Prophylactic use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period is highly controversial. Initial studies in the 1990s were favorable, but evidence has been conflicting since then.

The pendulum swung away from routinely recommending beta-blockers after the publication of negative results from several studies, including the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial in 2008.¹ Highlighting this change in practice, a Canadian study² found that the use of perioperative beta-blockade increased between 1999 and 2005 but subsequently declined from 2005 to 2010. However, there was no appreciable change in this pattern after the POISE trial or after changes in the American College of Cardiology guidelines in 2002 and 2006.³

In 2008, Harte and Jaffer reviewed the perioperative use of beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery in this journal.⁴ Since then, a number of meta-analyses and retrospective observational studies have reported variable findings related to specific beta-blockers and specific complications.

In this paper, we review the rationale and recent evidence for and against the perioperative use of beta-blockers as guidance for internists and hospitalists.

POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF BETA-BLOCKERS

Myocardial infarction and unstable angina are the leading cardiovascular causes of death after surgery.⁵ These events are multifactorial. Some are caused by the stress of surgery, which precipitates physiologic changes related to inflammatory mediators, sympathetic tone, and oxygen supply and demand; others are caused by acute plaque rupture, thrombosis, and occlusion.⁶ Most perioperative infarcts are non-Q-wave events⁷ and occur within the first 2 days after the procedure, when the effects of anesthetics, pain, fluid shifts, and physiologic changes are greatest. Because multiple causes may contribute to perioperative myocardial infarction, a single preventive strategy may not be sufficient.^8,9

Beta-blockers do several things that may be beneficial in the perioperative setting. They reduce myocardial oxygen demand by decreasing the force of contraction and by slowing the heart rate, and slowing the heart rate increases diastolic perfusion time.¹⁰ They suppress arrhythmias; they limit leukocyte recruitment, the production of free radicals, metalloproteinase activity, monocyte activation, release of growth factors, and inflammatory cytokine response; and they stabilize plaque.¹¹ Their long-term use may also alter intracellular signaling processes, thus improving cell survival by decreasing the expression of receptors for substances that induce apoptosis.¹²

INITIAL POSITIVE TRIALS

Mangano et al¹³ began the beta-blocker trend in 1996 with a study in 200 patients known to have coronary artery disease or risk factors for it who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either atenolol orally and intravenously, titrated to control the heart rate, or placebo in the immediate perioperative period.

The atenolol group had less perioperative ischemia but no difference in short-term rates of myocardial infarction and death. However, the death rate was lower in the atenolol group at 6 months after discharge and at 2 years, although patients who died in the immediate postoperative period were excluded from the analysis.

Although this finding did not appear to make sense physiologically, we now know that patients may experience myocardial injury without infarction after noncardiac surgery, a phenomenon associated with an increased risk of death in the short term and the long term.¹⁴ Preventing these episodes may be the explanation for the improved outcome.

The DECREASE trial¹⁵ (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography) provided additional support for beta-blocker use. The patients were at high risk, had abnormal dobutamine stress echocardiograms, and were undergoing vascular surgery; 112 patients were randomized to receive either oral bisoprolol (started 1 month before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and continued for 1 month after surgery) or placebo.

The study was stopped early because the bisoprolol group reportedly had a 90% lower rate of myocardial infarction and cardiac death 1 month after surgery. However, the study was criticized because the total number of patients enrolled was small and the benefit was much greater than usual for any pharmacologic intervention, thus calling the results into question.

In a follow-up study,¹⁶ survivors continued to be followed while receiving bisoprolol or usual care. The incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 2 years was significantly lower in the group receiving bisoprolol (12% vs 32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P = .025).

Boersma et al,¹⁷ in an observational study, analyzed data from all 1,351 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery being considered for enrollment in the DECREASE trial. The DECREASE protocol required patients to undergo dobutamine stress echocardiography if they had one or more risk factors (age 70 or older, angina, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, treatment for ventricular arrhythmia, treatment for diabetes mellitus, or limited exercise capacity) or if their physician requested it. Twenty-seven percent received beta-blockers.

In multivariate analysis, clinical predictors of adverse outcome were age 70 or older; current or prior history of angina; and prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident.

In patients who had fewer than three clinical risk factors, beta-blocker use was associated with a lower rate of complications (0.8% vs 2.3%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography had minimal predictive value in this lower-risk group, suggesting that stress testing may not be necessary in this group if beta-blockers are used appropriately. However, in patients who had three or more risk factors, this test did provide additional prognostic information; those without stress-induced ischemia had lower event rates than those with ischemia, and beta-blocker use further reduced those rates, except in patients with extensive ischemia (more than five left ventricular segments involved).

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Lee et al¹⁸ devised an index to assist in preoperative cardiac risk stratification that was subsequently incorporated into the 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative risk guidelines. (It does not, however, address the beta-blocker issue.) It consists of six independent risk-predictors of major cardiac complications derived from 4,315 patients over age 50 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The risk factors, each of which is given 1 point, are:

• Congestive heart failure based on history or examination
• Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level > 2 mg/dL)
• Myocardial infarction, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, or a positive stress test
• History of transient ischemic attack or stroke
• Diabetes requiring insulin
• High-risk surgery (defined as intrathoracic, intra-abdominal, or suprainguinal vascular surgery).

Patients with 3 or more points are considered to be at high risk, and those with 1 or 2 points are considered to be at intermediate risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative cardiac risk algorithm subsequently included five of these six risk factors (the type of surgery was considered separately) and made recommendations concerning noninvasive stress testing and heart rate control.

On the basis of these studies, specialty societies, guideline committees, and hospitals enthusiastically recommended the prophylactic use of beta-blockers to decrease postoperative cardiac complications.

THREE NEGATIVE TRIALS OF METOPROLOL

In 2005 and 2006, two studies in vascular surgery patients and another in patients with diabetes cast doubt on the role of beta-blockers when the results failed to show a benefit. The trials used metoprolol, started shortly before surgery, and with no titration to control the heart rate.

The MaVS study¹⁹ (Metoprolol After Vascular Surgery) randomized 496 patients to receive metoprolol or placebo 2 hours before surgery and until hospital discharge or a maximum of 5 days after surgery. The metoprolol dose varied by weight: patients weighing 75 kg or more got 100 mg, those weighing between 40 and 75 kg got 50 mg, and those weighing less than 40 kg got 25 mg. Overall effects at 6 months were not significantly different, but intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension requiring intervention were more frequent in the metoprolol group.

The POBBLE study²⁰ (Perioperative Beta Blockade) randomized 103 patients who had no history of myocardial infarction to receive either metoprolol 50 mg twice daily or placebo from admission to 7 days after surgery. Myocardial ischemia was present in one-third of the patients after surgery. Metoprolol did not reduce the 30-day cardiac mortality rate, but it was associated with a shorter length of stay.

The DIPOM trial²¹ (Diabetic Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity) randomized 921 diabetic patients to receive long-acting metoprolol succinate controlled-release/extended release (CR/XL) or placebo. Patients in the metoprolol group received a test dose of 50 mg the evening before surgery, another dose 2 hours before surgery (100 mg if the heart rate was more than 65 bpm, or 50 mg if between 55 and 65 bpm), and daily thereafter until discharge or a maximum of 8 days. The dose was not titrated to heart-rate control.

Metoprolol had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure or on the secondary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, death from a cardiac cause, and nonfatal cardiac morbidity.

ADDITIONAL POSITIVE STUDIES

Lindenauer et al²² retrospectively evaluated the use of beta-blockers in the first 2 days after surgery in 782,969 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using propensity score matching and Revised Cardiac Risk Index scores, they found a lower rate of postoperative mortality in patients with three or more risk factors who received a beta-blocker. There was no significant difference in the group with two risk factors, but in the lowest-risk group (with a score of 0 to 1), beta-blockers were not beneficial and may have been associated with harm as evidenced by a higher odds ratio for death, although this was probably artifactual and reflecting database limitations.

