercussions as they may lead to lower earnings and negatively impact opportunities for promotion, further exacerbating gender inequalities in compensation and advancement,” the study’s authors wrote.

The potential damage extends to the entire profession and the health care system itself. The profession is already struggling to retain young female physicians, and this situation is likely to make that problem worse and have long-term consequences. Citing data showing that female physicians spend more time with patients and that their patients may have better outcomes, the authors wrote that the consequences of losing more early-career female physicians “could be devastating to the U.S. health care system, particularly in the context of a global pandemic and an impending physician shortage.”

The sample size was small (276 U.S. physicians), and the study relied on self-reported data. The findings suggest that more research on this topic is needed, especially research that includes other demographic factors, such as sexual orientation and ethnicity. The authors recommend that institutional and public policymakers take into account the effects of the pandemic on physician mothers to ensure that recent gains in gender equity for women physicians do not fall victim to COVID-19.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the nation well over a year ago, Rebecca Hendrickson, MD, PhD, immersed herself in the shell-shocking revelations that clinicians began posting on social media. The accounts offered just a snapshot of the pandemic’s heavy psychological toll, and Dr. Hendrickson, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), wanted to know more.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

She and her colleagues devised a survey to assess the impact of several pandemic-related factors, including increased work hours, social distancing restrictions, and lack of adequate personal protective equipment.

What began as a survey of health care workers soon expanded in scope. Of the more than 600 survey respondents to date, health care workers account for about 60%, while the rest are first responders – police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians – and nonclinical personnel, such as security guards and office staff, in health care settings. The respondents range in age from 19 to 72, and hail from all regions of the country.

“Our findings were really striking,” Dr. Hendrickson said, “including very high rates of thoughts of suicide and thoughts of leaving one’s current field, which were both strongly linked to COVID-19–related occupational stress exposure.”

The distress stemmed from a multitude of factors. Among the most demoralizing: witnessing patients die in isolation and being stretched thin to provide optimal care for all patients amid an unrelenting onslaught of COVID-19 cases, she said. For some health care workers, living in the garage or basement – to avoid infecting family members with the virus – also wore on their psyches.

Of all health care workers in the study, more than three-quarters reported symptoms that fell within the clinical range for depression (76%) and anxiety (78%). More than 25% noted that they had lost a family member or close colleague to the virus.

Dr. Hendrickson, who works with military veterans at the VA Puget Sound Hospital System’s Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and its PTSD outpatient clinic, hadn’t expected the experience of loss to be so pervasive. She said the sheer number of people who “crossed the threshold” into despair concerned her deeply.
 

Signs and symptoms of PTSD

PTSD’s prevalence among health care workers has always been variable, said Jessica Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

As a psychiatrist who sees health care workers in her clinical practice, Dr. Gold has noted poor baseline mental health, including depression and trauma. Significant data have pointed to a relatively higher suicide rate among physicians than among the general population. These problems have been compounded by COVID-19.

“It has been an unrelenting series of new stressors,” she said, citing lack of resources; a feeling of being unable to help; and the high frequency of risk of death to patients, family and friends, and the caregivers themselves as just as few examples. “It is very likely going to increase our baseline trauma, and honestly, I don’t know that we can predict how. To me, trauma has no real timeline and can show up months or even years after the pandemic.”

PTSD can manifest itself in health care workers in several different ways. A few commonalities Dr. Gold has observed are sleep disruption (including insomnia and nightmares), work avoidance by taking disability or quitting, irritability or other changes in mood, trouble concentrating, and hypervigilance.

She said she has seen physical manifestations of trauma – such as body pain, stomachaches, and teeth grinding, which “you might not realize are at all related to trauma but ultimately are.” Sometimes, she added, “people have panic attacks on the way to work or right when they get to work, or are thinking about work.”

Dr. Gold noted that different types of treatment, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), can be effective for PTSD. Medication is often necessary because of comorbid anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, said Dr. Gold, who is conducting a study on the pandemic’s effects on medical students.
 

The difficulties in isolating COVID-19 as a contributor

Not all researchers are convinced that a causal relationship has been established between the pandemic and worsening mental health among those in the health care sector.

With provider burnout being a long-standing concern in medicine, Ankur A. Butala, MD, assistant professor of neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he remains a bit skeptical that acute stressors during the pandemic amounted to a uniquely potent driving force that can be extrapolated and quantified in a study.

“It’s hard to interpret a chronic, rolling, ongoing trauma like COVID-19 against tools or scales developed to investigate symptoms from a singular and acute trauma, like a school shooting or a [military] firefight,” Dr. Butala said.

In addition, he noted a reluctance to generalizing results from a study in which participants were recruited via social media as opposed to research methods involving more rigorous selection protocols.

Although Dr. Hendrickson acknowledged the study’s limitations, she said her team nonetheless found strong correlations between COVID-19-related stressors and self-reported struggles in completing work-related tasks, as well as increasing thoughts of leaving one’s current field. They adjusted for previous lifetime trauma exposure, age, gender, and a personal history of contracting COVID-19.

The underlying premise of the study could be confirmed with repeated surveys over time, Dr. Butala said, as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and the vaccination effort unfolds.

Follow-up surveys are being sent to participants every 2 weeks and every 3 months to gauge their mood, for a total follow-up period of 9 months per individual. New participants are still welcome. “We will continue to enroll as long as it seems relevant,” Dr. Hendrickson said.

Carol S. North, MD, MPE, who has added to the growing research on the pandemic’s toll on mental health, noted that because symptom scales do not provide psychiatric diagnoses, it is difficult to attribute the prevalence of psychiatric disorders to the pandemic. Dr. North is chair and professor of crisis psychiatry at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and director of the program in trauma and disaster at VA North Texas Health Care System.

The DSM-5 criteria exclude naturally occurring illness, such as a virus (even during a pandemic) as a qualifying trauma for the diagnosis of PTSD. According to current criteria by the American Psychiatric Association, COVID-19 and the pandemic are not defined as trauma, Dr. North said, while noting that “just because it’s not trauma or PTSD does not mean that the pandemic should be discounted as not stressful; people are finding it very stressful.”

Identifying the exact source of distress would still be difficult, Dr. North said, as the pandemic has produced severe economic consequences and prolonged social isolation, as well as occurring alongside nationwide protests over racial and ethnic divisions. Studies to date haven’t effectively separated out for these stressors, making it impossible to weigh their relative impact.

Furthermore, “most of us face many other stressors in our daily lives, such as grief, losses, broken relationships, and personal failures,” she said. “All of these may contribute to psychological distress, and research is needed to determine how much was a product of the virus, other aspects of the pandemic, or unrelated life stressors.”
 

A rallying cry for new interventions

Despite such doubts, a growing number of studies are reporting that health care workers and first responders are experiencing intensified PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia as a result of the pandemic, said Hrayr Pierre Attarian, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago. These results should act as a rallying cry for implementing more policies tailored to prevent burnout, he said.

“What we are seeing during this terrible pandemic is burnout on steroids,” said Dr. Attarian, medical director of Northwestern’s Center for Sleep Disorders. There are already high burnout rates, “so this should be doubly important.”

Rooting out this problem starts at the institutional level, but merely advising providers to “be well” wouldn’t make inroads. “There needs to be fluid dialogue between health care workers and the leadership,” he said.

Among his proposed remedies: Access to confidential and free mental health resources, increased administrative support, flexible hours, respect for work-life balance, and forgiveness for occasional errors that don’t result in harm.

“Sometimes even the perception that a mistake has been made is taken as proof of guilt,” Dr. Attarian said. “It is not conducive to wellness. Extra income does not replace a nurturing work environment.”

Furthermore, “as a profession, we must stop glorifying ‘overwork.’ We must stop wearing ‘lack of sleep’ as badge of honor,” he said. “Sleep is a biological imperative like self-preservation, hunger, and thirst. When we don’t sleep anxiety, pain, and depression get amplified. Our perception of distress is off, as is our judgment.”

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs provides a directory that physicians can use for referrals to confidential consultation or treatment.

Christopher Bundy, MD, MPH, executive medical director of Washington Physicians Health Program in Seattle, has been following Dr. Hendrickson’s longitudinal study with keen interest. As president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, he hopes to translate the findings into practice.

“Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘black swan’ in terms of workforce sustainability issues,” Dr. Bundy said, citing “high rates of burnout, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction.” He sees some similarities with his former role in treating war veterans.

“The invisible wounds of combat, the psychological scars don’t really become apparent until after you’re out of the war zone,” said Dr. Bundy, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.

Likewise, he expects the “emotional chickens will come home to roost as the pandemic subsides.” Until then, “people are just focused on survival, and in doing their jobs and protecting their patients.” Eventually, “their own wounds inside the pandemic will take hold.”
 

