The Hospitalist

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

It’s been about two months since I volunteered in a hospital in Brooklyn, working in an ICU taking care of patients with COVID-19. I’m back home in California now but with new perspectives, not only on the pandemic, but on those who are affected by it the most.

Courtesy Dr. Arghavan Salles

Everyone seems to have forgotten the early days of the pandemic – the time when the ICUs were overrun, we were using FEMA ventilators, and endocrinologists and psychiatrists were acting as intensivists.

Even though things are opening up and people are taking summer vacations in a seemingly amnestic state, having witnessed multiple daily deaths remains a part of my daily consciousness. As I see the case numbers climbing juxtaposed against people being out and about without masks, my anxiety level is rising.

A virus doesn’t discriminate. It can fly through the air, landing on the next available surface. If that virus is SARS-CoV-2 and that surface is a human mucosal membrane, the virus makes itself at home. It orders furniture, buys a fancy mattress and a large high definition TV, hangs art on the walls, and settles in for the long haul. It’s not going anywhere anytime soon.

Even as an equal opportunity virus, what SARS-CoV-2 has done is to hold a mirror up to the healthcare system. It has shown us what was here all along. When people first started noticing that underrepresented minorities were more likely to contract the virus and get sick from it, I heard musings that this was likely because of their preexisting health conditions. For example, commentators on cable news were quick to point out that black people are more likely than other people to have hypertension or diabetes. So doesn’t that explain why they are more affected by this virus?

That certainly is part of the story, but it doesn’t entirely explain the discrepancies we’ve seen. For example, in New York 14% of the population is black, and 25% of those who had a COVID-related death were black patients. Similarly, 19% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, and they made up 26% of COVID-related deaths. On the other hand, 55% of the population in New York is white, and white people account for only 34% of COVID-related deaths.

Working in Brooklyn, I didn’t need to be a keen observer to notice that, out of our entire unit of about 20-25 patients, there was only one patient in a 2-week period who was neither black nor Hispanic.

As others have written, there are other factors at play. I’m not sure how many of those commentators back in March stopped to think about why black patients are more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but the chronic stress of facing racism on a daily basis surely contributes. Beyond those medical problems, minorities are more likely to live in multigenerational housing, which means that it is harder for them to isolate from others. In addition, their living quarters tend to be further from health care centers and grocery stores, which makes it harder for them to access medical care and healthy food.

As if that weren’t enough to put their health at risk, people of color are also affected by environmental racism . Factories with toxic waste are more likely to be built in or near neighborhoods filled with people of color than in other communities. On top of that, black and Hispanic people are also more likely to be under- or uninsured, meaning they often delay seeking care in order to avoid astronomic healthcare costs.

Black and Hispanic people are also more likely than others to be working in the service industry or other essential services, which means they are less likely to be able to work from home. Consequently, they have to risk more exposures to other people and the virus than do those who have the privilege of working safely from home. They also are less likely to have available paid leave and, therefore, are more likely to work while sick.

With the deck completely stacked against them, underrepresented minorities also face systemic bias and racism when interacting with the health care system. Physicians mistakenly believe black patients experience less pain than other patients, according to some research. Black mothers have significantly worse health care outcomes than do their non-black counterparts, and the infant mortality rate for Black infants is much higher as well.

Dr. Salles is a bariatric surgeon and is currently a Scholar in Residence at Stanford (Calif.) University. Find her on Twitter @arghavan_salles.

Background: Rates of LDL-C reduction with statin therapy vary based on biological and genetic factors, as well as adherence. In a general primary prevention population at cardiovascular risk, little is known about the extent of this variability or its impact on outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Primary care practices in England and Wales.

Synopsis: Across a cohort of 183,213 patients, 51.2% had a suboptimal response, defined as a less than 40% proportional reduction in LDL-C. During more than 1 million ­person-years of follow-up, suboptimal statin response at 2 years was associated with a 20% higher hazard ratio for incident cardiovascular disease.Bottom line: Half of patients do not have a sufficient response to statins, with higher attendant future risk.

Citation: Akyea RK et al. Suboptimal cholesterol response to initiation of statins and future risk of cardiovascular disease. Heart. 2019 Apr 15;0:1-7. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314253.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

Background: Rates of LDL-C reduction with statin therapy vary based on biological and genetic factors, as well as adherence. In a general primary prevention population at cardiovascular risk, little is known about the extent of this variability or its impact on outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Primary care practices in England and Wales.

Synopsis: Across a cohort of 183,213 patients, 51.2% had a suboptimal response, defined as a less than 40% proportional reduction in LDL-C. During more than 1 million ­person-years of follow-up, suboptimal statin response at 2 years was associated with a 20% higher hazard ratio for incident cardiovascular disease.Bottom line: Half of patients do not have a sufficient response to statins, with higher attendant future risk.

Citation: Akyea RK et al. Suboptimal cholesterol response to initiation of statins and future risk of cardiovascular disease. Heart. 2019 Apr 15;0:1-7. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314253.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

Background: Rates of LDL-C reduction with statin therapy vary based on biological and genetic factors, as well as adherence. In a general primary prevention population at cardiovascular risk, little is known about the extent of this variability or its impact on outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Primary care practices in England and Wales.

Synopsis: Across a cohort of 183,213 patients, 51.2% had a suboptimal response, defined as a less than 40% proportional reduction in LDL-C. During more than 1 million ­person-years of follow-up, suboptimal statin response at 2 years was associated with a 20% higher hazard ratio for incident cardiovascular disease.Bottom line: Half of patients do not have a sufficient response to statins, with higher attendant future risk.

Citation: Akyea RK et al. Suboptimal cholesterol response to initiation of statins and future risk of cardiovascular disease. Heart. 2019 Apr 15;0:1-7. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314253.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

A striking clinical feature of illness from SARS-CoV-2 is a marked increase in thrombotic and microvascular complications, or COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC).

A new study suggests endothelial cell injury plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CAC, and blood levels of soluble thrombomodulin correlate with mortality.

George Goshua, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented this study as a late-breaking abstract at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Dr. Goshua cited past research showing CAC to be highly prevalent among hospitalized patients. Venous thromboembolism was found in 17% to 69% of patients, despite thromboprophylaxis.^1-4 Arterial thrombosis has been seen in 3.6% to 4.0% of patients,^1-3 and autopsy findings have shown microvascular thrombosis in as many as 87% of patients.^5-7

For their study, Dr. Goshua and colleagues assessed endothelial cell damage, platelet activation, and hemostatic and fibrinolytic cascade effects of CAC.