Feringa et al,²³ in an observational cohort study of 272 patients undergoing vascular surgery, reported that higher doses of beta-blockers and tight heart-rate control were associated with less perioperative myocardial ischemia, lower troponin T levels, and better long-term outcome.

THE POISE TRIAL: MIXED RESULTS

The randomized POISE trial,¹ published in 2008, compared the effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate vs placebo on the 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events in 8,351 patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. The metoprolol regimen was 100 mg 2 to 4 hours before surgery, another 100 mg by 6 hours after surgery, and then 200 mg 12 hours later and once daily for 30 days.

The incidence of the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days was lower in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (5.8% vs 6.9%; P = .04), primarily because of fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, more patients in the metoprolol group died of any cause (3.1% vs 2.3% P = .03) or had a stroke (1.0% vs 0.5% P = .005) than in the placebo group.

The metoprolol group had a higher incidence of clinically significant hypotension, bradycardia, and stroke, which could account for much of the increase in the mortality rate. Sepsis was the major cause of death in this group; hypotension may have increased the risk of infection, and beta-blockers may have potentiated hypotension in patients who were already septic. Also, the bradycardic and negative inotropic effects of the beta-blocker could have masked the physiologic response to systemic infection, thereby delaying recognition and treatment or impeding the normal immune response.

One of the major criticisms of the POISE trial was its aggressive dosing regimen (200 to 400 mg within a 36-hour period) in patients who had not been on beta-blockers before then. Also, the drug was started only a few hours before surgery. In addition, these patients were at higher risk of death and stroke than those in other trials based on a high baseline rate of cerebrovascular disease, and inclusion of urgent and emergency surgical procedures.

STUDIES SINCE POISE

The POISE trial results¹ prompted further questioning of the prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers. However, proponents of beta-blockers voiced serious criticisms of the trial, particularly the dosing regimen, and continued to believe that these drugs were beneficial if used appropriately.

The DECREASE IV trial. Dunkelgrun et al,²⁴ in a study using bisoprolol started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate, reported beneficial results in intermediate-risk patients. In their randomized open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,066 patients at intermediate cardiac risk were assigned to receive bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy at least 34 days before surgery. Bisoprolol was started at 2.5 mg orally daily and slowly titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg to keep the heart rate between 50 and 70 beats per minute. The group of 533 patients randomized to receive bisoprolol had a lower incidence rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the control group (2.1% vs 6.0%, HR 0.34, P = .002). A potential limitation of this study was its open-label design, which might have led to treatment bias.

Updated guidelines. Based on the results from POISE and DECREASE IV, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines²⁵ published a focused update on beta-blockers in 2009 as an amendment to their 2007 guidelines on perioperative evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. The European Society of Cardiology²⁶ released similar but somewhat more liberal guidelines (Table 1).

London et al,²⁷ in an observational study published in 2013, found a lower 30-day overall mortality rate with beta-blockers (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83, P < .001, number needed to treat [NNT] 241), as well as a lower rate of cardiac morbidity (nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death), but only in nonvascular surgery patients who were on beta-blockers within 7 days of scheduled surgery. Moreover, similar to the findings of Lindenauer et al,²² only patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 2 or more benefited from beta-blocker use in terms of a lower risk of death, whereas the lower-risk patients did not:

• Risk score of 0 or 1—no association
• Score of 2—RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80, P < .001, NNT 105
• Score of 3—RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73, P < .001, NNT 41
• Score of 4 or more—RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.73, P < .001, NNT 18).

Beta-blocker exposure was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiac complications (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, P < .001, NNT 339), also limited to nonvascular surgery patients with a risk score of 2 or 3.

The Danish Nationwide Cohort Study²⁸ examined the effect of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, ie, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and death) in 28,263 patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery; 7,990 with heart failure and 20,273 without. Beta-blockers were used in 53% of patients with heart failure and 36% of those without heart failure. Outcomes for all of the beta-blocker recipients:

• MACE—HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.02
• All-cause mortality—HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06.

Outcomes for patients with heart failure if they received beta-blockers:

• MACE—HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.87
• All-cause mortality—HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92.

There was no significant benefit from beta-blockers in patients without heart failure. Outcomes for those patients if they received beta-blockers:

• MACE—HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92–1.33
• All-cause mortality—HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35.

However, in patients without heart failure but with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 2 years, beta-blockers were associated with a lower risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In patients with neither heart failure nor a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE and all-cause mortality.

This difference in efficacy depending on the presence and timing of a prior myocardial infarction is consistent with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for secondary prevention, in which beta-blockers are given a class I recommendation only for patients with a myocardial infarction within the past 3 years.

Meta-analyses and outcomes

A number of meta-analyses have been published over the past 10 years, with conflicting results (Table 2). The divergent findings are primarily due to the different studies included in the analyses as well as the strong influence of the POISE trial.¹ The studies varied in terms of the specific beta-blocker used, dose titration and heart rate control, time of initiation of beta-blocker use before surgery, type of surgery, patient characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers and diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical end points.

In general, these meta-analyses have found that prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers decreases ischemia and tends to reduce the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. They vary on whether the overall mortality risk is decreased. The meta-analyses that included POISE¹ found an increased incidence of stroke, whereas those that excluded POISE found no significant difference, although there appeared to be slightly more strokes in the beta-blocker groups.

The beta-blocker controversy increased even further when Dr. Don Poldermans was fired by Erasmus Medical Center in November 2011 for violations of academic integrity involving his research, including the DECREASE trials. The most recent meta-analysis, by Bouri et al,²⁹ included nine “secure trials” and excluded the DECREASE trials in view of the controversy about their authenticity. The analysis showed an increase in overall mortality as well as stroke, primarily because it was heavily influenced by POISE.¹ In contrast, the DECREASE trials had reported a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and death, with no significant increase in stroke. The authors concluded that guideline bodies should “retract their recommendations based on the fictitious data without further delay.”²⁹

Although the design of the DECREASE trials (in which beta-blockers were started well in advance of surgery and doses were titrated to achieve heart rate control) is physiologically more compelling than those of the negative trials, the results have been questioned in light of the integrity issue. However, to date, none of the published DECREASE trials have been retracted.

Two other meta-analyses,^30,31 published in 2013, also found a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and increased risk of stroke but no significant difference in short-term all-cause mortality.

ARE ALL BETA-BLOCKERS EQUIVALENT?

In various studies evaluating specific beta-blockers, the more cardioselective agents bisoprolol and atenolol were associated with better outcomes than metoprolol. The affinity ratios for beta-1/beta-2 receptors range from 13.5 for bisoprolol to 4.7 for atenolol and 2.3 for metoprolol.³² Blocking beta-1 receptors blunts tachycardia, whereas blocking beta-2 receptors may block systemic or cerebral vasodilation.

In patients with anemia, beta-blockade in general may be harmful, but beta-2 blockade may be even worse. Beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE (6.5% vs 3.0%)³³ in patients with acute surgical anemia if the hemoglobin concentration decreased to less than 35% of baseline, and increased risks of hospital death (OR 6.65) and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (OR 4.18) with severe bleeding during aortic surgery.³⁴

In addition, the pathway by which the beta-blocker is metabolized may also affect outcome, with less benefit from beta-blockers metabolized by the CYP2D6 isoenzyme of the cytochrome P450 system. Individual variations in CYP2D6 activity related to genetics or drug interactions may result in insufficient or excessive beta-blockade. Because metoprolol is the most dependent on this system, patients using it may be more susceptible to bradycardia.³⁵

Studies comparing atenolol and metoprolol found that the atenolol groups had fewer myocardial infarctions and deaths³⁶ and lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates³⁷ than the groups on metoprolol. Studies comparing the three beta-blockers found better outcomes with atenolol and bisoprolol than with metoprolol—fewer strokes,^38,39 a lower mortality rate,³¹ and a better composite outcome³⁹ (Table 3 and Table 4).