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the nation well over a year ago, Rebecca Hendrickson, MD, PhD, immersed herself in the shell-shocking revelations that clinicians began posting on social media. The accounts offered just a snapshot of the pandemic’s heavy psychological toll, and Dr. Hendrickson, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), wanted to know more.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

She and her colleagues devised a survey to assess the impact of several pandemic-related factors, including increased work hours, social distancing restrictions, and lack of adequate personal protective equipment.

What began as a survey of health care workers soon expanded in scope. Of the more than 600 survey respondents to date, health care workers account for about 60%, while the rest are first responders – police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians – and nonclinical personnel, such as security guards and office staff, in health care settings. The respondents range in age from 19 to 72, and hail from all regions of the country.

“Our findings were really striking,” Dr. Hendrickson said, “including very high rates of thoughts of suicide and thoughts of leaving one’s current field, which were both strongly linked to COVID-19–related occupational stress exposure.”

The distress stemmed from a multitude of factors. Among the most demoralizing: witnessing patients die in isolation and being stretched thin to provide optimal care for all patients amid an unrelenting onslaught of COVID-19 cases, she said. For some health care workers, living in the garage or basement – to avoid infecting family members with the virus – also wore on their psyches.

Of all health care workers in the study, more than three-quarters reported symptoms that fell within the clinical range for depression (76%) and anxiety (78%). More than 25% noted that they had lost a family member or close colleague to the virus.

Dr. Hendrickson, who works with military veterans at the VA Puget Sound Hospital System’s Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and its PTSD outpatient clinic, hadn’t expected the experience of loss to be so pervasive. She said the sheer number of people who “crossed the threshold” into despair concerned her deeply.
 

Signs and symptoms of PTSD

PTSD’s prevalence among health care workers has always been variable, said Jessica Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

As a psychiatrist who sees health care workers in her clinical practice, Dr. Gold has noted poor baseline mental health, including depression and trauma. Significant data have pointed to a relatively higher suicide rate among physicians than among the general population. These problems have been compounded by COVID-19.

“It has been an unrelenting series of new stressors,” she said, citing lack of resources; a feeling of being unable to help; and the high frequency of risk of death to patients, family and friends, and the caregivers themselves as just as few examples. “It is very likely going to increase our baseline trauma, and honestly, I don’t know that we can predict how. To me, trauma has no real timeline and can show up months or even years after the pandemic.”

PTSD can manifest itself in health care workers in several different ways. A few commonalities Dr. Gold has observed are sleep disruption (including insomnia and nightmares), work avoidance by taking disability or quitting, irritability or other changes in mood, trouble concentrating, and hypervigilance.

She said she has seen physical manifestations of trauma – such as body pain, stomachaches, and teeth grinding, which “you might not realize are at all related to trauma but ultimately are.” Sometimes, she added, “people have panic attacks on the way to work or right when they get to work, or are thinking about work.”

Dr. Gold noted that different types of treatment, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), can be effective for PTSD. Medication is often necessary because of comorbid anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, said Dr. Gold, who is conducting a study on the pandemic’s effects on medical students.
 

The difficulties in isolating COVID-19 as a contributor

Not all researchers are convinced that a causal relationship has been established between the pandemic and worsening mental health among those in the health care sector.

With provider burnout being a long-standing concern in medicine, Ankur A. Butala, MD, assistant professor of neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he remains a bit skeptical that acute stressors during the pandemic amounted to a uniquely potent driving force that can be extrapolated and quantified in a study.

“It’s hard to interpret a chronic, rolling, ongoing trauma like COVID-19 against tools or scales developed to investigate symptoms from a singular and acute trauma, like a school shooting or a [military] firefight,” Dr. Butala said.

In addition, he noted a reluctance to generalizing results from a study in which participants were recruited via social media as opposed to research methods involving more rigorous selection protocols.

Although Dr. Hendrickson acknowledged the study’s limitations, she said her team nonetheless found strong correlations between COVID-19-related stressors and self-reported struggles in completing work-related tasks, as well as increasing thoughts of leaving one’s current field. They adjusted for previous lifetime trauma exposure, age, gender, and a personal history of contracting COVID-19.

The underlying premise of the study could be confirmed with repeated surveys over time, Dr. Butala said, as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and the vaccination effort unfolds.

Follow-up surveys are being sent to participants every 2 weeks and every 3 months to gauge their mood, for a total follow-up period of 9 months per individual. New participants are still welcome. “We will continue to enroll as long as it seems relevant,” Dr. Hendrickson said.

Carol S. North, MD, MPE, who has added to the growing research on the pandemic’s toll on mental health, noted that because symptom scales do not provide psychiatric diagnoses, it is difficult to attribute the prevalence of psychiatric disorders to the pandemic. Dr. North is chair and professor of crisis psychiatry at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and director of the program in trauma and disaster at VA North Texas Health Care System.

The DSM-5 criteria exclude naturally occurring illness, such as a virus (even during a pandemic) as a qualifying trauma for the diagnosis of PTSD. According to current criteria by the American Psychiatric Association, COVID-19 and the pandemic are not defined as trauma, Dr. North said, while noting that “just because it’s not trauma or PTSD does not mean that the pandemic should be discounted as not stressful; people are finding it very stressful.”

Identifying the exact source of distress would still be difficult, Dr. North said, as the pandemic has produced severe economic consequences and prolonged social isolation, as well as occurring alongside nationwide protests over racial and ethnic divisions. Studies to date haven’t effectively separated out for these stressors, making it impossible to weigh their relative impact.

Furthermore, “most of us face many other stressors in our daily lives, such as grief, losses, broken relationships, and personal failures,” she said. “All of these may contribute to psychological distress, and research is needed to determine how much was a product of the virus, other aspects of the pandemic, or unrelated life stressors.”
 

A rallying cry for new interventions

Despite such doubts, a growing number of studies are reporting that health care workers and first responders are experiencing intensified PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia as a result of the pandemic, said Hrayr Pierre Attarian, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago. These results should act as a rallying cry for implementing more policies tailored to prevent burnout, he said.

“What we are seeing during this terrible pandemic is burnout on steroids,” said Dr. Attarian, medical director of Northwestern’s Center for Sleep Disorders. There are already high burnout rates, “so this should be doubly important.”

Rooting out this problem starts at the institutional level, but merely advising providers to “be well” wouldn’t make inroads. “There needs to be fluid dialogue between health care workers and the leadership,” he said.

Among his proposed remedies: Access to confidential and free mental health resources, increased administrative support, flexible hours, respect for work-life balance, and forgiveness for occasional errors that don’t result in harm.

“Sometimes even the perception that a mistake has been made is taken as proof of guilt,” Dr. Attarian said. “It is not conducive to wellness. Extra income does not replace a nurturing work environment.”

Furthermore, “as a profession, we must stop glorifying ‘overwork.’ We must stop wearing ‘lack of sleep’ as badge of honor,” he said. “Sleep is a biological imperative like self-preservation, hunger, and thirst. When we don’t sleep anxiety, pain, and depression get amplified. Our perception of distress is off, as is our judgment.”

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs provides a directory that physicians can use for referrals to confidential consultation or treatment.

Christopher Bundy, MD, MPH, executive medical director of Washington Physicians Health Program in Seattle, has been following Dr. Hendrickson’s longitudinal study with keen interest. As president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, he hopes to translate the findings into practice.

“Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘black swan’ in terms of workforce sustainability issues,” Dr. Bundy said, citing “high rates of burnout, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction.” He sees some similarities with his former role in treating war veterans.

“The invisible wounds of combat, the psychological scars don’t really become apparent until after you’re out of the war zone,” said Dr. Bundy, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.

Likewise, he expects the “emotional chickens will come home to roost as the pandemic subsides.” Until then, “people are just focused on survival, and in doing their jobs and protecting their patients.” Eventually, “their own wounds inside the pandemic will take hold.”
 

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic engulfed the nation well over a year ago, Rebecca Hendrickson, MD, PhD, immersed herself in the shell-shocking revelations that clinicians began posting on social media. The accounts offered just a snapshot of the pandemic’s heavy psychological toll, and Dr. Hendrickson, a psychiatrist at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), wanted to know more.

xavierarnau/Getty Images

She and her colleagues devised a survey to assess the impact of several pandemic-related factors, including increased work hours, social distancing restrictions, and lack of adequate personal protective equipment.

What began as a survey of health care workers soon expanded in scope. Of the more than 600 survey respondents to date, health care workers account for about 60%, while the rest are first responders – police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians – and nonclinical personnel, such as security guards and office staff, in health care settings. The respondents range in age from 19 to 72, and hail from all regions of the country.

“Our findings were really striking,” Dr. Hendrickson said, “including very high rates of thoughts of suicide and thoughts of leaving one’s current field, which were both strongly linked to COVID-19–related occupational stress exposure.”