The investigators measured markers of endothelial cell injury and platelet activation, plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and coagulation factors in stable and critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In addition, the team sought to identify biomarkers of mortality in hospitalized patients.

Dr. Goshua and colleagues studied 68 adults hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 – 48 in the ICU and 20 outside the ICU. Patients in the ICU received mechanical ventilation, while the non-ICU patients required supplemental oxygen (≤3 L/min per nasal cannula).

There were more men than women (69% vs. 31%) in the ICU population but not in the non-ICU population (40% vs. 60%). There were no statistically significant differences in age or comorbid conditions between the ICU and non-ICU patients.
 

Results and interpretation

Consistent with augmentation of the coagulation cascade – and as expected – D-dimer and thrombin-antithrombin levels were high in both the ICU and non-ICU populations, but levels were significantly higher (P < .001) among the ICU patients.

Endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and fibrinolytic enzymes (alpha 2-antiplasmin) were preserved, verifying that CAC is distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulation. Classic fibrinolysis did not occur, as PAI-1 was high in ICU and non-ICU patients, and lysis-30 was normal in nearly all ICU patients (96%).

Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity levels and factor VIII levels were markedly elevated in non-ICU and ICU patients, but they were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ICU cohort. This supports the hypothesis that endothelial cell damage and platelet activation play major roles in CAC.

Similarly, soluble P-selectin, which is shed from endothelial cells and platelets, was dramatically elevated in ICU patients in comparison with controls and non-ICU patients (P < .001 for both comparisons).

Levels of soluble thrombomodulin, which is released from endothelial cells, were not significantly different in ICU patients and controls. However, given thrombomodulin’s significant role in the coagulation cascade, Dr. Goshua and colleagues plotted receiver operating curves to see if soluble thrombomodulin levels were predictive of mortality.

The results showed that soluble thrombomodulin correlated with the probability of survival, both overall and in ICU patients. Soluble thrombomodulin levels greater than 3.26 ng/mL were associated with significantly worse survival in all patients (P = .0087) and ICU patients (P = .0309).
 

Influence on therapy

Laboratory perturbations were detected in both ICU and non-ICU patients, and otherwise healthy outpatients have exhibited potentially life-threatening CAC, according to Dr. Goshua.

These findings suggest the prothrombotic state occurs early in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is driven by platelet activation and endotheliopathy, and becomes more pronounced with worsening severity of infection.

The results of this study prompted a change in how Yale–New Haven Hospital manages COVID-19 patients. Patients without a clinical contraindication now receive aspirin at 81 mg daily in addition to the anticoagulation regimen typically used for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Investigations regarding other medications that can influence platelet-endothelial cell interactions and modulate endothelial cell damage in CAC – such as dipyridamole, defibrotide, and eculizumab – are planned.
 

Challenges and unanswered questions

Virchow’s triad was described by the eminent German physician, Rudolf Virchow, MD, in the 19th century. It refers to the three broad categories of factors that can predispose patients to thrombosis — circulatory stasis, hypercoagulability, and endothelial injury.

Although all of these elements could be operative in CAC, the current study suggests platelet activation and endothelial cell injury in CAC may be of primary importance.

Because of the limited ability to test critically ill patients and concerns regarding exposure of additional hospital personnel to COVID-19 patients, the current report lacked clarity about the relationship of the detected laboratory abnormalities to confirmed thrombotic events.

It is unknown whether endothelial cells in different organs are damaged uniformly. It is also unclear if the laboratory abnormalities identified in this analysis can be used to monitor response to therapy, to guide follow-up management of discharged patients with CAC, or to identify infected outpatients who should receive prophylactic anticoagulation.

The mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 injures endothelial cells is not explained by these data. Neutrophil defensins and other prothrombotic peptides or markers of inflammation could play key roles in pathogenesis, assessment of disease severity, or monitoring for therapeutic efficacy.

Today, we have more sophisticated diagnostic tools than Dr. Virchow had. We also have the ability to record and rapidly disseminate information globally. Still, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face many of the same challenges that confronted Dr. Virchow in his era.

The analysis conducted by Dr. Goshua and colleagues goes a long way toward elucidating some of the mechanisms and therapeutic targets to meet these challenges.

Dr. Goshua disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goshua G et al. EHA Congress. Abstract LB2605.

References

1. Klok FA et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;191:148-50. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041.

2. Thomas W et al. Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res. 2020;191:76-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.028

3. Lodigiani C et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res. 2020;191:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.024

4. Llitjos JF et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 22]. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;10.1111/jth.14869. doi: 10.1111/jth.14869

5. Carsana L et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20054262; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20054262v1.

6. Menter T et al. Post-mortem examination of COVID19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings of lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 4]. Histopathology. 2020;10.1111/his.14134. doi: 10.1111/his.14134

7. Lax SF, et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome: Results from a prospective, single-center, clinicopathologic case series [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;M20-2566. doi: 10.7326/M20-2566.

A striking clinical feature of illness from SARS-CoV-2 is a marked increase in thrombotic and microvascular complications, or COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC).

A new study suggests endothelial cell injury plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CAC, and blood levels of soluble thrombomodulin correlate with mortality.

George Goshua, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented this study as a late-breaking abstract at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Dr. Goshua cited past research showing CAC to be highly prevalent among hospitalized patients. Venous thromboembolism was found in 17% to 69% of patients, despite thromboprophylaxis.^1-4 Arterial thrombosis has been seen in 3.6% to 4.0% of patients,^1-3 and autopsy findings have shown microvascular thrombosis in as many as 87% of patients.^5-7

For their study, Dr. Goshua and colleagues assessed endothelial cell damage, platelet activation, and hemostatic and fibrinolytic cascade effects of CAC.

The investigators measured markers of endothelial cell injury and platelet activation, plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and coagulation factors in stable and critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In addition, the team sought to identify biomarkers of mortality in hospitalized patients.

Dr. Goshua and colleagues studied 68 adults hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 – 48 in the ICU and 20 outside the ICU. Patients in the ICU received mechanical ventilation, while the non-ICU patients required supplemental oxygen (≤3 L/min per nasal cannula).

There were more men than women (69% vs. 31%) in the ICU population but not in the non-ICU population (40% vs. 60%). There were no statistically significant differences in age or comorbid conditions between the ICU and non-ICU patients.
 

Results and interpretation

Consistent with augmentation of the coagulation cascade – and as expected – D-dimer and thrombin-antithrombin levels were high in both the ICU and non-ICU populations, but levels were significantly higher (P < .001) among the ICU patients.

Endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and fibrinolytic enzymes (alpha 2-antiplasmin) were preserved, verifying that CAC is distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulation. Classic fibrinolysis did not occur, as PAI-1 was high in ICU and non-ICU patients, and lysis-30 was normal in nearly all ICU patients (96%).

Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity levels and factor VIII levels were markedly elevated in non-ICU and ICU patients, but they were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ICU cohort. This supports the hypothesis that endothelial cell damage and platelet activation play major roles in CAC.

Similarly, soluble P-selectin, which is shed from endothelial cells and platelets, was dramatically elevated in ICU patients in comparison with controls and non-ICU patients (P < .001 for both comparisons).

Levels of soluble thrombomodulin, which is released from endothelial cells, were not significantly different in ICU patients and controls. However, given thrombomodulin’s significant role in the coagulation cascade, Dr. Goshua and colleagues plotted receiver operating curves to see if soluble thrombomodulin levels were predictive of mortality.

The results showed that soluble thrombomodulin correlated with the probability of survival, both overall and in ICU patients. Soluble thrombomodulin levels greater than 3.26 ng/mL were associated with significantly worse survival in all patients (P = .0087) and ICU patients (P = .0309).
 

Influence on therapy

Laboratory perturbations were detected in both ICU and non-ICU patients, and otherwise healthy outpatients have exhibited potentially life-threatening CAC, according to Dr. Goshua.

These findings suggest the prothrombotic state occurs early in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is driven by platelet activation and endotheliopathy, and becomes more pronounced with worsening severity of infection.

The results of this study prompted a change in how Yale–New Haven Hospital manages COVID-19 patients. Patients without a clinical contraindication now receive aspirin at 81 mg daily in addition to the anticoagulation regimen typically used for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Investigations regarding other medications that can influence platelet-endothelial cell interactions and modulate endothelial cell damage in CAC – such as dipyridamole, defibrotide, and eculizumab – are planned.
 

Challenges and unanswered questions

Virchow’s triad was described by the eminent German physician, Rudolf Virchow, MD, in the 19th century. It refers to the three broad categories of factors that can predispose patients to thrombosis — circulatory stasis, hypercoagulability, and endothelial injury.

Although all of these elements could be operative in CAC, the current study suggests platelet activation and endothelial cell injury in CAC may be of primary importance.

Because of the limited ability to test critically ill patients and concerns regarding exposure of additional hospital personnel to COVID-19 patients, the current report lacked clarity about the relationship of the detected laboratory abnormalities to confirmed thrombotic events.

It is unknown whether endothelial cells in different organs are damaged uniformly. It is also unclear if the laboratory abnormalities identified in this analysis can be used to monitor response to therapy, to guide follow-up management of discharged patients with CAC, or to identify infected outpatients who should receive prophylactic anticoagulation.

The mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 injures endothelial cells is not explained by these data. Neutrophil defensins and other prothrombotic peptides or markers of inflammation could play key roles in pathogenesis, assessment of disease severity, or monitoring for therapeutic efficacy.

Today, we have more sophisticated diagnostic tools than Dr. Virchow had. We also have the ability to record and rapidly disseminate information globally. Still, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face many of the same challenges that confronted Dr. Virchow in his era.

The analysis conducted by Dr. Goshua and colleagues goes a long way toward elucidating some of the mechanisms and therapeutic targets to meet these challenges.

Dr. Goshua disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goshua G et al. EHA Congress. Abstract LB2605.

References

1. Klok FA et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;191:148-50. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041.

2. Thomas W et al. Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res. 2020;191:76-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.028

3. Lodigiani C et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res. 2020;191:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.024

4. Llitjos JF et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 22]. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;10.1111/jth.14869. doi: 10.1111/jth.14869

5. Carsana L et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20054262; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20054262v1.

6. Menter T et al. Post-mortem examination of COVID19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings of lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 4]. Histopathology. 2020;10.1111/his.14134. doi: 10.1111/his.14134

7. Lax SF, et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome: Results from a prospective, single-center, clinicopathologic case series [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;M20-2566. doi: 10.7326/M20-2566.

A striking clinical feature of illness from SARS-CoV-2 is a marked increase in thrombotic and microvascular complications, or COVID-19–associated coagulopathy (CAC).

A new study suggests endothelial cell injury plays a major role in the pathogenesis of CAC, and blood levels of soluble thrombomodulin correlate with mortality.

George Goshua, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., presented this study as a late-breaking abstract at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Dr. Goshua cited past research showing CAC to be highly prevalent among hospitalized patients. Venous thromboembolism was found in 17% to 69% of patients, despite thromboprophylaxis.^1-4 Arterial thrombosis has been seen in 3.6% to 4.0% of patients,^1-3 and autopsy findings have shown microvascular thrombosis in as many as 87% of patients.^5-7

For their study, Dr. Goshua and colleagues assessed endothelial cell damage, platelet activation, and hemostatic and fibrinolytic cascade effects of CAC.

The investigators measured markers of endothelial cell injury and platelet activation, plasminogen activation inhibitor 1 (PAI-1), and coagulation factors in stable and critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In addition, the team sought to identify biomarkers of mortality in hospitalized patients.

Dr. Goshua and colleagues studied 68 adults hospitalized for suspected COVID-19 – 48 in the ICU and 20 outside the ICU. Patients in the ICU received mechanical ventilation, while the non-ICU patients required supplemental oxygen (≤3 L/min per nasal cannula).

There were more men than women (69% vs. 31%) in the ICU population but not in the non-ICU population (40% vs. 60%). There were no statistically significant differences in age or comorbid conditions between the ICU and non-ICU patients.
 

Results and interpretation

Consistent with augmentation of the coagulation cascade – and as expected – D-dimer and thrombin-antithrombin levels were high in both the ICU and non-ICU populations, but levels were significantly higher (P < .001) among the ICU patients.

Endogenous anticoagulants (antithrombin and proteins C and S) and fibrinolytic enzymes (alpha 2-antiplasmin) were preserved, verifying that CAC is distinct from disseminated intravascular coagulation. Classic fibrinolysis did not occur, as PAI-1 was high in ICU and non-ICU patients, and lysis-30 was normal in nearly all ICU patients (96%).

Von Willebrand factor antigen and activity levels and factor VIII levels were markedly elevated in non-ICU and ICU patients, but they were significantly higher (P < .001) in the ICU cohort. This supports the hypothesis that endothelial cell damage and platelet activation play major roles in CAC.

Similarly, soluble P-selectin, which is shed from endothelial cells and platelets, was dramatically elevated in ICU patients in comparison with controls and non-ICU patients (P < .001 for both comparisons).