START THE BETA-BLOCKER EARLY, TITRATE TO CONTROL THE HEART RATE

A number of studies suggest that how long the beta-blocker is given before surgery may influence the outcome (Table 5). The best results were achieved when beta-blockers were started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate.

Because this long lead-in time is not always practical, it is important to determine the shortest time before surgery in which starting beta-blockers may be beneficial and yet safe. Some evidence suggests that results are better when the beta-blocker is started more than 1 week preoperatively compared with less than 1 week, but it is unknown what the minimum or optimal time period should be.

If a beta-blocker is started well in advance of the scheduled surgery, there is adequate time for dose titration and tighter heart rate control. Most of the studies demonstrating beneficial effects of perioperative beta-blockers used dose titration and achieved lower heart rates in the treatment group than in the control group. A criticism of the MaVs,¹⁹ POBBLE,²⁰ and DIPOM²¹ trials was that the patients did not receive adequate beta-blockade. The POISE trial¹ used a much higher dose of metoprolol in an attempt to assure beta-blockade without dose titration, and although the regimen decreased nonfatal myocardial infarctions, it increased strokes and the overall mortality rate, probably related to excess bradycardia and hypotension. The target heart rate should probably be between 55 and 70 beats per minute.

RISK OF STROKE

POISE¹ was the first trial to note a clinically and statistically significant increase in strokes with perioperative beta-blocker use. Although no other study has shown a similar increased risk, almost all reported a higher number of strokes in the beta-blocker groups, although the absolute numbers and differences were small and not statistically significant. This risk may also vary from one beta-blocker to another (Table 4).

The usual incidence rate of postoperative stroke after noncardiac, noncarotid surgery is well under 1% in patients with no prior history of stroke but increases to approximately 3% in patients with a previous stroke.⁴⁰ An observational study from the Dutch group reported a very low incidence of stroke overall (0.02%) in 186,779 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with no significant difference in those on chronic beta-blocker therapy.⁴¹ The DECREASE trials, with a total of 3,884 patients, also found no statistically significant increase in stroke with beta-blocker use (0.46% overall vs 0.5% with a beta-blocker),⁴² which in this case was bisoprolol started well in advance of surgery and titrated to control the heart rate. Although the DECREASE data are under suspicion, they seem reasonable and consistent with those of observational studies.

Proposed mechanisms by which beta-blockers may increase stroke risk include the side effects of hypotension and bradycardia, particularly in the setting of anemia. They may also cause cerebral ischemia by blocking cerebral vasodilation. This effect on cerebral blood flow may be more pronounced with the less cardioselective beta-blockers, which may explain the apparent increased stroke risk associated with metoprolol.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in the perioperative setting continues to evolve, and new clinical trials are needed to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke.

If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation for rate control, they should be receiving them if time permits.

If prophylactic beta-blockers are to be effective in minimizing perioperative complications, it appears that they may need to be more cardioselective, started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control heart rate, and used in high-risk patients (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.

Ideally, a large randomized controlled trial using a cardioselective beta-blocker started in advance of surgery in patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score greater than 2, undergoing intermediate or high-risk procedures, is needed to fully answer the questions raised by the current data.

Prophylactic use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period is highly controversial. Initial studies in the 1990s were favorable, but evidence has been conflicting since then.

The pendulum swung away from routinely recommending beta-blockers after the publication of negative results from several studies, including the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial in 2008.¹ Highlighting this change in practice, a Canadian study² found that the use of perioperative beta-blockade increased between 1999 and 2005 but subsequently declined from 2005 to 2010. However, there was no appreciable change in this pattern after the POISE trial or after changes in the American College of Cardiology guidelines in 2002 and 2006.³

In 2008, Harte and Jaffer reviewed the perioperative use of beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery in this journal.⁴ Since then, a number of meta-analyses and retrospective observational studies have reported variable findings related to specific beta-blockers and specific complications.

In this paper, we review the rationale and recent evidence for and against the perioperative use of beta-blockers as guidance for internists and hospitalists.

POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF BETA-BLOCKERS

Myocardial infarction and unstable angina are the leading cardiovascular causes of death after surgery.⁵ These events are multifactorial. Some are caused by the stress of surgery, which precipitates physiologic changes related to inflammatory mediators, sympathetic tone, and oxygen supply and demand; others are caused by acute plaque rupture, thrombosis, and occlusion.⁶ Most perioperative infarcts are non-Q-wave events⁷ and occur within the first 2 days after the procedure, when the effects of anesthetics, pain, fluid shifts, and physiologic changes are greatest. Because multiple causes may contribute to perioperative myocardial infarction, a single preventive strategy may not be sufficient.^8,9

Beta-blockers do several things that may be beneficial in the perioperative setting. They reduce myocardial oxygen demand by decreasing the force of contraction and by slowing the heart rate, and slowing the heart rate increases diastolic perfusion time.¹⁰ They suppress arrhythmias; they limit leukocyte recruitment, the production of free radicals, metalloproteinase activity, monocyte activation, release of growth factors, and inflammatory cytokine response; and they stabilize plaque.¹¹ Their long-term use may also alter intracellular signaling processes, thus improving cell survival by decreasing the expression of receptors for substances that induce apoptosis.¹²

INITIAL POSITIVE TRIALS

Mangano et al¹³ began the beta-blocker trend in 1996 with a study in 200 patients known to have coronary artery disease or risk factors for it who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either atenolol orally and intravenously, titrated to control the heart rate, or placebo in the immediate perioperative period.

The atenolol group had less perioperative ischemia but no difference in short-term rates of myocardial infarction and death. However, the death rate was lower in the atenolol group at 6 months after discharge and at 2 years, although patients who died in the immediate postoperative period were excluded from the analysis.

Although this finding did not appear to make sense physiologically, we now know that patients may experience myocardial injury without infarction after noncardiac surgery, a phenomenon associated with an increased risk of death in the short term and the long term.¹⁴ Preventing these episodes may be the explanation for the improved outcome.

The DECREASE trial¹⁵ (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography) provided additional support for beta-blocker use. The patients were at high risk, had abnormal dobutamine stress echocardiograms, and were undergoing vascular surgery; 112 patients were randomized to receive either oral bisoprolol (started 1 month before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and continued for 1 month after surgery) or placebo.

The study was stopped early because the bisoprolol group reportedly had a 90% lower rate of myocardial infarction and cardiac death 1 month after surgery. However, the study was criticized because the total number of patients enrolled was small and the benefit was much greater than usual for any pharmacologic intervention, thus calling the results into question.

In a follow-up study,¹⁶ survivors continued to be followed while receiving bisoprolol or usual care. The incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 2 years was significantly lower in the group receiving bisoprolol (12% vs 32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P = .025).

Boersma et al,¹⁷ in an observational study, analyzed data from all 1,351 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery being considered for enrollment in the DECREASE trial. The DECREASE protocol required patients to undergo dobutamine stress echocardiography if they had one or more risk factors (age 70 or older, angina, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, treatment for ventricular arrhythmia, treatment for diabetes mellitus, or limited exercise capacity) or if their physician requested it. Twenty-seven percent received beta-blockers.