The distress stemmed from a multitude of factors. Among the most demoralizing: witnessing patients die in isolation and being stretched thin to provide optimal care for all patients amid an unrelenting onslaught of COVID-19 cases, she said. For some health care workers, living in the garage or basement – to avoid infecting family members with the virus – also wore on their psyches.

Of all health care workers in the study, more than three-quarters reported symptoms that fell within the clinical range for depression (76%) and anxiety (78%). More than 25% noted that they had lost a family member or close colleague to the virus.

Dr. Hendrickson, who works with military veterans at the VA Puget Sound Hospital System’s Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and its PTSD outpatient clinic, hadn’t expected the experience of loss to be so pervasive. She said the sheer number of people who “crossed the threshold” into despair concerned her deeply.
 

Signs and symptoms of PTSD

PTSD’s prevalence among health care workers has always been variable, said Jessica Gold, MD, assistant professor and director of wellness, engagement, and outreach in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis.

As a psychiatrist who sees health care workers in her clinical practice, Dr. Gold has noted poor baseline mental health, including depression and trauma. Significant data have pointed to a relatively higher suicide rate among physicians than among the general population. These problems have been compounded by COVID-19.

“It has been an unrelenting series of new stressors,” she said, citing lack of resources; a feeling of being unable to help; and the high frequency of risk of death to patients, family and friends, and the caregivers themselves as just as few examples. “It is very likely going to increase our baseline trauma, and honestly, I don’t know that we can predict how. To me, trauma has no real timeline and can show up months or even years after the pandemic.”

PTSD can manifest itself in health care workers in several different ways. A few commonalities Dr. Gold has observed are sleep disruption (including insomnia and nightmares), work avoidance by taking disability or quitting, irritability or other changes in mood, trouble concentrating, and hypervigilance.

She said she has seen physical manifestations of trauma – such as body pain, stomachaches, and teeth grinding, which “you might not realize are at all related to trauma but ultimately are.” Sometimes, she added, “people have panic attacks on the way to work or right when they get to work, or are thinking about work.”

Dr. Gold noted that different types of treatment, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), can be effective for PTSD. Medication is often necessary because of comorbid anxiety, depression, or eating disorders, said Dr. Gold, who is conducting a study on the pandemic’s effects on medical students.
 

The difficulties in isolating COVID-19 as a contributor

Not all researchers are convinced that a causal relationship has been established between the pandemic and worsening mental health among those in the health care sector.

With provider burnout being a long-standing concern in medicine, Ankur A. Butala, MD, assistant professor of neurology, psychiatry, and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said he remains a bit skeptical that acute stressors during the pandemic amounted to a uniquely potent driving force that can be extrapolated and quantified in a study.

“It’s hard to interpret a chronic, rolling, ongoing trauma like COVID-19 against tools or scales developed to investigate symptoms from a singular and acute trauma, like a school shooting or a [military] firefight,” Dr. Butala said.

In addition, he noted a reluctance to generalizing results from a study in which participants were recruited via social media as opposed to research methods involving more rigorous selection protocols.

Although Dr. Hendrickson acknowledged the study’s limitations, she said her team nonetheless found strong correlations between COVID-19-related stressors and self-reported struggles in completing work-related tasks, as well as increasing thoughts of leaving one’s current field. They adjusted for previous lifetime trauma exposure, age, gender, and a personal history of contracting COVID-19.

The underlying premise of the study could be confirmed with repeated surveys over time, Dr. Butala said, as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves and the vaccination effort unfolds.

Follow-up surveys are being sent to participants every 2 weeks and every 3 months to gauge their mood, for a total follow-up period of 9 months per individual. New participants are still welcome. “We will continue to enroll as long as it seems relevant,” Dr. Hendrickson said.

Carol S. North, MD, MPE, who has added to the growing research on the pandemic’s toll on mental health, noted that because symptom scales do not provide psychiatric diagnoses, it is difficult to attribute the prevalence of psychiatric disorders to the pandemic. Dr. North is chair and professor of crisis psychiatry at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and director of the program in trauma and disaster at VA North Texas Health Care System.

The DSM-5 criteria exclude naturally occurring illness, such as a virus (even during a pandemic) as a qualifying trauma for the diagnosis of PTSD. According to current criteria by the American Psychiatric Association, COVID-19 and the pandemic are not defined as trauma, Dr. North said, while noting that “just because it’s not trauma or PTSD does not mean that the pandemic should be discounted as not stressful; people are finding it very stressful.”

Identifying the exact source of distress would still be difficult, Dr. North said, as the pandemic has produced severe economic consequences and prolonged social isolation, as well as occurring alongside nationwide protests over racial and ethnic divisions. Studies to date haven’t effectively separated out for these stressors, making it impossible to weigh their relative impact.

Furthermore, “most of us face many other stressors in our daily lives, such as grief, losses, broken relationships, and personal failures,” she said. “All of these may contribute to psychological distress, and research is needed to determine how much was a product of the virus, other aspects of the pandemic, or unrelated life stressors.”
 

A rallying cry for new interventions

Despite such doubts, a growing number of studies are reporting that health care workers and first responders are experiencing intensified PTSD, depression, anxiety, and insomnia as a result of the pandemic, said Hrayr Pierre Attarian, MD, professor of neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago. These results should act as a rallying cry for implementing more policies tailored to prevent burnout, he said.

“What we are seeing during this terrible pandemic is burnout on steroids,” said Dr. Attarian, medical director of Northwestern’s Center for Sleep Disorders. There are already high burnout rates, “so this should be doubly important.”

Rooting out this problem starts at the institutional level, but merely advising providers to “be well” wouldn’t make inroads. “There needs to be fluid dialogue between health care workers and the leadership,” he said.

Among his proposed remedies: Access to confidential and free mental health resources, increased administrative support, flexible hours, respect for work-life balance, and forgiveness for occasional errors that don’t result in harm.

“Sometimes even the perception that a mistake has been made is taken as proof of guilt,” Dr. Attarian said. “It is not conducive to wellness. Extra income does not replace a nurturing work environment.”

Furthermore, “as a profession, we must stop glorifying ‘overwork.’ We must stop wearing ‘lack of sleep’ as badge of honor,” he said. “Sleep is a biological imperative like self-preservation, hunger, and thirst. When we don’t sleep anxiety, pain, and depression get amplified. Our perception of distress is off, as is our judgment.”

The Federation of State Physician Health Programs provides a directory that physicians can use for referrals to confidential consultation or treatment.

Christopher Bundy, MD, MPH, executive medical director of Washington Physicians Health Program in Seattle, has been following Dr. Hendrickson’s longitudinal study with keen interest. As president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, he hopes to translate the findings into practice.

“Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a ‘black swan’ in terms of workforce sustainability issues,” Dr. Bundy said, citing “high rates of burnout, disillusionment, and dissatisfaction.” He sees some similarities with his former role in treating war veterans.

“The invisible wounds of combat, the psychological scars don’t really become apparent until after you’re out of the war zone,” said Dr. Bundy, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Washington.

Likewise, he expects the “emotional chickens will come home to roost as the pandemic subsides.” Until then, “people are just focused on survival, and in doing their jobs and protecting their patients.” Eventually, “their own wounds inside the pandemic will take hold.”
 

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

The greatest autopsy on Earth?

The LOTME staff would like to apologize in advance. The following item contains historical facts.

P.T. Barnum is a rather controversial figure in American history. The greatest show on Earth was certainly popular in its day. However, Barnum got his start in 1835 by leasing a slave named Joyce Heth, an elderly Black woman who told vivid stories of caring for a young George Washington. He toured her around the country, advertising her as a 160-year-old woman who served as George Washington’s nanny. When Ms. Heth died the next year, Barnum sold tickets to the autopsy, charging the equivalent of $30 in today’s money.

fstop123/E+

When a doctor announced that Ms. Heth was actually 75-80 when she died, it caused great controversy in the press and ruined Barnum’s career. Wait, no, that’s not right. The opposite, actually. He weathered the storm, built his famous circus, and never again committed a hoax.

It’s difficult to quantify how wrong publicly dissecting a person and charging people to see said dissection is, but that was almost 200 years ago. At the very least, we can say that such terrible behavior is firmly in the distant past.

Oh wait.

David Saunders, a 98-year-old veteran of World War II and the Korean War, donated his body to science. His body, however, was purchased by DeathScience.org from a medical lab – with the buyer supposedly misleading the medical lab about its intentions, which was for use at the traveling Oddities and Curiosities Expo. Tickets went for up to $500 each to witness the public autopsy of Mr. Saunders’ body, which took place at a Marriott in Portland, Ore. It promised to be an exciting, all-day event from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with a break for lunch, of course. You can’t have an autopsy without a catered lunch.