Levels of soluble thrombomodulin, which is released from endothelial cells, were not significantly different in ICU patients and controls. However, given thrombomodulin’s significant role in the coagulation cascade, Dr. Goshua and colleagues plotted receiver operating curves to see if soluble thrombomodulin levels were predictive of mortality.

The results showed that soluble thrombomodulin correlated with the probability of survival, both overall and in ICU patients. Soluble thrombomodulin levels greater than 3.26 ng/mL were associated with significantly worse survival in all patients (P = .0087) and ICU patients (P = .0309).
 

Influence on therapy

Laboratory perturbations were detected in both ICU and non-ICU patients, and otherwise healthy outpatients have exhibited potentially life-threatening CAC, according to Dr. Goshua.

These findings suggest the prothrombotic state occurs early in the pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is driven by platelet activation and endotheliopathy, and becomes more pronounced with worsening severity of infection.

The results of this study prompted a change in how Yale–New Haven Hospital manages COVID-19 patients. Patients without a clinical contraindication now receive aspirin at 81 mg daily in addition to the anticoagulation regimen typically used for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Investigations regarding other medications that can influence platelet-endothelial cell interactions and modulate endothelial cell damage in CAC – such as dipyridamole, defibrotide, and eculizumab – are planned.
 

Challenges and unanswered questions

Virchow’s triad was described by the eminent German physician, Rudolf Virchow, MD, in the 19th century. It refers to the three broad categories of factors that can predispose patients to thrombosis — circulatory stasis, hypercoagulability, and endothelial injury.

Although all of these elements could be operative in CAC, the current study suggests platelet activation and endothelial cell injury in CAC may be of primary importance.

Because of the limited ability to test critically ill patients and concerns regarding exposure of additional hospital personnel to COVID-19 patients, the current report lacked clarity about the relationship of the detected laboratory abnormalities to confirmed thrombotic events.

It is unknown whether endothelial cells in different organs are damaged uniformly. It is also unclear if the laboratory abnormalities identified in this analysis can be used to monitor response to therapy, to guide follow-up management of discharged patients with CAC, or to identify infected outpatients who should receive prophylactic anticoagulation.

The mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 injures endothelial cells is not explained by these data. Neutrophil defensins and other prothrombotic peptides or markers of inflammation could play key roles in pathogenesis, assessment of disease severity, or monitoring for therapeutic efficacy.

Today, we have more sophisticated diagnostic tools than Dr. Virchow had. We also have the ability to record and rapidly disseminate information globally. Still, with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinicians face many of the same challenges that confronted Dr. Virchow in his era.

The analysis conducted by Dr. Goshua and colleagues goes a long way toward elucidating some of the mechanisms and therapeutic targets to meet these challenges.

Dr. Goshua disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Dr. Lyss was a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Goshua G et al. EHA Congress. Abstract LB2605.

References

1. Klok FA et al. Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis. Thromb Res. 2020;191:148-50. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.041.

2. Thomas W et al. Thrombotic complications of patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19 at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom. Thromb Res. 2020;191:76-7. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.028

3. Lodigiani C et al. Venous and arterial thromboembolic complications in COVID-19 patients admitted to an academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Thromb Res. 2020;191:9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.04.024

4. Llitjos JF et al. High incidence of venous thromboembolic events in anticoagulated severe COVID-19 patients [published online ahead of print, 2020 Apr 22]. J Thromb Haemost. 2020;10.1111/jth.14869. doi: 10.1111/jth.14869

5. Carsana L et al. Pulmonary post-mortem findings in a large series of COVID-19 cases from Northern Italy. medRxiv 2020.04.19.20054262; doi: 10.1101/2020.04.19.20054262v1.

6. Menter T et al. Post-mortem examination of COVID19 patients reveals diffuse alveolar damage with severe capillary congestion and variegated findings of lungs and other organs suggesting vascular dysfunction [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 4]. Histopathology. 2020;10.1111/his.14134. doi: 10.1111/his.14134

7. Lax SF, et al. Pulmonary arterial thrombosis in COVID-19 with fatal outcome: Results from a prospective, single-center, clinicopathologic case series [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 14]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;M20-2566. doi: 10.7326/M20-2566.

Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”

However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.

To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.

The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”

Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.

Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.

However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.

Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.

Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.

Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.

Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”

However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.

To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.

The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”

Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.

Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.

However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.

Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.

Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.

Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.

Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Early plans for prioritizing vaccination when a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available include placing critical health care workers in the first tier, according to Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A COVID-19 vaccine work group is developing strategies and identifying priority groups for vaccination to help inform discussions about the use of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Mbaeyi said at a virtual meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

“Preparing for vaccination during a pandemic has long been a priority of the CDC and the U.S. government,” said Dr. Mbaeyi. The work group is building on a tiered approach to vaccination that was updated in 2018 after the H1N1 flu pandemic, with occupational and high-risk populations placed in the highest-priority groups, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

There are important differences between COVID-19 and influenza, Dr. Mbaeyi said. “Vaccine prioritization is challenging due to incomplete information on COVID-19 epidemiology and vaccines, including characteristics, timing, and number of doses.”

However, guidance for vaccine prioritization developed after the H1N1 outbreak in 2018 can be adapted for COVID-19.

To help inform ACIP deliberations, the work group reviewed the epidemiology of COVID-19. A large proportion of the population remains susceptible, and prioritizations should be based on data to date and continually refined, she said.

The work group defined the objectives of the COVID-19 vaccine program as follows: “Ensure safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines; reduce transmission, morbidity, and mortality in the population; help minimize disruption to society and economy, including maintaining health care capacity; and ensure equity in vaccine allocation and distribution.”

Based on current information, the work group has proposed that vaccine priority be given to health care personnel, essential workers, adults aged 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and persons with high-risk medical conditions.

Among these groups “a subset of critical health care and other workers should receive initial doses,” Dr. Mbaeyi said.

However, vaccines will not be administered until safety and efficacy have been demonstrated, she emphasized. The timing and number of vaccine doses are unknown, and subprioritization may be needed, assuming the vaccine becomes available in incremental quantities over several months.

Next steps for the work group are refinement of priority groups based on ACIP feedback, and assignment of tiers to other groups such as children, pregnant women, and racial/ethnic groups at high risk, Dr. Mbaeyi said.

The goal of the work group is to have a prioritization framework for COVID-19 vaccination to present at the next ACIP meeting.

Committee member Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., emphasized that “one of the things we need to know is how is the virus [is] transmitted and who is transmitting,” and that this information will be key to developing strategies for vaccination.

Sarah E. Oliver, MD, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, responded that household transmission studies are in progress that will help inform the prioritization process.