In multivariate analysis, clinical predictors of adverse outcome were age 70 or older; current or prior history of angina; and prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident.

In patients who had fewer than three clinical risk factors, beta-blocker use was associated with a lower rate of complications (0.8% vs 2.3%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography had minimal predictive value in this lower-risk group, suggesting that stress testing may not be necessary in this group if beta-blockers are used appropriately. However, in patients who had three or more risk factors, this test did provide additional prognostic information; those without stress-induced ischemia had lower event rates than those with ischemia, and beta-blocker use further reduced those rates, except in patients with extensive ischemia (more than five left ventricular segments involved).

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Lee et al¹⁸ devised an index to assist in preoperative cardiac risk stratification that was subsequently incorporated into the 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative risk guidelines. (It does not, however, address the beta-blocker issue.) It consists of six independent risk-predictors of major cardiac complications derived from 4,315 patients over age 50 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The risk factors, each of which is given 1 point, are:

• Congestive heart failure based on history or examination
• Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level > 2 mg/dL)
• Myocardial infarction, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, or a positive stress test
• History of transient ischemic attack or stroke
• Diabetes requiring insulin
• High-risk surgery (defined as intrathoracic, intra-abdominal, or suprainguinal vascular surgery).

Patients with 3 or more points are considered to be at high risk, and those with 1 or 2 points are considered to be at intermediate risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative cardiac risk algorithm subsequently included five of these six risk factors (the type of surgery was considered separately) and made recommendations concerning noninvasive stress testing and heart rate control.

On the basis of these studies, specialty societies, guideline committees, and hospitals enthusiastically recommended the prophylactic use of beta-blockers to decrease postoperative cardiac complications.

THREE NEGATIVE TRIALS OF METOPROLOL

In 2005 and 2006, two studies in vascular surgery patients and another in patients with diabetes cast doubt on the role of beta-blockers when the results failed to show a benefit. The trials used metoprolol, started shortly before surgery, and with no titration to control the heart rate.

The MaVS study¹⁹ (Metoprolol After Vascular Surgery) randomized 496 patients to receive metoprolol or placebo 2 hours before surgery and until hospital discharge or a maximum of 5 days after surgery. The metoprolol dose varied by weight: patients weighing 75 kg or more got 100 mg, those weighing between 40 and 75 kg got 50 mg, and those weighing less than 40 kg got 25 mg. Overall effects at 6 months were not significantly different, but intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension requiring intervention were more frequent in the metoprolol group.

The POBBLE study²⁰ (Perioperative Beta Blockade) randomized 103 patients who had no history of myocardial infarction to receive either metoprolol 50 mg twice daily or placebo from admission to 7 days after surgery. Myocardial ischemia was present in one-third of the patients after surgery. Metoprolol did not reduce the 30-day cardiac mortality rate, but it was associated with a shorter length of stay.

The DIPOM trial²¹ (Diabetic Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity) randomized 921 diabetic patients to receive long-acting metoprolol succinate controlled-release/extended release (CR/XL) or placebo. Patients in the metoprolol group received a test dose of 50 mg the evening before surgery, another dose 2 hours before surgery (100 mg if the heart rate was more than 65 bpm, or 50 mg if between 55 and 65 bpm), and daily thereafter until discharge or a maximum of 8 days. The dose was not titrated to heart-rate control.

Metoprolol had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure or on the secondary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, death from a cardiac cause, and nonfatal cardiac morbidity.

ADDITIONAL POSITIVE STUDIES

Lindenauer et al²² retrospectively evaluated the use of beta-blockers in the first 2 days after surgery in 782,969 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using propensity score matching and Revised Cardiac Risk Index scores, they found a lower rate of postoperative mortality in patients with three or more risk factors who received a beta-blocker. There was no significant difference in the group with two risk factors, but in the lowest-risk group (with a score of 0 to 1), beta-blockers were not beneficial and may have been associated with harm as evidenced by a higher odds ratio for death, although this was probably artifactual and reflecting database limitations.

Feringa et al,²³ in an observational cohort study of 272 patients undergoing vascular surgery, reported that higher doses of beta-blockers and tight heart-rate control were associated with less perioperative myocardial ischemia, lower troponin T levels, and better long-term outcome.

THE POISE TRIAL: MIXED RESULTS

The randomized POISE trial,¹ published in 2008, compared the effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate vs placebo on the 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events in 8,351 patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. The metoprolol regimen was 100 mg 2 to 4 hours before surgery, another 100 mg by 6 hours after surgery, and then 200 mg 12 hours later and once daily for 30 days.

The incidence of the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days was lower in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (5.8% vs 6.9%; P = .04), primarily because of fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, more patients in the metoprolol group died of any cause (3.1% vs 2.3% P = .03) or had a stroke (1.0% vs 0.5% P = .005) than in the placebo group.

The metoprolol group had a higher incidence of clinically significant hypotension, bradycardia, and stroke, which could account for much of the increase in the mortality rate. Sepsis was the major cause of death in this group; hypotension may have increased the risk of infection, and beta-blockers may have potentiated hypotension in patients who were already septic. Also, the bradycardic and negative inotropic effects of the beta-blocker could have masked the physiologic response to systemic infection, thereby delaying recognition and treatment or impeding the normal immune response.

One of the major criticisms of the POISE trial was its aggressive dosing regimen (200 to 400 mg within a 36-hour period) in patients who had not been on beta-blockers before then. Also, the drug was started only a few hours before surgery. In addition, these patients were at higher risk of death and stroke than those in other trials based on a high baseline rate of cerebrovascular disease, and inclusion of urgent and emergency surgical procedures.

STUDIES SINCE POISE

The POISE trial results¹ prompted further questioning of the prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers. However, proponents of beta-blockers voiced serious criticisms of the trial, particularly the dosing regimen, and continued to believe that these drugs were beneficial if used appropriately.

The DECREASE IV trial. Dunkelgrun et al,²⁴ in a study using bisoprolol started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate, reported beneficial results in intermediate-risk patients. In their randomized open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,066 patients at intermediate cardiac risk were assigned to receive bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy at least 34 days before surgery. Bisoprolol was started at 2.5 mg orally daily and slowly titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg to keep the heart rate between 50 and 70 beats per minute. The group of 533 patients randomized to receive bisoprolol had a lower incidence rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the control group (2.1% vs 6.0%, HR 0.34, P = .002). A potential limitation of this study was its open-label design, which might have led to treatment bias.

Updated guidelines. Based on the results from POISE and DECREASE IV, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines²⁵ published a focused update on beta-blockers in 2009 as an amendment to their 2007 guidelines on perioperative evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. The European Society of Cardiology²⁶ released similar but somewhat more liberal guidelines (Table 1).

London et al,²⁷ in an observational study published in 2013, found a lower 30-day overall mortality rate with beta-blockers (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83, P < .001, number needed to treat [NNT] 241), as well as a lower rate of cardiac morbidity (nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death), but only in nonvascular surgery patients who were on beta-blockers within 7 days of scheduled surgery. Moreover, similar to the findings of Lindenauer et al,²² only patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 2 or more benefited from beta-blocker use in terms of a lower risk of death, whereas the lower-risk patients did not:

• Risk score of 0 or 1—no association
• Score of 2—RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80, P < .001, NNT 105
• Score of 3—RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73, P < .001, NNT 41
• Score of 4 or more—RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.73, P < .001, NNT 18).

Beta-blocker exposure was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiac complications (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, P < .001, NNT 339), also limited to nonvascular surgery patients with a risk score of 2 or 3.