Another public autopsy event was scheduled in Seattle but canceled after news of the first event broke. Oh, and for that extra little kick, Mr. Saunders died from COVID-19, meaning that all those paying customers were exposed.

P.T. Barnum is probably rolling over in his grave right now. His autopsy tickets were a bargain.
 

Go ahead, have that soda before math

We should all know by now that sugary drinks are bad, even artificially sweetened ones. It might not always stop us from drinking them, but we know the deal. But what if sugary drinks like soda could be helpful for girls in school?

©sjlocke/istock.com

You read that right. We said girls. A soda before class might have boys bouncing off the walls, but not girls. A recent study showed that not only was girls’ behavior unaffected by having a sugary drink, their math skills even improved.

Researchers analyzed the behavior of 4- to 6-year-old children before and after having a sugary drink. The sugar rush was actually calming for girls and helped them perform better with numerical skills, but the opposite was true for boys. “Our study is the first to provide large-scale experimental evidence on the impact of sugary drinks on preschool children. The results clearly indicate a causal impact of sugary drinks on children’s behavior and test scores,” Fritz Schiltz, PhD, said in a written statement.

This probably isn’t the green light to have as many sugary drinks as you want, but it might be interesting to see how your work is affected after a soda.
 

Chicken nuggets and the meat paradox

Two young children are fighting over the last chicken nugget when an adult comes in to see what’s going on.

Liam: Vegetable!

Olivia: Meat!

Liam: Chicken nuggets are vegetables!

Olivia: No, dorkface! They’re meat.

Caregiver: Good news, kids. You’re both right.

Olivia: How can we both be right?

At this point, a woman enters the room. She’s wearing a white lab coat, so she must be a scientist.

Dr. Scientist: You can’t both be right, Olivia. You are being fed a serving of the meat paradox. That’s why Liam here doesn’t know that chicken nuggets are made of chicken, which is a form of meat. Sadly, he’s not the only one.

pxfuel

In a recent study, scientists from Furman University in Greenville, S.C., found that 38% of 176 children aged 4-7 years thought that chicken nuggets were vegetables and more than 46% identified French fries as animal based.

Olivia: Did our caregiver lie to us, Dr. Scientist?

Dr. Scientist: Yes, Olivia. The researchers I mentioned explained that “many people experience unease while eating meat. Omnivores eat foods that entail animal suffering and death while at the same time endorsing the compassionate treatment of animals.” That’s the meat paradox.

Liam: What else did they say, Dr. Scientist?

Dr. Scientist: Over 70% of those children said that cows and pigs were not edible and 5% thought that cats and horses were. The investigators wrote “that children and youth should be viewed as agents of environmental change” in the future, but suggested that parents need to bring honesty to the table.

Caregiver: How did you get in here anyway? And how do you know their names?

Dr. Scientist: I’ve been rooting through your garbage for years. All in the name of science, of course.

Bedtimes aren’t just for children

There are multiple ways to prevent heart disease, but what if it could be as easy as switching your bedtime? A recent study in European Heart Journal–Digital Health suggests that there’s a sweet spot when it comes to sleep timing.

Tumisu/Pixabay

Through smartwatch-like devices, researchers measured the sleep-onset and wake-up times for 7 days in 88,026 participants aged 43-79 years. After 5.7 years of follow-up to see if anyone had a heart attack, stroke, or any other cardiovascular event, 3.6% developed some kind of cardiovascular disease.

Those who went to bed between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. had a lower risk of developing heart disease. The risk was 25% higher for subjects who went to bed at midnight or later, 24% higher for bedtimes before 10 p.m., and 12% higher for bedtimes between 11 p.m. and midnight.

So, why can you go to bed before “The Tonight Show” and lower your cardiovascular risk but not before the nightly news? Well, it has something to do with your body’s natural clock.

“The optimum time to go to sleep is at a specific point in the body’s 24-hour cycle and deviations may be detrimental to health. The riskiest time was after midnight, potentially because it may reduce the likelihood of seeing morning light, which resets the body clock,” said study author Dr. David Plans of the University of Exeter, England.

Although a sleep schedule is preferred, it isn’t realistic all the time for those in certain occupations who might have to resort to other methods to keep their circadian clocks ticking optimally for their health. But if all it takes is prescribing a sleep time to reduce heart disease on a massive scale it would make a great “low-cost public health target.”

So bedtimes aren’t just for children.

The greatest autopsy on Earth?

The LOTME staff would like to apologize in advance. The following item contains historical facts.

P.T. Barnum is a rather controversial figure in American history. The greatest show on Earth was certainly popular in its day. However, Barnum got his start in 1835 by leasing a slave named Joyce Heth, an elderly Black woman who told vivid stories of caring for a young George Washington. He toured her around the country, advertising her as a 160-year-old woman who served as George Washington’s nanny. When Ms. Heth died the next year, Barnum sold tickets to the autopsy, charging the equivalent of $30 in today’s money.

fstop123/E+

When a doctor announced that Ms. Heth was actually 75-80 when she died, it caused great controversy in the press and ruined Barnum’s career. Wait, no, that’s not right. The opposite, actually. He weathered the storm, built his famous circus, and never again committed a hoax.

It’s difficult to quantify how wrong publicly dissecting a person and charging people to see said dissection is, but that was almost 200 years ago. At the very least, we can say that such terrible behavior is firmly in the distant past.

Oh wait.

David Saunders, a 98-year-old veteran of World War II and the Korean War, donated his body to science. His body, however, was purchased by DeathScience.org from a medical lab – with the buyer supposedly misleading the medical lab about its intentions, which was for use at the traveling Oddities and Curiosities Expo. Tickets went for up to $500 each to witness the public autopsy of Mr. Saunders’ body, which took place at a Marriott in Portland, Ore. It promised to be an exciting, all-day event from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with a break for lunch, of course. You can’t have an autopsy without a catered lunch.

Another public autopsy event was scheduled in Seattle but canceled after news of the first event broke. Oh, and for that extra little kick, Mr. Saunders died from COVID-19, meaning that all those paying customers were exposed.

P.T. Barnum is probably rolling over in his grave right now. His autopsy tickets were a bargain.
 

Go ahead, have that soda before math

We should all know by now that sugary drinks are bad, even artificially sweetened ones. It might not always stop us from drinking them, but we know the deal. But what if sugary drinks like soda could be helpful for girls in school?

©sjlocke/istock.com

You read that right. We said girls. A soda before class might have boys bouncing off the walls, but not girls. A recent study showed that not only was girls’ behavior unaffected by having a sugary drink, their math skills even improved.

Researchers analyzed the behavior of 4- to 6-year-old children before and after having a sugary drink. The sugar rush was actually calming for girls and helped them perform better with numerical skills, but the opposite was true for boys. “Our study is the first to provide large-scale experimental evidence on the impact of sugary drinks on preschool children. The results clearly indicate a causal impact of sugary drinks on children’s behavior and test scores,” Fritz Schiltz, PhD, said in a written statement.

This probably isn’t the green light to have as many sugary drinks as you want, but it might be interesting to see how your work is affected after a soda.
 

Chicken nuggets and the meat paradox

Two young children are fighting over the last chicken nugget when an adult comes in to see what’s going on.

Liam: Vegetable!

Olivia: Meat!

Liam: Chicken nuggets are vegetables!

Olivia: No, dorkface! They’re meat.

Caregiver: Good news, kids. You’re both right.

Olivia: How can we both be right?

At this point, a woman enters the room. She’s wearing a white lab coat, so she must be a scientist.

Dr. Scientist: You can’t both be right, Olivia. You are being fed a serving of the meat paradox. That’s why Liam here doesn’t know that chicken nuggets are made of chicken, which is a form of meat. Sadly, he’s not the only one.

pxfuel

In a recent study, scientists from Furman University in Greenville, S.C., found that 38% of 176 children aged 4-7 years thought that chicken nuggets were vegetables and more than 46% identified French fries as animal based.

Olivia: Did our caregiver lie to us, Dr. Scientist?

Dr. Scientist: Yes, Olivia. The researchers I mentioned explained that “many people experience unease while eating meat. Omnivores eat foods that entail animal suffering and death while at the same time endorsing the compassionate treatment of animals.” That’s the meat paradox.

Liam: What else did they say, Dr. Scientist?

Dr. Scientist: Over 70% of those children said that cows and pigs were not edible and 5% thought that cats and horses were. The investigators wrote “that children and youth should be viewed as agents of environmental change” in the future, but suggested that parents need to bring honesty to the table.

Caregiver: How did you get in here anyway? And how do you know their names?

Dr. Scientist: I’ve been rooting through your garbage for years. All in the name of science, of course.

Bedtimes aren’t just for children

There are multiple ways to prevent heart disease, but what if it could be as easy as switching your bedtime? A recent study in European Heart Journal–Digital Health suggests that there’s a sweet spot when it comes to sleep timing.