Dr. Mbaeyi and Dr. Oliver had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Background: OSA is a key modifiable risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and is increasingly prevalent in older populations. PAP improves OSA severity, increases oxygenation, and reduces daytime sleepiness. Its effect on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

Background: OSA is a key modifiable risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and is increasingly prevalent in older populations. PAP improves OSA severity, increases oxygenation, and reduces daytime sleepiness. Its effect on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

Background: OSA is a key modifiable risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes and is increasingly prevalent in older populations. PAP improves OSA severity, increases oxygenation, and reduces daytime sleepiness. Its effect on major adverse cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain.

Dr. Anderson is chief, hospital medicine section, and deputy chief, medicine service, at the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora.

With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.

To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.

“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
 

Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit

The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.

The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.

The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.

Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.

“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.

Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.

“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
 

Rebooting electrophysiology services

Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.

The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.

“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.

Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.

The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.

“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.

A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.

“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.

“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
 

Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring

In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.

Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.

The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.

He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”

Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.

Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.

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

With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.

To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.

“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
 

Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit

The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.

The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.

The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.

Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.

“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.

Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.

“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
 

Rebooting electrophysiology services

Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.

The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.

“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.

Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.

The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.

“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.

A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.

“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.

“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
 

Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring

In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.

Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.

The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.

He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”

Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.

Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.

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

With the COVID-19 pandemic winding down in some parts of the United States, attention has turned to figuring out how to safely reboot elective cardiovascular (CV) services, which, for the most part, shut down in order to combat the virus and flatten the curve.

To aid in this effort, top cardiology societies have published a series of guidance documents. One, entitled Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in the Midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Ramping Up Safely to a New Normal, was initiated by the editors of JACC Cardiovascular Imaging and was developed in collaboration with the ACC Cardiovascular Imaging Council.

“As we enter a deceleration or indolent phase of the disease and a return to a ‘new normal’ for the foreseeable future, cardiovascular imaging laboratories will adjust to a different work flow and safety precautions for patients and staff alike,” write William Zoghbi, MD, of the department of cardiology at Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, and colleagues.
 

Minimize risk, maximize clinical benefit

The group outlined strategies and considerations on how to safely ramp up multimodality CV imaging laboratories in an environment of an abating but continuing pandemic.

The authors provide detailed advice on reestablishing echocardiography, transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal echocardiography, stress testing modalities, treadmill testing, nuclear cardiology, cardiac CT, and cardiac MRI.

The advice is designed to “minimize risk, reduce resource utilization and maximize clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. They address patient and societal health; safety of healthcare professionals; choice of CV testing; and scheduling considerations.

Dr. Zoghbi and colleagues said that integrated communication among patients, referring physicians, the imaging teams, and administrative staff are key to reestablishing a more normal clinical operation.

“Recognizing that practice patterns and policies vary depending on institution and locale, the recommendations are not meant to be restrictive but rather to serve as a general framework during the COVID-19 pandemic and its recovery phase,” the writing group said.

Ultimately, the goal is to offer the necessary CV tests and information for the clinical team to provide the best care for patients, they added.

“To be successful in this new safety-driven modus operandi, innovation, coordination and adaptation among clinicians, staff and patients is necessary till herd immunity or control of COVID-19 is achieved,” they concluded.
 

Rebooting electrophysiology services

Uncertainty as to how to resume electrophysiology (EP) services for arrhythmia patients prompted representatives from the Heart Rhythm Society, the American Heart Association, and the ACC to develop a series of “guiding suggestions and principles” to help safely reestablish electrophysiological care.

The 28-page document is published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology.

“Rebooting” EP services at many institutions may be more challenging than shutting down, wrote Dhanunjaya R. Lakkireddy, MD, Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute and Research Foundation, Overland Park, Kan., and colleagues.

Topics addressed by the writing group include the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication; prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

They suggest creating an EP COVID-19 “reboot team” made up of stakeholders involved in the EP care continuum pathway that would coordinate with institutional or hospital-level COVID-19 leadership.

The reboot team may include an electrophysiologist, an EP laboratory manager, an outpatient clinic manager, an EP nurse, advanced practice providers, a device technician, an anesthesiologist, and an imaging team to provide insights into various aspects of the work flow.

“This team can clarify, interpret, iterate and disseminate policies, and also provide the necessary operational support to plan and successfully execute the reboot process as the efforts to contain COVID-19 continue,” the writing group said.

A mandatory component of the reboot plan should be planning for a second wave of the virus.

“We will have to learn to create relatively COVID-19 safe zones within the hospitals to help isolate patients from second waves and yet be able to provide regular care for non–COVID-19 patients,” the writing group said.

“Our main goal as health care professionals, whether we serve in a clinical, teaching, research, or administrative role, is to do everything we can to create a safe environment for our patients so that they receive the excellent care they deserve,” they concluded.
 

Defining moment for remote arrhythmia monitoring

In a separate report, an international team of heart rhythm specialists from the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, the HRS, the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the AHA, and the ACC discussed how the pandemic has fueled adoption of telehealth and remote patient management across medicine, including heart rhythm monitoring.

Their report was simultaneously published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, EP Europace, the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the Journal of Arrhythmia, and Heart Rhythm.

The COVID-19 pandemic has “catalyzed the use of wearables and digital medical tools,” and this will likely define medicine going forward, first author Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

He noted that the technology has been available for some time, but the pandemic has forced people to use it. “Necessity is the mother of invention, and this has become necessary during the pandemic when we can’t see our patients,” said Dr. Varma.

He also noted that hospitals and physicians are now realizing that telehealth and remote arrhythmia monitoring “actually work, and regulatory agencies have moved very swiftly to dissolve traditional barriers and will now reimburse for it. So it’s a win-win.”

Dr. Varma and colleagues said that the time is right to “embed and grow remote services in everyday medical practice worldwide.” In their report, they offered a list of commonly used platforms for telehealth and examples of remote electrocardiogram and heart rate monitoring devices.

Development of the three reports had no commercial funding. Complete lists of disclosures for the writing groups are available in the original articles.

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

Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.  

Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection. 

Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.

“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.

As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.

The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.

For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.

Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.

Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.

They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
 

ACOG responds

In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.

Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”

In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.

ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.

“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.  

Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection. 

Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.

“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.

As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.

The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.

For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.

Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.

Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.

They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
 

ACOG responds

In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.

Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”

In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.

ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.

“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women may be at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness, according to a new report published online June 26 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Among reproductive-aged women (15-44 years) infected with SARS-CoV-2, pregnancy was associated with a greater likelihood of hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and mechanical ventilation, but not death. Pregnant women were 5.4 times more likely to be hospitalized, 1.5 times more likely to be admitted to the ICU, and 1.7 times more likely to need mechanical ventilation, after adjustment for age, underlying conditions, and race/ethnicity.  