The Danish Nationwide Cohort Study²⁸ examined the effect of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, ie, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and death) in 28,263 patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery; 7,990 with heart failure and 20,273 without. Beta-blockers were used in 53% of patients with heart failure and 36% of those without heart failure. Outcomes for all of the beta-blocker recipients:

• MACE—HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.02
• All-cause mortality—HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06.

Outcomes for patients with heart failure if they received beta-blockers:

• MACE—HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.87
• All-cause mortality—HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92.

There was no significant benefit from beta-blockers in patients without heart failure. Outcomes for those patients if they received beta-blockers:

• MACE—HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92–1.33
• All-cause mortality—HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35.

However, in patients without heart failure but with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 2 years, beta-blockers were associated with a lower risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In patients with neither heart failure nor a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE and all-cause mortality.

This difference in efficacy depending on the presence and timing of a prior myocardial infarction is consistent with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for secondary prevention, in which beta-blockers are given a class I recommendation only for patients with a myocardial infarction within the past 3 years.

Meta-analyses and outcomes

A number of meta-analyses have been published over the past 10 years, with conflicting results (Table 2). The divergent findings are primarily due to the different studies included in the analyses as well as the strong influence of the POISE trial.¹ The studies varied in terms of the specific beta-blocker used, dose titration and heart rate control, time of initiation of beta-blocker use before surgery, type of surgery, patient characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers and diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical end points.

In general, these meta-analyses have found that prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers decreases ischemia and tends to reduce the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. They vary on whether the overall mortality risk is decreased. The meta-analyses that included POISE¹ found an increased incidence of stroke, whereas those that excluded POISE found no significant difference, although there appeared to be slightly more strokes in the beta-blocker groups.

The beta-blocker controversy increased even further when Dr. Don Poldermans was fired by Erasmus Medical Center in November 2011 for violations of academic integrity involving his research, including the DECREASE trials. The most recent meta-analysis, by Bouri et al,²⁹ included nine “secure trials” and excluded the DECREASE trials in view of the controversy about their authenticity. The analysis showed an increase in overall mortality as well as stroke, primarily because it was heavily influenced by POISE.¹ In contrast, the DECREASE trials had reported a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and death, with no significant increase in stroke. The authors concluded that guideline bodies should “retract their recommendations based on the fictitious data without further delay.”²⁹

Although the design of the DECREASE trials (in which beta-blockers were started well in advance of surgery and doses were titrated to achieve heart rate control) is physiologically more compelling than those of the negative trials, the results have been questioned in light of the integrity issue. However, to date, none of the published DECREASE trials have been retracted.

Two other meta-analyses,^30,31 published in 2013, also found a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and increased risk of stroke but no significant difference in short-term all-cause mortality.

ARE ALL BETA-BLOCKERS EQUIVALENT?

In various studies evaluating specific beta-blockers, the more cardioselective agents bisoprolol and atenolol were associated with better outcomes than metoprolol. The affinity ratios for beta-1/beta-2 receptors range from 13.5 for bisoprolol to 4.7 for atenolol and 2.3 for metoprolol.³² Blocking beta-1 receptors blunts tachycardia, whereas blocking beta-2 receptors may block systemic or cerebral vasodilation.

In patients with anemia, beta-blockade in general may be harmful, but beta-2 blockade may be even worse. Beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE (6.5% vs 3.0%)³³ in patients with acute surgical anemia if the hemoglobin concentration decreased to less than 35% of baseline, and increased risks of hospital death (OR 6.65) and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (OR 4.18) with severe bleeding during aortic surgery.³⁴

In addition, the pathway by which the beta-blocker is metabolized may also affect outcome, with less benefit from beta-blockers metabolized by the CYP2D6 isoenzyme of the cytochrome P450 system. Individual variations in CYP2D6 activity related to genetics or drug interactions may result in insufficient or excessive beta-blockade. Because metoprolol is the most dependent on this system, patients using it may be more susceptible to bradycardia.³⁵

Studies comparing atenolol and metoprolol found that the atenolol groups had fewer myocardial infarctions and deaths³⁶ and lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates³⁷ than the groups on metoprolol. Studies comparing the three beta-blockers found better outcomes with atenolol and bisoprolol than with metoprolol—fewer strokes,^38,39 a lower mortality rate,³¹ and a better composite outcome³⁹ (Table 3 and Table 4).

START THE BETA-BLOCKER EARLY, TITRATE TO CONTROL THE HEART RATE

A number of studies suggest that how long the beta-blocker is given before surgery may influence the outcome (Table 5). The best results were achieved when beta-blockers were started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate.

Because this long lead-in time is not always practical, it is important to determine the shortest time before surgery in which starting beta-blockers may be beneficial and yet safe. Some evidence suggests that results are better when the beta-blocker is started more than 1 week preoperatively compared with less than 1 week, but it is unknown what the minimum or optimal time period should be.

If a beta-blocker is started well in advance of the scheduled surgery, there is adequate time for dose titration and tighter heart rate control. Most of the studies demonstrating beneficial effects of perioperative beta-blockers used dose titration and achieved lower heart rates in the treatment group than in the control group. A criticism of the MaVs,¹⁹ POBBLE,²⁰ and DIPOM²¹ trials was that the patients did not receive adequate beta-blockade. The POISE trial¹ used a much higher dose of metoprolol in an attempt to assure beta-blockade without dose titration, and although the regimen decreased nonfatal myocardial infarctions, it increased strokes and the overall mortality rate, probably related to excess bradycardia and hypotension. The target heart rate should probably be between 55 and 70 beats per minute.

RISK OF STROKE

POISE¹ was the first trial to note a clinically and statistically significant increase in strokes with perioperative beta-blocker use. Although no other study has shown a similar increased risk, almost all reported a higher number of strokes in the beta-blocker groups, although the absolute numbers and differences were small and not statistically significant. This risk may also vary from one beta-blocker to another (Table 4).

The usual incidence rate of postoperative stroke after noncardiac, noncarotid surgery is well under 1% in patients with no prior history of stroke but increases to approximately 3% in patients with a previous stroke.⁴⁰ An observational study from the Dutch group reported a very low incidence of stroke overall (0.02%) in 186,779 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with no significant difference in those on chronic beta-blocker therapy.⁴¹ The DECREASE trials, with a total of 3,884 patients, also found no statistically significant increase in stroke with beta-blocker use (0.46% overall vs 0.5% with a beta-blocker),⁴² which in this case was bisoprolol started well in advance of surgery and titrated to control the heart rate. Although the DECREASE data are under suspicion, they seem reasonable and consistent with those of observational studies.

Proposed mechanisms by which beta-blockers may increase stroke risk include the side effects of hypotension and bradycardia, particularly in the setting of anemia. They may also cause cerebral ischemia by blocking cerebral vasodilation. This effect on cerebral blood flow may be more pronounced with the less cardioselective beta-blockers, which may explain the apparent increased stroke risk associated with metoprolol.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in the perioperative setting continues to evolve, and new clinical trials are needed to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke.

If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation for rate control, they should be receiving them if time permits.

If prophylactic beta-blockers are to be effective in minimizing perioperative complications, it appears that they may need to be more cardioselective, started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control heart rate, and used in high-risk patients (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.

Ideally, a large randomized controlled trial using a cardioselective beta-blocker started in advance of surgery in patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score greater than 2, undergoing intermediate or high-risk procedures, is needed to fully answer the questions raised by the current data.

Prophylactic use of beta-blockers in the perioperative period is highly controversial. Initial studies in the 1990s were favorable, but evidence has been conflicting since then.