Tumisu/Pixabay

Through smartwatch-like devices, researchers measured the sleep-onset and wake-up times for 7 days in 88,026 participants aged 43-79 years. After 5.7 years of follow-up to see if anyone had a heart attack, stroke, or any other cardiovascular event, 3.6% developed some kind of cardiovascular disease.

Those who went to bed between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. had a lower risk of developing heart disease. The risk was 25% higher for subjects who went to bed at midnight or later, 24% higher for bedtimes before 10 p.m., and 12% higher for bedtimes between 11 p.m. and midnight.

So, why can you go to bed before “The Tonight Show” and lower your cardiovascular risk but not before the nightly news? Well, it has something to do with your body’s natural clock.

“The optimum time to go to sleep is at a specific point in the body’s 24-hour cycle and deviations may be detrimental to health. The riskiest time was after midnight, potentially because it may reduce the likelihood of seeing morning light, which resets the body clock,” said study author Dr. David Plans of the University of Exeter, England.

Although a sleep schedule is preferred, it isn’t realistic all the time for those in certain occupations who might have to resort to other methods to keep their circadian clocks ticking optimally for their health. But if all it takes is prescribing a sleep time to reduce heart disease on a massive scale it would make a great “low-cost public health target.”

So bedtimes aren’t just for children.

The greatest autopsy on Earth?

The LOTME staff would like to apologize in advance. The following item contains historical facts.

P.T. Barnum is a rather controversial figure in American history. The greatest show on Earth was certainly popular in its day. However, Barnum got his start in 1835 by leasing a slave named Joyce Heth, an elderly Black woman who told vivid stories of caring for a young George Washington. He toured her around the country, advertising her as a 160-year-old woman who served as George Washington’s nanny. When Ms. Heth died the next year, Barnum sold tickets to the autopsy, charging the equivalent of $30 in today’s money.

fstop123/E+

When a doctor announced that Ms. Heth was actually 75-80 when she died, it caused great controversy in the press and ruined Barnum’s career. Wait, no, that’s not right. The opposite, actually. He weathered the storm, built his famous circus, and never again committed a hoax.

It’s difficult to quantify how wrong publicly dissecting a person and charging people to see said dissection is, but that was almost 200 years ago. At the very least, we can say that such terrible behavior is firmly in the distant past.

Oh wait.

David Saunders, a 98-year-old veteran of World War II and the Korean War, donated his body to science. His body, however, was purchased by DeathScience.org from a medical lab – with the buyer supposedly misleading the medical lab about its intentions, which was for use at the traveling Oddities and Curiosities Expo. Tickets went for up to $500 each to witness the public autopsy of Mr. Saunders’ body, which took place at a Marriott in Portland, Ore. It promised to be an exciting, all-day event from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., with a break for lunch, of course. You can’t have an autopsy without a catered lunch.

Another public autopsy event was scheduled in Seattle but canceled after news of the first event broke. Oh, and for that extra little kick, Mr. Saunders died from COVID-19, meaning that all those paying customers were exposed.

P.T. Barnum is probably rolling over in his grave right now. His autopsy tickets were a bargain.
 

Go ahead, have that soda before math

We should all know by now that sugary drinks are bad, even artificially sweetened ones. It might not always stop us from drinking them, but we know the deal. But what if sugary drinks like soda could be helpful for girls in school?

©sjlocke/istock.com

You read that right. We said girls. A soda before class might have boys bouncing off the walls, but not girls. A recent study showed that not only was girls’ behavior unaffected by having a sugary drink, their math skills even improved.

Researchers analyzed the behavior of 4- to 6-year-old children before and after having a sugary drink. The sugar rush was actually calming for girls and helped them perform better with numerical skills, but the opposite was true for boys. “Our study is the first to provide large-scale experimental evidence on the impact of sugary drinks on preschool children. The results clearly indicate a causal impact of sugary drinks on children’s behavior and test scores,” Fritz Schiltz, PhD, said in a written statement.

This probably isn’t the green light to have as many sugary drinks as you want, but it might be interesting to see how your work is affected after a soda.
 

Chicken nuggets and the meat paradox

Two young children are fighting over the last chicken nugget when an adult comes in to see what’s going on.

Liam: Vegetable!

Olivia: Meat!

Liam: Chicken nuggets are vegetables!

Olivia: No, dorkface! They’re meat.

Caregiver: Good news, kids. You’re both right.

Olivia: How can we both be right?

At this point, a woman enters the room. She’s wearing a white lab coat, so she must be a scientist.

Dr. Scientist: You can’t both be right, Olivia. You are being fed a serving of the meat paradox. That’s why Liam here doesn’t know that chicken nuggets are made of chicken, which is a form of meat. Sadly, he’s not the only one.

pxfuel

In a recent study, scientists from Furman University in Greenville, S.C., found that 38% of 176 children aged 4-7 years thought that chicken nuggets were vegetables and more than 46% identified French fries as animal based.

Olivia: Did our caregiver lie to us, Dr. Scientist?

Dr. Scientist: Yes, Olivia. The researchers I mentioned explained that “many people experience unease while eating meat. Omnivores eat foods that entail animal suffering and death while at the same time endorsing the compassionate treatment of animals.” That’s the meat paradox.

Liam: What else did they say, Dr. Scientist?

Dr. Scientist: Over 70% of those children said that cows and pigs were not edible and 5% thought that cats and horses were. The investigators wrote “that children and youth should be viewed as agents of environmental change” in the future, but suggested that parents need to bring honesty to the table.

Caregiver: How did you get in here anyway? And how do you know their names?

Dr. Scientist: I’ve been rooting through your garbage for years. All in the name of science, of course.

Bedtimes aren’t just for children

There are multiple ways to prevent heart disease, but what if it could be as easy as switching your bedtime? A recent study in European Heart Journal–Digital Health suggests that there’s a sweet spot when it comes to sleep timing.

Tumisu/Pixabay

Through smartwatch-like devices, researchers measured the sleep-onset and wake-up times for 7 days in 88,026 participants aged 43-79 years. After 5.7 years of follow-up to see if anyone had a heart attack, stroke, or any other cardiovascular event, 3.6% developed some kind of cardiovascular disease.

Those who went to bed between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. had a lower risk of developing heart disease. The risk was 25% higher for subjects who went to bed at midnight or later, 24% higher for bedtimes before 10 p.m., and 12% higher for bedtimes between 11 p.m. and midnight.

So, why can you go to bed before “The Tonight Show” and lower your cardiovascular risk but not before the nightly news? Well, it has something to do with your body’s natural clock.

“The optimum time to go to sleep is at a specific point in the body’s 24-hour cycle and deviations may be detrimental to health. The riskiest time was after midnight, potentially because it may reduce the likelihood of seeing morning light, which resets the body clock,” said study author Dr. David Plans of the University of Exeter, England.

Although a sleep schedule is preferred, it isn’t realistic all the time for those in certain occupations who might have to resort to other methods to keep their circadian clocks ticking optimally for their health. But if all it takes is prescribing a sleep time to reduce heart disease on a massive scale it would make a great “low-cost public health target.”

So bedtimes aren’t just for children.

Should doctors seeking healthcare disclose that they are a doctor? 

The question drew spirited debate when urologist Ashley Winter, MD, made a simple, straightforward request on Twitter: “If you are a doctor & you come to an appointment please tell me you are a doctor, not because I will treat you differently but because it’s easier to speak in jargon.”

She later added, “This doesn’t’ mean I would be less patient-focused or emotional with a physician or other [healthcare worker]. Just means that, instead of saying ‘you will have a catheter draining your urine to a bag,’ I can say, ‘you will have a Foley.’ ”

The Tweet followed an encounter with a patient who told Dr. Winter that he was a doctor only after she had gone to some length explaining a surgical procedure in lay terms.

“I explained the surgery, obviously assuming he was an intelligent adult, but using fully layman’s terms,” she said in an interview. The patient then told her that he was a doctor. “I guess I felt this embarrassment — I wouldn’t have treated him differently, but I just could have discussed the procedure with him in more professional terms.” 

“To some extent, it was my own fault,” she commented in an interview. “I didn’t take the time to ask [about his work] at the beginning of the consultation, but that’s a fine line, also,” added Dr. Winter, a urologist and sexual medicine physician in Portland, Ore.

“You know that patient is there because they want care from you and it’s not necessarily always at the forefront of importance to be asking them what they do for their work, but alternatively, if you don’t ask then you put them in this position where they have to find a way to go ahead and tell you.”

Several people chimed in on the thread to voice their thoughts on the matter. Some commiserated with Dr. Winter’s experience:

“I took care of a retired cardiologist in the hospital as a second-year resident and honest to god he let me ramble on ‘explaining’ his echo result and never told me. I found out a couple days later and wanted to die,” posted @MaddyAndrewsMD.