Furthermore, Hispanic and non-Hispanic black pregnant women appear to be disproportionately impacted by the infection. 

Sascha Ellington, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID-19 Response Pregnancy and Infant Linked Outcomes Team, and colleagues said that preventing COVID-19 infection in pregnant women should be a priority and any potential barriers to compliance with preventive measures need to be removed.

“During pregnancy, women experience immunologic and physiologic changes that could increase their risk for more severe illness from respiratory infections,” they wrote.

As of June 7, a total of 8,207 cases of COVID-19 in pregnant women were reported to the CDC, approximately 9% of COVID-19 cases among reproductive-aged women with known pregnancy status. The authors compared outcomes in these pregnant patients with those in 83,205 nonpregnant women with COVID-19. There was a substantially greater proportion of hospital admissions among pregnant patients (2,587; 31.5%) compared with nonpregnant patients (4,840; 5.8%) with COVID-19.

The authors cautioned that there were no data to differentiate between hospitalizations for COVID-19–related problems as opposed to those arising from pregnancy, including delivery.

For other severity measures, ICU admissions were reported for 1.5% of pregnant women compared with 0.9% for their nonpregnant counterparts, whereas mechanical ventilation was required for 0.5% compared with 0.3%, respectively. Mortality was identical, affecting 0.2% in both groups, with 16 deaths in pregnant patients with COVID-19 and 208 in nonpregnant patients.

Age had an impact as well, with hospitalization more frequent among those aged 35-44 years than among those aged 15-24, regardless of pregnancy status. When stratified by race/ethnicity, ICU admission was most frequently reported among pregnant women who were of non-Hispanic Asian lineage: 3.5% compared with 1.5% in all pregnant women.

Among pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reporting race/ethnicity, 46% were Hispanic, 22% were black, and 23% were white, whereas among women who gave birth in 2019, 24% were Hispanic, 15% were black, and 51% were white. “Although data on race/ethnicity were missing for 20% of pregnant women in this study, these findings suggest that pregnant women who are Hispanic and black might be disproportionately affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy,” the authors wrote.

They noted that in a recent meta-analysis of influenza, pregnancy was similarly associated with a sevenfold risk for hospitalization, but a lower risk for ICU admission and no increased risk for death. A recent study suggested that COVID-19 severity during pregnancy may be lower than in other respiratory infections such as H1N1.
 

ACOG responds

In a response to the CDC findings, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) advises calm, noting that the risk of needing the severity-associated interventions in the CDC report remains low and pregnant COVID-19 patients do not appear to have a greater risk for mortality.

Nevertheless, ACOG is reviewing all its COVID-19–related clinical and patient materials and “will make any necessary revisions to recommendations.”

In the meantime, the college advises clinicians to alert patients to the potential increased risk for severe COVID-19 illness during pregnancy. They should also stress to pregnant women and their families the need for precautions to prevent infection, paying particular attention to measures to protect those with greater occupational exposure to the virus.

ACOG also criticized the exclusion of pregnant and lactating women from clinical trials of potential coronavirus vaccines, noting that the new CDC findings underscore the importance of prioritizing pregnant patients to receive coronavirus vaccination when it becomes available.

“ACOG again urges the federal government to use its resources to ensure the safe inclusion of pregnant and lactating patients, including patients of color, in trials for vaccines and therapeutics to ensure that all populations are included in the search for ways to prevent and treat COVID-19,” the statement reads.

The CDC authors said that their report also highlights the need for more complete data to fully understand the risk for severe illness in pregnant women. To address these gaps, the CDC is collaborating with health departments in COVID-19 pregnancy surveillance for the reporting of outcomes in pregnant women with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

A version of article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The COVID-19 pandemic in New York City led to a surge in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) that placed a huge burden on first responders, a new analysis shows.

During the height of the pandemic in New York, there was a “dramatic increase in cardiopulmonary arrests, nearly all presented in non-shockable cardiac rhythms (> 90% fatality rate) and vulnerable patient populations were most affected,” David J. Prezant, MD, chief medical officer, Fire Department of New York (FDNY), said in an interview.

In a news release, Dr. Prezant noted that “relatively few, if any, patients were tested to confirm the presence of COVID-19,” making it impossible to distinguish between cardiac arrests as a result of COVID-19 and those that may have resulted from other health conditions.

“We also can’t rule out the possibility that some people may have died from delays in seeking or receiving treatment for non–COVID-19-related conditions. However, the dramatic increase in cardiac arrests compared to the same period in 2019 strongly indicates that the pandemic was directly or indirectly responsible for that surge in cardiac arrests and deaths,” said Dr. Prezant.

The study was published online June 19 in JAMA Cardiology.

New York City has the largest and busiest EMS system in the United States, serving a population of more than 8.4 million people and responding to more than 1.5 million calls every year.

To gauge the impact of COVID-19 on first responders, Dr. Prezant and colleagues analyzed data for adults with OHCA who received EMS resuscitation from March 1, when the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed in the city, through April 25, when EMS call volume had receded to pre-COVID-19 levels.

Compared with the same period in 2019, the COVID-19 period had an excess of 2,653 patients with OHCA who underwent EMS resuscitation attempts (3,989 in 2020 vs. 1,336 in 2019, P < .001), an incidence rate triple that of 2019 (47.5 vs. 15.9 per 100,000).

On the worst day – Monday, April 6 – OHCAs peaked at 305 cases, an increase of nearly 10-fold compared with the same day in 2019.

Despite the surge in cases, the median response time of available EMS units to OHCAs increased by about 1 minute over 2019, a nonsignificant difference. Although the average time varied, median response time during the COVID-19 period was less than 3 minutes.

A more vulnerable group

Compared with 2019, patients suffering OHCA during the pandemic period were older (mean age 72 vs. 68 years), less likely to be white (20% white vs. 33%) and more likely to have hypertension (54% vs. 46%), diabetes (36% vs. 26%), physical limitations (57% vs. 48%) and cardiac rhythms that don’t respond to defibrillator shocks (92% vs. 81%).

Compared with 2019, the COVID-19 period had substantial reductions in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (18% vs. 35%; P < .001) and sustained ROSC (11% vs. 25%; P < .001). The case fatality rate was 90% in the COVID-19 period vs. 75% a year earlier.

“The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic is not just the number of patients infected, but the large increase in OHCAs and deaths,” Dr. Prezant and colleagues said.