The pendulum swung away from routinely recommending beta-blockers after the publication of negative results from several studies, including the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial in 2008.¹ Highlighting this change in practice, a Canadian study² found that the use of perioperative beta-blockade increased between 1999 and 2005 but subsequently declined from 2005 to 2010. However, there was no appreciable change in this pattern after the POISE trial or after changes in the American College of Cardiology guidelines in 2002 and 2006.³

In 2008, Harte and Jaffer reviewed the perioperative use of beta-blockers in noncardiac surgery in this journal.⁴ Since then, a number of meta-analyses and retrospective observational studies have reported variable findings related to specific beta-blockers and specific complications.

In this paper, we review the rationale and recent evidence for and against the perioperative use of beta-blockers as guidance for internists and hospitalists.

POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE EFFECTS OF BETA-BLOCKERS

Myocardial infarction and unstable angina are the leading cardiovascular causes of death after surgery.⁵ These events are multifactorial. Some are caused by the stress of surgery, which precipitates physiologic changes related to inflammatory mediators, sympathetic tone, and oxygen supply and demand; others are caused by acute plaque rupture, thrombosis, and occlusion.⁶ Most perioperative infarcts are non-Q-wave events⁷ and occur within the first 2 days after the procedure, when the effects of anesthetics, pain, fluid shifts, and physiologic changes are greatest. Because multiple causes may contribute to perioperative myocardial infarction, a single preventive strategy may not be sufficient.^8,9

Beta-blockers do several things that may be beneficial in the perioperative setting. They reduce myocardial oxygen demand by decreasing the force of contraction and by slowing the heart rate, and slowing the heart rate increases diastolic perfusion time.¹⁰ They suppress arrhythmias; they limit leukocyte recruitment, the production of free radicals, metalloproteinase activity, monocyte activation, release of growth factors, and inflammatory cytokine response; and they stabilize plaque.¹¹ Their long-term use may also alter intracellular signaling processes, thus improving cell survival by decreasing the expression of receptors for substances that induce apoptosis.¹²

INITIAL POSITIVE TRIALS

Mangano et al¹³ began the beta-blocker trend in 1996 with a study in 200 patients known to have coronary artery disease or risk factors for it who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomized to receive either atenolol orally and intravenously, titrated to control the heart rate, or placebo in the immediate perioperative period.

The atenolol group had less perioperative ischemia but no difference in short-term rates of myocardial infarction and death. However, the death rate was lower in the atenolol group at 6 months after discharge and at 2 years, although patients who died in the immediate postoperative period were excluded from the analysis.

Although this finding did not appear to make sense physiologically, we now know that patients may experience myocardial injury without infarction after noncardiac surgery, a phenomenon associated with an increased risk of death in the short term and the long term.¹⁴ Preventing these episodes may be the explanation for the improved outcome.

The DECREASE trial¹⁵ (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography) provided additional support for beta-blocker use. The patients were at high risk, had abnormal dobutamine stress echocardiograms, and were undergoing vascular surgery; 112 patients were randomized to receive either oral bisoprolol (started 1 month before surgery, titrated to control the heart rate, and continued for 1 month after surgery) or placebo.

The study was stopped early because the bisoprolol group reportedly had a 90% lower rate of myocardial infarction and cardiac death 1 month after surgery. However, the study was criticized because the total number of patients enrolled was small and the benefit was much greater than usual for any pharmacologic intervention, thus calling the results into question.

In a follow-up study,¹⁶ survivors continued to be followed while receiving bisoprolol or usual care. The incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiac death at 2 years was significantly lower in the group receiving bisoprolol (12% vs 32%, odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P = .025).

Boersma et al,¹⁷ in an observational study, analyzed data from all 1,351 patients scheduled for major vascular surgery being considered for enrollment in the DECREASE trial. The DECREASE protocol required patients to undergo dobutamine stress echocardiography if they had one or more risk factors (age 70 or older, angina, prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, treatment for ventricular arrhythmia, treatment for diabetes mellitus, or limited exercise capacity) or if their physician requested it. Twenty-seven percent received beta-blockers.

In multivariate analysis, clinical predictors of adverse outcome were age 70 or older; current or prior history of angina; and prior myocardial infarction, heart failure, or cerebrovascular accident.

In patients who had fewer than three clinical risk factors, beta-blocker use was associated with a lower rate of complications (0.8% vs 2.3%). Dobutamine stress echocardiography had minimal predictive value in this lower-risk group, suggesting that stress testing may not be necessary in this group if beta-blockers are used appropriately. However, in patients who had three or more risk factors, this test did provide additional prognostic information; those without stress-induced ischemia had lower event rates than those with ischemia, and beta-blocker use further reduced those rates, except in patients with extensive ischemia (more than five left ventricular segments involved).

The Revised Cardiac Risk Index. Lee et al¹⁸ devised an index to assist in preoperative cardiac risk stratification that was subsequently incorporated into the 2007 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative risk guidelines. (It does not, however, address the beta-blocker issue.) It consists of six independent risk-predictors of major cardiac complications derived from 4,315 patients over age 50 undergoing non-cardiac surgery. The risk factors, each of which is given 1 point, are:

• Congestive heart failure based on history or examination
• Renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level > 2 mg/dL)
• Myocardial infarction, symptomatic ischemic heart disease, or a positive stress test
• History of transient ischemic attack or stroke
• Diabetes requiring insulin
• High-risk surgery (defined as intrathoracic, intra-abdominal, or suprainguinal vascular surgery).

Patients with 3 or more points are considered to be at high risk, and those with 1 or 2 points are considered to be at intermediate risk. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative cardiac risk algorithm subsequently included five of these six risk factors (the type of surgery was considered separately) and made recommendations concerning noninvasive stress testing and heart rate control.

On the basis of these studies, specialty societies, guideline committees, and hospitals enthusiastically recommended the prophylactic use of beta-blockers to decrease postoperative cardiac complications.

THREE NEGATIVE TRIALS OF METOPROLOL

In 2005 and 2006, two studies in vascular surgery patients and another in patients with diabetes cast doubt on the role of beta-blockers when the results failed to show a benefit. The trials used metoprolol, started shortly before surgery, and with no titration to control the heart rate.

The MaVS study¹⁹ (Metoprolol After Vascular Surgery) randomized 496 patients to receive metoprolol or placebo 2 hours before surgery and until hospital discharge or a maximum of 5 days after surgery. The metoprolol dose varied by weight: patients weighing 75 kg or more got 100 mg, those weighing between 40 and 75 kg got 50 mg, and those weighing less than 40 kg got 25 mg. Overall effects at 6 months were not significantly different, but intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension requiring intervention were more frequent in the metoprolol group.

The POBBLE study²⁰ (Perioperative Beta Blockade) randomized 103 patients who had no history of myocardial infarction to receive either metoprolol 50 mg twice daily or placebo from admission to 7 days after surgery. Myocardial ischemia was present in one-third of the patients after surgery. Metoprolol did not reduce the 30-day cardiac mortality rate, but it was associated with a shorter length of stay.

The DIPOM trial²¹ (Diabetic Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity) randomized 921 diabetic patients to receive long-acting metoprolol succinate controlled-release/extended release (CR/XL) or placebo. Patients in the metoprolol group received a test dose of 50 mg the evening before surgery, another dose 2 hours before surgery (100 mg if the heart rate was more than 65 bpm, or 50 mg if between 55 and 65 bpm), and daily thereafter until discharge or a maximum of 8 days. The dose was not titrated to heart-rate control.

Metoprolol had no statistically significant effect on the composite primary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or congestive heart failure or on the secondary outcome measures of time to death from any cause, death from a cardiac cause, and nonfatal cardiac morbidity.