Another recalled a similarly embarrassing experience when she “went on and on” discussing headaches with a patient whose husband “was in the corner smirking.”

“They told my attending later [that the] husband was a retired FM doc who practiced medicine longer than I’ve been alive. I wanted to die,” posted @JSinghDO.

Many on the thread, though, were doctors and other healthcare professionals speaking as patients. Some said they didn’t want to disclose their status as a healthcare provider because they felt it affected the care they received.

For example, @drhelenrainford commented: “In my experience my care is less ‘caring’ when they know I am a [doctor]. I get spoken to like they are discussing a patient with me — no empathy just facts and difficult results just blurted out without consideration. Awful awful time as an inpatient …but that’s another story!”

@Dr_B_Ring said: “Nope – You and I speak different jargon – I would want you to speak to me like a human that doesn’t know your jargon. My ego would get in the way of asking about the acronyms I don’t know if you knew I was a fellow physician.”

Conversely, @lozzlemcfozzle said: “Honestly I prefer not to tell my Doctors — I’ve found people skip explanations assuming I ‘know,’ or seem a little nervous when I tell them!”

Others said they felt uncomfortable — pretentious, even — in announcing their status, or worried that they might come across as expecting special care.

“It’s such a tough needle to thread. Want to tell people early but not come off as demanding special treatment, but don’t want to wait too long and it seems like a trap,” said @MDaware.

Twitter user @MsBabyCatcher wrote: “I have a hard time doing this because I don’t want people to think I’m being pretentious or going to micromanage/dictate care.”

Replying to @MsBabyCatcher, @RedStethoscope wrote: “I used to think this too until I got [very poor] care a few times, and was advised by other doctor moms to ‘play the doctor card.’ I have gotten better/more compassionate care by making sure it’s clear that I’m a physician (which is junk, but here we are).”

Several of those responding used the words “tricky” and “awkward,” suggesting a common theme for doctors presenting as patients.

“I struggle with this. My 5-year-old broke her arm this weekend, we spent hours in the ED, of my own hospital, I never mentioned it because I didn’t want to get preferential care. But as they were explaining her type of fracture, it felt awkward and inefficient,” said @lindsay_petty.

To avoid the awkwardness, a number of respondents said they purposefully use medical jargon to open up a conversation rather than just offering up the information that they are a doctor.

Still others offered suggestions on how to broach the subject more directly when presenting as a patient:

‘”Just FYI I’m a X doc but I’m here because I really want your help and advice!” That’s what I usually do,” wrote @drcakefm.

@BeeSting14618 Tweeted: “I usually say ‘I know some of this but I’m here because I want YOUR guidance. Also I may ask dumb questions, and I’ll tell you if a question is asking your opinion or making a request.’”

A few others injected a bit of humor: “I just do the 14-part handshake that only doctors know. Is that not customary?” quipped @Branmiz25.

“Ah yes, that transmits the entire [history of present illness],” replied Dr. Winter.

Jokes aside, the topic is obviously one that touched on a shared experience among healthcare providers, Dr. Winter commented. The Twitter thread she started just “blew up.”

That’s typically a sign that the Tweet is relatable for a lot of people, she said.

“It’s definitely something that all of us as care providers and as patients understand. It’s a funny, awkward thing that can really change an interaction, so we probably all feel pretty strongly about our experiences related to that,” she added.

The debate begs the question: Is there a duty or ethical reason to disclose?

“I definitely think it is very reasonable to disclose that one is a medical professional to another doctor,” medical ethicist Charlotte Blease, PhD, said in an interview. “There are good reasons to believe doing so might make a difference to the quality of communication and transparency.”

If the ability to use medical terminology or jargon more freely improves patient understanding, autonomy, and shared decision-making, then it may be of benefit, said Dr. Blease, a Keane OpenNotes Scholar at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“Since doctors should strive to communicate effectively with every patient and to respect their unique needs and level of understanding, then I see no reason to deny that one is a medic,” she added.”

Knowing how to share the information is another story.

“This is something that affects all of us as physicians — we’re going to be patients at some point, right?” Dr. Winter commented. “But I don’t think how to disclose that is something that was ever brought up in my medical training.”

“Maybe there should just be a discussion of this one day when people are in medical school — maybe in a professionalism course — to broach this topic or look at if there’s any literature on outcomes related to disclosure of status or what are best practices,” she suggested. 

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

Should doctors seeking healthcare disclose that they are a doctor? 

The question drew spirited debate when urologist Ashley Winter, MD, made a simple, straightforward request on Twitter: “If you are a doctor & you come to an appointment please tell me you are a doctor, not because I will treat you differently but because it’s easier to speak in jargon.”

She later added, “This doesn’t’ mean I would be less patient-focused or emotional with a physician or other [healthcare worker]. Just means that, instead of saying ‘you will have a catheter draining your urine to a bag,’ I can say, ‘you will have a Foley.’ ”

The Tweet followed an encounter with a patient who told Dr. Winter that he was a doctor only after she had gone to some length explaining a surgical procedure in lay terms.

“I explained the surgery, obviously assuming he was an intelligent adult, but using fully layman’s terms,” she said in an interview. The patient then told her that he was a doctor. “I guess I felt this embarrassment — I wouldn’t have treated him differently, but I just could have discussed the procedure with him in more professional terms.” 

“To some extent, it was my own fault,” she commented in an interview. “I didn’t take the time to ask [about his work] at the beginning of the consultation, but that’s a fine line, also,” added Dr. Winter, a urologist and sexual medicine physician in Portland, Ore.

“You know that patient is there because they want care from you and it’s not necessarily always at the forefront of importance to be asking them what they do for their work, but alternatively, if you don’t ask then you put them in this position where they have to find a way to go ahead and tell you.”

Several people chimed in on the thread to voice their thoughts on the matter. Some commiserated with Dr. Winter’s experience:

“I took care of a retired cardiologist in the hospital as a second-year resident and honest to god he let me ramble on ‘explaining’ his echo result and never told me. I found out a couple days later and wanted to die,” posted @MaddyAndrewsMD.

Another recalled a similarly embarrassing experience when she “went on and on” discussing headaches with a patient whose husband “was in the corner smirking.”

“They told my attending later [that the] husband was a retired FM doc who practiced medicine longer than I’ve been alive. I wanted to die,” posted @JSinghDO.

Many on the thread, though, were doctors and other healthcare professionals speaking as patients. Some said they didn’t want to disclose their status as a healthcare provider because they felt it affected the care they received.

For example, @drhelenrainford commented: “In my experience my care is less ‘caring’ when they know I am a [doctor]. I get spoken to like they are discussing a patient with me — no empathy just facts and difficult results just blurted out without consideration. Awful awful time as an inpatient …but that’s another story!”

@Dr_B_Ring said: “Nope – You and I speak different jargon – I would want you to speak to me like a human that doesn’t know your jargon. My ego would get in the way of asking about the acronyms I don’t know if you knew I was a fellow physician.”

Conversely, @lozzlemcfozzle said: “Honestly I prefer not to tell my Doctors — I’ve found people skip explanations assuming I ‘know,’ or seem a little nervous when I tell them!”

Others said they felt uncomfortable — pretentious, even — in announcing their status, or worried that they might come across as expecting special care.

“It’s such a tough needle to thread. Want to tell people early but not come off as demanding special treatment, but don’t want to wait too long and it seems like a trap,” said @MDaware.

Twitter user @MsBabyCatcher wrote: “I have a hard time doing this because I don’t want people to think I’m being pretentious or going to micromanage/dictate care.”

Replying to @MsBabyCatcher, @RedStethoscope wrote: “I used to think this too until I got [very poor] care a few times, and was advised by other doctor moms to ‘play the doctor card.’ I have gotten better/more compassionate care by making sure it’s clear that I’m a physician (which is junk, but here we are).”

Several of those responding used the words “tricky” and “awkward,” suggesting a common theme for doctors presenting as patients.

“I struggle with this. My 5-year-old broke her arm this weekend, we spent hours in the ED, of my own hospital, I never mentioned it because I didn’t want to get preferential care. But as they were explaining her type of fracture, it felt awkward and inefficient,” said @lindsay_petty.

To avoid the awkwardness, a number of respondents said they purposefully use medical jargon to open up a conversation rather than just offering up the information that they are a doctor.

Still others offered suggestions on how to broach the subject more directly when presenting as a patient:

‘”Just FYI I’m a X doc but I’m here because I really want your help and advice!” That’s what I usually do,” wrote @drcakefm.

@BeeSting14618 Tweeted: “I usually say ‘I know some of this but I’m here because I want YOUR guidance. Also I may ask dumb questions, and I’ll tell you if a question is asking your opinion or making a request.’”