Identifying patients with the greatest risk for OHCA and death during the COVID-19 pandemic “should allow for early, targeted interventions in the outpatient setting that could lead to reductions in out-of-hospital deaths,” they noted.

“Vulnerable patient populations need outreach, telephonic medicine, televideo medicine, home visits, not just temperature monitoring but home O₂ saturation monitoring,” Dr. Prezant said in an interview. “Barriers need to be removed, not just for this pandemic but for the future – no matter what the trigger is.”
 

Unsung heroes

In an Editor’s Note in JAMA Cardiology, Robert O. Bonow, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues said the American people owe a debt of gratitude to first responders for their “heroic work” triaging, resuscitating, and transporting thousands of people affected by COVID-19. 

“Although the typically bustling NYC streets remained eerily deserted, the characteristic cacophony of sounds of the ‘City that Never Sleeps’ was replaced by sirens wailing all hours of the night,” they wrote.

First responders to OHCAs in the COVID-19 era place themselves at extremely high risk, in some cases without optimal personal protective equipment, they pointed out. “Sadly,” many first responders have fallen ill to COVID-19 infection, they added.

As of June 1, 29 EMS workers and volunteers across the United States had died of COVID-19.

They are James Villecco, Gregory Hodge, Tony Thomas, Mike Field, John Redd, Idris Bey, Richard Seaberry, and Sal Mancuso of New York; Israel Tolentino, Reuven Maroth, Liana Sá, Kevin Leiva, Frank Molinari, Robert Weber, Robert Tarrant, Solomon Donald, Scott Geiger, John Farrarella, John Careccia, Bill Nauta, and David Pinto of New Jersey; Kevin Bundy, Robert Zerman, and Jeremy Emerich of Pennsylvania; Paul Cary of Colorado; Paul Novicki of Michigan; David Martin of Mississippi; Billy Birmingham of Missouri; and John “JP” Granger of South Carolina.

“We offer their families, friends, and colleagues our sincerest condolences and honor their memory with our highest respect and gratitude,” Dr. Bonow and colleagues wrote.

This study was supported by the City of New York and the Fire Department of the City of New York. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.

A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.

Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.

As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.

SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.

“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.

“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.

Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”

With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”

There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.

Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.

“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.

The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.

He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”

Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.

For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.

The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”

Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”

Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.

Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”

A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.

The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.

The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall

Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”

Medscape.com

Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.

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

The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.

A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.

Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.

As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.

SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.

“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.

“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.

Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”

With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”

There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.

Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.

“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.

The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.

He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”

Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.

For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.

The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”

Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”

Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.

Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”

A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.

The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.

The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall

Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”

Medscape.com

Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.

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

The DAPA-HF trial has already changed cardiology in opening up a new class of drugs to patients with heart failure (HF), whether or not they have diabetes. Now the trial is yielding clues as to how it benefits them. For now, it’s doing so by process of elimination.

A new analysis suggests that dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) didn’t need help from loop diuretics to cut the risk for clinical events in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a benefit seen across the spectrum of glycosylated hemoglobin levels and without compromising renal function, said DAPA-HF investigators. Also, use of dapagliflozin and its clinical effects were not associated with changes in loop diuretic dosage. Those findings and others suggest the drug helps in HFrEF at least partly by some other mechanism than its own diuretic effect, the researchers say.

Such insights will likely be important to case-by-case decisions on whether to use the drug, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor once reserved for patients with diabetes, given the recently broader landscape of HF treatment options.

As previously reported from DAPA-HF, with more than 4,700 patients, those who received dapagliflozin showed significant reductions in the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, HF hospitalization, and urgent HF visit requiring IV therapy over about 18 months. The 45% of patients with and 55% without type 2 diabetes enjoyed about equal benefit in the placebo-controlled trial for that end point, as well as for all-cause mortality.

SGLT2 inhibitors work in diabetes by promoting urinary glucose excretion. That had led some to speculate that its benefit in HFrEF comes primarily from a diuretic effect; the current findings largely put that question to rest.

“Our findings show that treatment with dapagliflozin was effective regardless of diuretic use or diuretic dose. They also show that dapagliflozin did not lead to an increase in renal adverse events or discontinuation of therapy in patients treated with a diuretic,” trialist Alice M. Jackson, MB, ChB, said in an interview.

“In fact, renal adverse events were generally less common in patients treated with dapagliflozin, across the diuretic categories,” said Dr. Jackson, from the University of Glasgow.

Dr. Jackson presented the new analysis at a Late-Breaking Science Session during the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Discoveries virtual meeting. The HFA sessions were conducted virtually this year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At baseline, 84% of patients were on conventional diuretics. The post hoc analysis broke out all patients by loop-diuretic dosage level: none; less than 40 mg furosemide equivalents (FE); 40 mg FE; or more than 40 mg FE. Clinical outcomes were similar across the four groups.

Clinicians in the trial “were not given specific advice about adjusting diuretic doses, but were encouraged to assess volume status and make changes to medical therapy based on this, if necessary,” Dr. Jackson said. “This suggests that, for most patients, starting dapagliflozin will not necessitate a change in diuretic dose.”

With the caveat that the event rate was low in the relatively few patients not prescribed loop diuretics, she said, “the magnitude of the benefit from dapagliflozin appeared to be larger in patients not treated with a diuretic.”

There was no suggestion of a diuretic dose–response effect or statistical interaction between diuretic use and clinical outcomes on dapagliflozin, Dr. Jackson observed in the interview.

Of note in the analysis, hematocrit levels shot up soon after patients started active therapy, but they didn’t rise much in the placebo group. The sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin, seen at all diuretic dosage levels, persisted even after dosage reductions at 6 months, she said.

“Dapagliflozin is effective in HFrEF irrespective of background diuretic therapy; therefore, it is almost certainly not purely acting as a diuretic,” Andrew J. Coats, MD, DSc, MBA, said in an interview.

The findings also “lessen the concern that dapagliflozin’s beneficial effects are only seen only in patients without effective diuretic dosing,” said Dr. Coats, from University of Warwick, Coventry, England.

“Altogether, these data give further reassurance that dapagliflozin can safely be used in heart failure, and has a beneficial effect independent of the use of diuretic drugs,” invited discussant Wolfram Doehner, MD, PhD, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said after Dr. Jackson’s presentation of the analysis.

He made special mention of the sustained hematocrit elevation on dapagliflozin. “While this effect may likely relate to the mild reduction in plasma volume secondary to dapagliflozin therapy, it is noted that the increase in hematocrit was independent of any change of the diuretic dose,” Doehner said. “If additional mechanisms have a role for this observed increase in hematocrit, it may be of interest in further investigations.”