ADDITIONAL POSITIVE STUDIES

Lindenauer et al²² retrospectively evaluated the use of beta-blockers in the first 2 days after surgery in 782,969 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Using propensity score matching and Revised Cardiac Risk Index scores, they found a lower rate of postoperative mortality in patients with three or more risk factors who received a beta-blocker. There was no significant difference in the group with two risk factors, but in the lowest-risk group (with a score of 0 to 1), beta-blockers were not beneficial and may have been associated with harm as evidenced by a higher odds ratio for death, although this was probably artifactual and reflecting database limitations.

Feringa et al,²³ in an observational cohort study of 272 patients undergoing vascular surgery, reported that higher doses of beta-blockers and tight heart-rate control were associated with less perioperative myocardial ischemia, lower troponin T levels, and better long-term outcome.

THE POISE TRIAL: MIXED RESULTS

The randomized POISE trial,¹ published in 2008, compared the effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate vs placebo on the 30-day risk of major cardiovascular events in 8,351 patients with or at risk of atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. The metoprolol regimen was 100 mg 2 to 4 hours before surgery, another 100 mg by 6 hours after surgery, and then 200 mg 12 hours later and once daily for 30 days.

The incidence of the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days was lower in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (5.8% vs 6.9%; P = .04), primarily because of fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions. However, more patients in the metoprolol group died of any cause (3.1% vs 2.3% P = .03) or had a stroke (1.0% vs 0.5% P = .005) than in the placebo group.

The metoprolol group had a higher incidence of clinically significant hypotension, bradycardia, and stroke, which could account for much of the increase in the mortality rate. Sepsis was the major cause of death in this group; hypotension may have increased the risk of infection, and beta-blockers may have potentiated hypotension in patients who were already septic. Also, the bradycardic and negative inotropic effects of the beta-blocker could have masked the physiologic response to systemic infection, thereby delaying recognition and treatment or impeding the normal immune response.

One of the major criticisms of the POISE trial was its aggressive dosing regimen (200 to 400 mg within a 36-hour period) in patients who had not been on beta-blockers before then. Also, the drug was started only a few hours before surgery. In addition, these patients were at higher risk of death and stroke than those in other trials based on a high baseline rate of cerebrovascular disease, and inclusion of urgent and emergency surgical procedures.

STUDIES SINCE POISE

The POISE trial results¹ prompted further questioning of the prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers. However, proponents of beta-blockers voiced serious criticisms of the trial, particularly the dosing regimen, and continued to believe that these drugs were beneficial if used appropriately.

The DECREASE IV trial. Dunkelgrun et al,²⁴ in a study using bisoprolol started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate, reported beneficial results in intermediate-risk patients. In their randomized open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 1,066 patients at intermediate cardiac risk were assigned to receive bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy at least 34 days before surgery. Bisoprolol was started at 2.5 mg orally daily and slowly titrated up to a maximum dose of 10 mg to keep the heart rate between 50 and 70 beats per minute. The group of 533 patients randomized to receive bisoprolol had a lower incidence rate of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction than the control group (2.1% vs 6.0%, HR 0.34, P = .002). A potential limitation of this study was its open-label design, which might have led to treatment bias.

Updated guidelines. Based on the results from POISE and DECREASE IV, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines²⁵ published a focused update on beta-blockers in 2009 as an amendment to their 2007 guidelines on perioperative evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. The European Society of Cardiology²⁶ released similar but somewhat more liberal guidelines (Table 1).

London et al,²⁷ in an observational study published in 2013, found a lower 30-day overall mortality rate with beta-blockers (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.83, P < .001, number needed to treat [NNT] 241), as well as a lower rate of cardiac morbidity (nonfatal myocardial infarction and cardiac death), but only in nonvascular surgery patients who were on beta-blockers within 7 days of scheduled surgery. Moreover, similar to the findings of Lindenauer et al,²² only patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score of 2 or more benefited from beta-blocker use in terms of a lower risk of death, whereas the lower-risk patients did not:

• Risk score of 0 or 1—no association
• Score of 2—RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50–0.80, P < .001, NNT 105
• Score of 3—RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39–0.73, P < .001, NNT 41
• Score of 4 or more—RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.24–0.73, P < .001, NNT 18).

Beta-blocker exposure was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiac complications (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.57–0.79, P < .001, NNT 339), also limited to nonvascular surgery patients with a risk score of 2 or 3.

The Danish Nationwide Cohort Study²⁸ examined the effect of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiac events (MACE, ie, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and death) in 28,263 patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery; 7,990 with heart failure and 20,273 without. Beta-blockers were used in 53% of patients with heart failure and 36% of those without heart failure. Outcomes for all of the beta-blocker recipients:

• MACE—HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79–1.02
• All-cause mortality—HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85–1.06.

Outcomes for patients with heart failure if they received beta-blockers:

• MACE—HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.70–0.87
• All-cause mortality—HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.92.

There was no significant benefit from beta-blockers in patients without heart failure. Outcomes for those patients if they received beta-blockers:

• MACE—HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92–1.33
• All-cause mortality—HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.35.

However, in patients without heart failure but with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 2 years, beta-blockers were associated with a lower risk of MACE and all-cause mortality. In patients with neither heart failure nor a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE and all-cause mortality.

This difference in efficacy depending on the presence and timing of a prior myocardial infarction is consistent with the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for secondary prevention, in which beta-blockers are given a class I recommendation only for patients with a myocardial infarction within the past 3 years.

Meta-analyses and outcomes

A number of meta-analyses have been published over the past 10 years, with conflicting results (Table 2). The divergent findings are primarily due to the different studies included in the analyses as well as the strong influence of the POISE trial.¹ The studies varied in terms of the specific beta-blocker used, dose titration and heart rate control, time of initiation of beta-blocker use before surgery, type of surgery, patient characteristics, comorbidities, biomarkers and diagnosis of myocardial infarction, and clinical end points.

In general, these meta-analyses have found that prophylactic perioperative use of beta-blockers decreases ischemia and tends to reduce the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction. They vary on whether the overall mortality risk is decreased. The meta-analyses that included POISE¹ found an increased incidence of stroke, whereas those that excluded POISE found no significant difference, although there appeared to be slightly more strokes in the beta-blocker groups.

The beta-blocker controversy increased even further when Dr. Don Poldermans was fired by Erasmus Medical Center in November 2011 for violations of academic integrity involving his research, including the DECREASE trials. The most recent meta-analysis, by Bouri et al,²⁹ included nine “secure trials” and excluded the DECREASE trials in view of the controversy about their authenticity. The analysis showed an increase in overall mortality as well as stroke, primarily because it was heavily influenced by POISE.¹ In contrast, the DECREASE trials had reported a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and death, with no significant increase in stroke. The authors concluded that guideline bodies should “retract their recommendations based on the fictitious data without further delay.”²⁹

Although the design of the DECREASE trials (in which beta-blockers were started well in advance of surgery and doses were titrated to achieve heart rate control) is physiologically more compelling than those of the negative trials, the results have been questioned in light of the integrity issue. However, to date, none of the published DECREASE trials have been retracted.

Two other meta-analyses,^30,31 published in 2013, also found a decreased risk of myocardial infarction and increased risk of stroke but no significant difference in short-term all-cause mortality.

ARE ALL BETA-BLOCKERS EQUIVALENT?

In various studies evaluating specific beta-blockers, the more cardioselective agents bisoprolol and atenolol were associated with better outcomes than metoprolol. The affinity ratios for beta-1/beta-2 receptors range from 13.5 for bisoprolol to 4.7 for atenolol and 2.3 for metoprolol.³² Blocking beta-1 receptors blunts tachycardia, whereas blocking beta-2 receptors may block systemic or cerebral vasodilation.