A few others injected a bit of humor: “I just do the 14-part handshake that only doctors know. Is that not customary?” quipped @Branmiz25.

“Ah yes, that transmits the entire [history of present illness],” replied Dr. Winter.

Jokes aside, the topic is obviously one that touched on a shared experience among healthcare providers, Dr. Winter commented. The Twitter thread she started just “blew up.”

That’s typically a sign that the Tweet is relatable for a lot of people, she said.

“It’s definitely something that all of us as care providers and as patients understand. It’s a funny, awkward thing that can really change an interaction, so we probably all feel pretty strongly about our experiences related to that,” she added.

The debate begs the question: Is there a duty or ethical reason to disclose?

“I definitely think it is very reasonable to disclose that one is a medical professional to another doctor,” medical ethicist Charlotte Blease, PhD, said in an interview. “There are good reasons to believe doing so might make a difference to the quality of communication and transparency.”

If the ability to use medical terminology or jargon more freely improves patient understanding, autonomy, and shared decision-making, then it may be of benefit, said Dr. Blease, a Keane OpenNotes Scholar at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“Since doctors should strive to communicate effectively with every patient and to respect their unique needs and level of understanding, then I see no reason to deny that one is a medic,” she added.”

Knowing how to share the information is another story.

“This is something that affects all of us as physicians — we’re going to be patients at some point, right?” Dr. Winter commented. “But I don’t think how to disclose that is something that was ever brought up in my medical training.”

“Maybe there should just be a discussion of this one day when people are in medical school — maybe in a professionalism course — to broach this topic or look at if there’s any literature on outcomes related to disclosure of status or what are best practices,” she suggested. 

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

Should doctors seeking healthcare disclose that they are a doctor? 

The question drew spirited debate when urologist Ashley Winter, MD, made a simple, straightforward request on Twitter: “If you are a doctor & you come to an appointment please tell me you are a doctor, not because I will treat you differently but because it’s easier to speak in jargon.”

She later added, “This doesn’t’ mean I would be less patient-focused or emotional with a physician or other [healthcare worker]. Just means that, instead of saying ‘you will have a catheter draining your urine to a bag,’ I can say, ‘you will have a Foley.’ ”

The Tweet followed an encounter with a patient who told Dr. Winter that he was a doctor only after she had gone to some length explaining a surgical procedure in lay terms.

“I explained the surgery, obviously assuming he was an intelligent adult, but using fully layman’s terms,” she said in an interview. The patient then told her that he was a doctor. “I guess I felt this embarrassment — I wouldn’t have treated him differently, but I just could have discussed the procedure with him in more professional terms.” 

“To some extent, it was my own fault,” she commented in an interview. “I didn’t take the time to ask [about his work] at the beginning of the consultation, but that’s a fine line, also,” added Dr. Winter, a urologist and sexual medicine physician in Portland, Ore.

“You know that patient is there because they want care from you and it’s not necessarily always at the forefront of importance to be asking them what they do for their work, but alternatively, if you don’t ask then you put them in this position where they have to find a way to go ahead and tell you.”

Several people chimed in on the thread to voice their thoughts on the matter. Some commiserated with Dr. Winter’s experience:

“I took care of a retired cardiologist in the hospital as a second-year resident and honest to god he let me ramble on ‘explaining’ his echo result and never told me. I found out a couple days later and wanted to die,” posted @MaddyAndrewsMD.

Another recalled a similarly embarrassing experience when she “went on and on” discussing headaches with a patient whose husband “was in the corner smirking.”

“They told my attending later [that the] husband was a retired FM doc who practiced medicine longer than I’ve been alive. I wanted to die,” posted @JSinghDO.

Many on the thread, though, were doctors and other healthcare professionals speaking as patients. Some said they didn’t want to disclose their status as a healthcare provider because they felt it affected the care they received.

For example, @drhelenrainford commented: “In my experience my care is less ‘caring’ when they know I am a [doctor]. I get spoken to like they are discussing a patient with me — no empathy just facts and difficult results just blurted out without consideration. Awful awful time as an inpatient …but that’s another story!”

@Dr_B_Ring said: “Nope – You and I speak different jargon – I would want you to speak to me like a human that doesn’t know your jargon. My ego would get in the way of asking about the acronyms I don’t know if you knew I was a fellow physician.”

Conversely, @lozzlemcfozzle said: “Honestly I prefer not to tell my Doctors — I’ve found people skip explanations assuming I ‘know,’ or seem a little nervous when I tell them!”

Others said they felt uncomfortable — pretentious, even — in announcing their status, or worried that they might come across as expecting special care.

“It’s such a tough needle to thread. Want to tell people early but not come off as demanding special treatment, but don’t want to wait too long and it seems like a trap,” said @MDaware.

Twitter user @MsBabyCatcher wrote: “I have a hard time doing this because I don’t want people to think I’m being pretentious or going to micromanage/dictate care.”

Replying to @MsBabyCatcher, @RedStethoscope wrote: “I used to think this too until I got [very poor] care a few times, and was advised by other doctor moms to ‘play the doctor card.’ I have gotten better/more compassionate care by making sure it’s clear that I’m a physician (which is junk, but here we are).”

Several of those responding used the words “tricky” and “awkward,” suggesting a common theme for doctors presenting as patients.

“I struggle with this. My 5-year-old broke her arm this weekend, we spent hours in the ED, of my own hospital, I never mentioned it because I didn’t want to get preferential care. But as they were explaining her type of fracture, it felt awkward and inefficient,” said @lindsay_petty.

To avoid the awkwardness, a number of respondents said they purposefully use medical jargon to open up a conversation rather than just offering up the information that they are a doctor.

Still others offered suggestions on how to broach the subject more directly when presenting as a patient:

‘”Just FYI I’m a X doc but I’m here because I really want your help and advice!” That’s what I usually do,” wrote @drcakefm.

@BeeSting14618 Tweeted: “I usually say ‘I know some of this but I’m here because I want YOUR guidance. Also I may ask dumb questions, and I’ll tell you if a question is asking your opinion or making a request.’”

A few others injected a bit of humor: “I just do the 14-part handshake that only doctors know. Is that not customary?” quipped @Branmiz25.

“Ah yes, that transmits the entire [history of present illness],” replied Dr. Winter.

Jokes aside, the topic is obviously one that touched on a shared experience among healthcare providers, Dr. Winter commented. The Twitter thread she started just “blew up.”

That’s typically a sign that the Tweet is relatable for a lot of people, she said.

“It’s definitely something that all of us as care providers and as patients understand. It’s a funny, awkward thing that can really change an interaction, so we probably all feel pretty strongly about our experiences related to that,” she added.

The debate begs the question: Is there a duty or ethical reason to disclose?

“I definitely think it is very reasonable to disclose that one is a medical professional to another doctor,” medical ethicist Charlotte Blease, PhD, said in an interview. “There are good reasons to believe doing so might make a difference to the quality of communication and transparency.”

If the ability to use medical terminology or jargon more freely improves patient understanding, autonomy, and shared decision-making, then it may be of benefit, said Dr. Blease, a Keane OpenNotes Scholar at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

“Since doctors should strive to communicate effectively with every patient and to respect their unique needs and level of understanding, then I see no reason to deny that one is a medic,” she added.”

Knowing how to share the information is another story.

“This is something that affects all of us as physicians — we’re going to be patients at some point, right?” Dr. Winter commented. “But I don’t think how to disclose that is something that was ever brought up in my medical training.”

“Maybe there should just be a discussion of this one day when people are in medical school — maybe in a professionalism course — to broach this topic or look at if there’s any literature on outcomes related to disclosure of status or what are best practices,” she suggested. 

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

During the month of September, Texans who weren’t vaccinated against COVID-19 were 20 times more likely to die from COVID-19 and related complications than those who were fully vaccinated, according to a new study from the Texas Department of State Health Services.

The data also showed that unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.

“This analysis quantifies what we’ve known for months,” Jennifer Shuford, MD, the state’s chief epidemiologist, told The Dallas Morning News.

“The COVID-19 vaccines are doing an excellent job of protecting people from getting sick and from dying from COVID-19,” she said. “Vaccination remains the best way to keep yourself and the people close to you safe from this deadly disease.”

As part of the study, researchers analyzed electronic lab reports, death certificates, and state immunization records, with a particular focus on September when the contagious Delta variant surged across Texas. The research marks the state’s first statistical analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations in Texas and the effects, the newspaper reported.

The protective effect of vaccination was most noticeable among younger groups. During September, the risk of COVID-19 death was 23 times higher in unvaccinated people in their 30s and 55 times higher for unvaccinated people in their 40s.

In addition, there were fewer than 10 COVID-19 deaths in September among fully vaccinated people between ages 18-29, as compared with 339 deaths among unvaccinated people in the same age group.