Dr. Jackson pointed to several observations that suggest the hematocrit finding isn’t explained by hemoconcentration from reduced plasma volume, at least not entirely.

For example, hematocrit levels rose “without any suggestion of a relationship between diuretic dose and degree of hematocrit elevation with dapagliflozin,” she said.

The elevations persisted even with diuretic dose reductions at 6 and 12 months, “which should have led to a decrease in hemoconcentration if it was caused by volume contraction.”

Also, she said, “among patients not taking a diuretic, volume depletion occurred less frequently in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group, but there was still a similar rise in hematocrit with dapagliflozin.”

Both Dr. Jackson and Dr. Coats said the sustained elevation in hematocrit on the drug is unlikely to pose a major hazard.

Dr. Coats said that, theoretically, “increased hematocrit could reduce peripheral vessel blood flow, making ischemia and thrombosis more likely. But the size of the effect is small and unlikely to be clinically important.”

A diuretic dose could not be determined for 128 of the trial’s 4,744 randomized patients with HFrEF, so the post hoc analysis was limited to the remaining 4,616. Of those, 746 were not on diuretics at baseline, 1,311 were on loop diuretics at less than 40 mg FE or on non-loop diuretics only, 1,365 were taking 40 mg FE, and 1,204 were on higher doses of loop diuretics.

The mean baseline dosage was 60 mg FE, which rose slightly throughout the trial. But the baseline dosage and the increases were both similar in the placebo and dapagliflozin groups. Dr. Jackson said 84% and 83% of patients on dapagliflozin and placebo, respectively, maintained their baseline dose at 6 months and about 77% in both groups at 12 months.

The overall trial’s significant primary endpoint reduction for dapagliflozin versus placebo applied similarly to patients not on a diuretics and to those on any dose of diuretic, with an interaction P value of .23 for the effect of diuretic use. The hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) were 0.57 (0.36-0.92) for patients not on diuretics, 0.78 (0.68-0.90) for patients on any diuretic dosage, and 0.74 (0.65-0.85) overall

Dr. Jackson said during her formal online presentation that patients on diuretics showed a “tendency toward slightly more volume depletion in those on dapagliflozin than in those on placebo, but the excess was small and not greater than approximately 3% in those taking 40 mg furosemide equivalent diuretic. And fortunately, this did not result in an increase in frequency in renal adverse events nor of discontinuation of study drug.”

Medscape.com

Dr. Jackson has no disclosures. Dr. Coats has disclosed receiving personal fees from Actimed, AstraZeneca, Faraday, WL Gore, Menarini, Novartis, Nutricia, Respicardia, Servier, Stealth Peptides, Verona, and Vifor. Dr. Doener has recently disclosed receiving grants and personal fees from Vifor, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sphingotec, ZS Pharma, Bayer, and Medtronic.

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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

Despite a lack of financial penalties, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System has seen a steady 15% reduction in 30-day all-cause readmissions for patients admitted for heart failure, with no concurrent increase in 30-day mortality, a large cohort study suggests.

Unlike the Center for Medicare & Medicaid’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), whose primary objective is reducing payments to hospitals with excess readmissions, the VA’s efforts to reduce readmissions across their system did not include any financial penalties.

“The intervention focused on encouraging participation in transitions of care programs, such as the American College of Cardiology’s Hospital to Home Initiative and the creation of a heart failure provider network that included more than 900 heart failure providers throughout the VA system,” said the study’s lead author Justin T. Parizo, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The only measuring sticks the VA used were the public reporting of 30-day readmission rates (starting in 2012) and inclusion of those rates into hospitals’ overall star ratings (starting in 2014).  

“The readmissions reductions we saw were similar in magnitude to those seen in patients in CMS fee-for-service categories in the HRRP,” said Dr. Parizo. “And while we had no ability to evaluate causality here, our best guess from what we can see is that there’s been no impact of the readmissions program on mortality,” he added.

Their results were published online June 17 in JAMA Cardiology.

Dr. Parizo and colleagues conducted a cohort study of 304,374 heart failure hospital admissions in 164,566 patients from January 2007 to September 2017. Importantly, he stressed, the researchers were able to do sophisticated risk adjustment for illness trends, something that has been a sticking point in some of the HRRP studies to date.

“We leveraged the robust dataset that the VA provides to adjust for illness severity. Accounting for clinical factors, like blood pressure, weight, creatinine, BNP [B-type natriuretic peptide], and other markers of heart failure severity, but also for changes in coding,” said Dr. Parizo.

Stratification according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed similar results both in terms of 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality for those with LVEF of 40% or greater and those with LVEF less than 40%.

In an interview, Dr. Parizo noted that they actually saw a small but significant uptick in mortality in the 2011-2012 period (compared with 2007-2008) that remains unexplained. “By the 2015-2017 period, 30-day death had returned to baseline levels,” he said.

In contrast, the HRRP, which was rolled out in 2012, has also been shown to reduce readmissions but, in most studies, 30-day mortality had gone up.

“The VA has a very robust quality infrastructure and a robust mechanism for prioritizing certain quality-improvement goals and getting them accomplished that I think they are underrecognized for,” said Leora Horwitz, MD, MHS, the director of the Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science at NYU Langone Medical Center, New York.

In an interview, she also noted some concern with the uptick seen in the 2011-2012 period, noting that the increase might be the same signal seen with the HRRP intervention.

“This is around the same time period where other people were writing the HRRP papers that showed an increase in mortality, so that’s something to consider,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz coauthored a study published in 2017 indicating that, on a hospital level (compared with a patient level, the approach most other studies took), reductions in readmissions were only weakly correlated with 30-day mortality rates after discharge.

“So, if you think that a hospital that’s behaving badly and keeping people out of the hospital inappropriately to cut down their readmissions, you’d expect to see increased mortality in that hospital, and in our study there was no correlation whatsoever. So there is still debate as to what is behind the increase in mortality on a patient level with heart failure that we’ve seen in some studies,” she said.

Dr. Horwitz doubts an intervention such as the one undertaken in the VA system – even with its fairly soft-touch “name and shame” component – would work in the non-VA hospital world.

“Those who have been in favor of financial penalties have pointed to the fact that, in general, it’s hard to get health systems to respond without financial alignment, even if it’s not an overt financial incentive,” she said.

“The VA is a unique environment,” she noted. “They have a very strong top-down command control focus where people are kind of used to being told, ‘OK, here are the measures we have to address this year.’ It’s good to see that the system that has worked for them for other outcomes also worked for them for heart failure readmissions too.”

Dr. Parizo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Horwitz has worked under contract to Medicare to develop readmission measures. 

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