Then, looking at a longer time period -- from Jan. 15 to Oct. 1 -- the researchers found that unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. The protective effect of vaccination against infection was strong across all adult age groups but greatest among ages 12-17.

“All authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are highly effective at protecting people from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19, including those infected with Delta and other known variants,” the study authors wrote. “Real world data from Texas clearly shows these benefits.”

About 15.6 million people in Texas have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in a state of about 29 million residents, according to state data. About 66% of the population has received at least one dose, while 58% is fully vaccinated.

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

During the month of September, Texans who weren’t vaccinated against COVID-19 were 20 times more likely to die from COVID-19 and related complications than those who were fully vaccinated, according to a new study from the Texas Department of State Health Services.

The data also showed that unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.

“This analysis quantifies what we’ve known for months,” Jennifer Shuford, MD, the state’s chief epidemiologist, told The Dallas Morning News.

“The COVID-19 vaccines are doing an excellent job of protecting people from getting sick and from dying from COVID-19,” she said. “Vaccination remains the best way to keep yourself and the people close to you safe from this deadly disease.”

As part of the study, researchers analyzed electronic lab reports, death certificates, and state immunization records, with a particular focus on September when the contagious Delta variant surged across Texas. The research marks the state’s first statistical analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations in Texas and the effects, the newspaper reported.

The protective effect of vaccination was most noticeable among younger groups. During September, the risk of COVID-19 death was 23 times higher in unvaccinated people in their 30s and 55 times higher for unvaccinated people in their 40s.

In addition, there were fewer than 10 COVID-19 deaths in September among fully vaccinated people between ages 18-29, as compared with 339 deaths among unvaccinated people in the same age group.

Then, looking at a longer time period -- from Jan. 15 to Oct. 1 -- the researchers found that unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. The protective effect of vaccination against infection was strong across all adult age groups but greatest among ages 12-17.

“All authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are highly effective at protecting people from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19, including those infected with Delta and other known variants,” the study authors wrote. “Real world data from Texas clearly shows these benefits.”

About 15.6 million people in Texas have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in a state of about 29 million residents, according to state data. About 66% of the population has received at least one dose, while 58% is fully vaccinated.

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

During the month of September, Texans who weren’t vaccinated against COVID-19 were 20 times more likely to die from COVID-19 and related complications than those who were fully vaccinated, according to a new study from the Texas Department of State Health Services.

The data also showed that unvaccinated people were 13 times more likely to test positive for COVID-19 than people who were fully vaccinated.

“This analysis quantifies what we’ve known for months,” Jennifer Shuford, MD, the state’s chief epidemiologist, told The Dallas Morning News.

“The COVID-19 vaccines are doing an excellent job of protecting people from getting sick and from dying from COVID-19,” she said. “Vaccination remains the best way to keep yourself and the people close to you safe from this deadly disease.”

As part of the study, researchers analyzed electronic lab reports, death certificates, and state immunization records, with a particular focus on September when the contagious Delta variant surged across Texas. The research marks the state’s first statistical analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations in Texas and the effects, the newspaper reported.

The protective effect of vaccination was most noticeable among younger groups. During September, the risk of COVID-19 death was 23 times higher in unvaccinated people in their 30s and 55 times higher for unvaccinated people in their 40s.

In addition, there were fewer than 10 COVID-19 deaths in September among fully vaccinated people between ages 18-29, as compared with 339 deaths among unvaccinated people in the same age group.

Then, looking at a longer time period -- from Jan. 15 to Oct. 1 -- the researchers found that unvaccinated people were 45 times more likely to contract COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people. The protective effect of vaccination against infection was strong across all adult age groups but greatest among ages 12-17.

“All authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States are highly effective at protecting people from getting sick or severely ill with COVID-19, including those infected with Delta and other known variants,” the study authors wrote. “Real world data from Texas clearly shows these benefits.”

About 15.6 million people in Texas have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in a state of about 29 million residents, according to state data. About 66% of the population has received at least one dose, while 58% is fully vaccinated.

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

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

As children aged 5-11 years began to receive the first officially approved doses of COVID-19 vaccine, new pediatric cases increased after 8 consecutive weeks of declines, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Reported cases of COVID-19 in children totaled over 107,000 for the week of Oct. 29 to Nov. 4 after coming in at just under 101,000 the previous week. Weekly cases peaked at almost 252,000 in early September and then dropped for 8 straight weeks before this latest rise, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID report, which is based on data reported by 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The end of that 8-week drop, unfortunately, allowed another streak to continue: New cases have been above 100,000 for 13 consecutive weeks, the AAP and CHA noted.

The cumulative COVID count in children as of Nov. 4 was 6.5 million, the AAP/CHA said, although that figure does not fully cover Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas, which stopped public reporting over the summer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with input from all states and territories, puts the total through Nov. 8 at almost 5.7 million cases in children under 18 years of age, while most states define a child as someone aged 0-19 years.

As for the newest group of vaccinees, the CDC said that “updated vaccination data for 5-11 year-olds will be added to COVID Data Tracker later this week,” meaning the week of Nov. 7-13. Currently available data, however, show that almost 157,000 children under age 12 initiated vaccination in the 14 days ending Nov. 8, which was more than those aged 12-15 and 16-17 years combined (127,000).

Among those older groups, the CDC reports that 57.1% of 12- to 15-year-olds have received at least one dose and 47.9% are fully vaccinated, while 64.0% of those aged 16-17 have gotten at least one dose and 55.2% are fully vaccinated. Altogether, about 13.9 million children under age 18 have gotten at least one dose and almost 11.6 million are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

rfranki@mdedge.com

As children aged 5-11 years began to receive the first officially approved doses of COVID-19 vaccine, new pediatric cases increased after 8 consecutive weeks of declines, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Reported cases of COVID-19 in children totaled over 107,000 for the week of Oct. 29 to Nov. 4 after coming in at just under 101,000 the previous week. Weekly cases peaked at almost 252,000 in early September and then dropped for 8 straight weeks before this latest rise, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID report, which is based on data reported by 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The end of that 8-week drop, unfortunately, allowed another streak to continue: New cases have been above 100,000 for 13 consecutive weeks, the AAP and CHA noted.

The cumulative COVID count in children as of Nov. 4 was 6.5 million, the AAP/CHA said, although that figure does not fully cover Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas, which stopped public reporting over the summer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with input from all states and territories, puts the total through Nov. 8 at almost 5.7 million cases in children under 18 years of age, while most states define a child as someone aged 0-19 years.

As for the newest group of vaccinees, the CDC said that “updated vaccination data for 5-11 year-olds will be added to COVID Data Tracker later this week,” meaning the week of Nov. 7-13. Currently available data, however, show that almost 157,000 children under age 12 initiated vaccination in the 14 days ending Nov. 8, which was more than those aged 12-15 and 16-17 years combined (127,000).

Among those older groups, the CDC reports that 57.1% of 12- to 15-year-olds have received at least one dose and 47.9% are fully vaccinated, while 64.0% of those aged 16-17 have gotten at least one dose and 55.2% are fully vaccinated. Altogether, about 13.9 million children under age 18 have gotten at least one dose and almost 11.6 million are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

rfranki@mdedge.com

As children aged 5-11 years began to receive the first officially approved doses of COVID-19 vaccine, new pediatric cases increased after 8 consecutive weeks of declines, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Reported cases of COVID-19 in children totaled over 107,000 for the week of Oct. 29 to Nov. 4 after coming in at just under 101,000 the previous week. Weekly cases peaked at almost 252,000 in early September and then dropped for 8 straight weeks before this latest rise, the AAP and the CHA said in their weekly COVID report, which is based on data reported by 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The end of that 8-week drop, unfortunately, allowed another streak to continue: New cases have been above 100,000 for 13 consecutive weeks, the AAP and CHA noted.

The cumulative COVID count in children as of Nov. 4 was 6.5 million, the AAP/CHA said, although that figure does not fully cover Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas, which stopped public reporting over the summer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with input from all states and territories, puts the total through Nov. 8 at almost 5.7 million cases in children under 18 years of age, while most states define a child as someone aged 0-19 years.

As for the newest group of vaccinees, the CDC said that “updated vaccination data for 5-11 year-olds will be added to COVID Data Tracker later this week,” meaning the week of Nov. 7-13. Currently available data, however, show that almost 157,000 children under age 12 initiated vaccination in the 14 days ending Nov. 8, which was more than those aged 12-15 and 16-17 years combined (127,000).

Among those older groups, the CDC reports that 57.1% of 12- to 15-year-olds have received at least one dose and 47.9% are fully vaccinated, while 64.0% of those aged 16-17 have gotten at least one dose and 55.2% are fully vaccinated. Altogether, about 13.9 million children under age 18 have gotten at least one dose and almost 11.6 million are fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.

rfranki@mdedge.com