In patients with anemia, beta-blockade in general may be harmful, but beta-2 blockade may be even worse. Beta-blockers were associated with an increased risk of MACE (6.5% vs 3.0%)³³ in patients with acute surgical anemia if the hemoglobin concentration decreased to less than 35% of baseline, and increased risks of hospital death (OR 6.65) and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (OR 4.18) with severe bleeding during aortic surgery.³⁴

In addition, the pathway by which the beta-blocker is metabolized may also affect outcome, with less benefit from beta-blockers metabolized by the CYP2D6 isoenzyme of the cytochrome P450 system. Individual variations in CYP2D6 activity related to genetics or drug interactions may result in insufficient or excessive beta-blockade. Because metoprolol is the most dependent on this system, patients using it may be more susceptible to bradycardia.³⁵

Studies comparing atenolol and metoprolol found that the atenolol groups had fewer myocardial infarctions and deaths³⁶ and lower 30-day and 1-year mortality rates³⁷ than the groups on metoprolol. Studies comparing the three beta-blockers found better outcomes with atenolol and bisoprolol than with metoprolol—fewer strokes,^38,39 a lower mortality rate,³¹ and a better composite outcome³⁹ (Table 3 and Table 4).

START THE BETA-BLOCKER EARLY, TITRATE TO CONTROL THE HEART RATE

A number of studies suggest that how long the beta-blocker is given before surgery may influence the outcome (Table 5). The best results were achieved when beta-blockers were started approximately 1 month before surgery and titrated to control the heart rate.

Because this long lead-in time is not always practical, it is important to determine the shortest time before surgery in which starting beta-blockers may be beneficial and yet safe. Some evidence suggests that results are better when the beta-blocker is started more than 1 week preoperatively compared with less than 1 week, but it is unknown what the minimum or optimal time period should be.

If a beta-blocker is started well in advance of the scheduled surgery, there is adequate time for dose titration and tighter heart rate control. Most of the studies demonstrating beneficial effects of perioperative beta-blockers used dose titration and achieved lower heart rates in the treatment group than in the control group. A criticism of the MaVs,¹⁹ POBBLE,²⁰ and DIPOM²¹ trials was that the patients did not receive adequate beta-blockade. The POISE trial¹ used a much higher dose of metoprolol in an attempt to assure beta-blockade without dose titration, and although the regimen decreased nonfatal myocardial infarctions, it increased strokes and the overall mortality rate, probably related to excess bradycardia and hypotension. The target heart rate should probably be between 55 and 70 beats per minute.

RISK OF STROKE

POISE¹ was the first trial to note a clinically and statistically significant increase in strokes with perioperative beta-blocker use. Although no other study has shown a similar increased risk, almost all reported a higher number of strokes in the beta-blocker groups, although the absolute numbers and differences were small and not statistically significant. This risk may also vary from one beta-blocker to another (Table 4).

The usual incidence rate of postoperative stroke after noncardiac, noncarotid surgery is well under 1% in patients with no prior history of stroke but increases to approximately 3% in patients with a previous stroke.⁴⁰ An observational study from the Dutch group reported a very low incidence of stroke overall (0.02%) in 186,779 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with no significant difference in those on chronic beta-blocker therapy.⁴¹ The DECREASE trials, with a total of 3,884 patients, also found no statistically significant increase in stroke with beta-blocker use (0.46% overall vs 0.5% with a beta-blocker),⁴² which in this case was bisoprolol started well in advance of surgery and titrated to control the heart rate. Although the DECREASE data are under suspicion, they seem reasonable and consistent with those of observational studies.

Proposed mechanisms by which beta-blockers may increase stroke risk include the side effects of hypotension and bradycardia, particularly in the setting of anemia. They may also cause cerebral ischemia by blocking cerebral vasodilation. This effect on cerebral blood flow may be more pronounced with the less cardioselective beta-blockers, which may explain the apparent increased stroke risk associated with metoprolol.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO NOW?

The evidence for the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in the perioperative setting continues to evolve, and new clinical trials are needed to clarify the ongoing controversy, particularly regarding the risk of stroke.

If patients have other indications for beta-blocker therapy, such as history of heart failure, myocardial infarction in the past 3 years, or atrial fibrillation for rate control, they should be receiving them if time permits.

If prophylactic beta-blockers are to be effective in minimizing perioperative complications, it appears that they may need to be more cardioselective, started at least 1 week before surgery, titrated to control heart rate, and used in high-risk patients (Revised Cardiac Risk Index score > 2 or 3) undergoing high-risk surgery.

Ideally, a large randomized controlled trial using a cardioselective beta-blocker started in advance of surgery in patients with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index score greater than 2, undergoing intermediate or high-risk procedures, is needed to fully answer the questions raised by the current data.

This month’s podcast feature follows up a session at SHM’s annual meeting, HM14, on clinical decision making in which Dr. Gupreet Dhaliwal, professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, diagnosed two complex patient cases presented by Dr. Daniel Brotman, director of the hospitalist program at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Dhaliwal says while rare and challenging cases are appealing, diagnosing common problems presented by many cases is a great way to demonstrate thinking through a diagnosis. He also discusses how cognitive bias can work in a doctor’s favor. Dr. Brotman explains why the teamwork on problem solving that happens at these live sessions is one of their best features.

For more features, visit The Hospitalist's podcast archive.

This month’s podcast feature follows up a session at SHM’s annual meeting, HM14, on clinical decision making in which Dr. Gupreet Dhaliwal, professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, diagnosed two complex patient cases presented by Dr. Daniel Brotman, director of the hospitalist program at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Dhaliwal says while rare and challenging cases are appealing, diagnosing common problems presented by many cases is a great way to demonstrate thinking through a diagnosis. He also discusses how cognitive bias can work in a doctor’s favor. Dr. Brotman explains why the teamwork on problem solving that happens at these live sessions is one of their best features.

For more features, visit The Hospitalist's podcast archive.

This month’s podcast feature follows up a session at SHM’s annual meeting, HM14, on clinical decision making in which Dr. Gupreet Dhaliwal, professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, diagnosed two complex patient cases presented by Dr. Daniel Brotman, director of the hospitalist program at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Dr. Dhaliwal says while rare and challenging cases are appealing, diagnosing common problems presented by many cases is a great way to demonstrate thinking through a diagnosis. He also discusses how cognitive bias can work in a doctor’s favor. Dr. Brotman explains why the teamwork on problem solving that happens at these live sessions is one of their best features.

For more features, visit The Hospitalist's podcast archive.

A 62-year-old African-American woman presented for evaluation of a bluish discoloration of the hard palate and nail beds, noticeable for several months. In addition, she had complaints of fatigue and arthralgia. She reported that she had been taking hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/d and quinacrine 100 mg/d for several years for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Her medical history was also significant for dry mouth syndrome treated with pilocarpine.

The patient’s vital signs included a temperature of 97°F;
respiratory rate, 15 breaths/min; pulse, 72 beats/min; and blood pressure, 130/80 mm Hg. Height was 62 in, weight was 189 lb, and BMI was 34.56. A bluish gray color was noted in the subungual areas of her nails (see Figure 1). There were several circumferential areas of skin hyperpigmentation resulting from healed lupus skin lesions on her arms. Nailfold capillaroscopy revealed several dilated blood vessels. The sclerae appeared dry, but no erythema or inflammation was noted.

Examination of the mouth revealed a bluish discoloration of the hard palate (see Figure 2) and decreased salivary pool. Respiratory, cardiovascular, and abdominal examination findings were normal. Musculoskeletal examination was unremarkable for acute joint tenderness or synovitis. Crepitation and bony changes were noted in the left knee, without effusion or decreased range of motion.

Laboratory studies were ordered, and the results are listed in the table.

DISCUSSION
Hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa can be associated with a number of conditions, including adrenal insufficiency, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hemochromatosis, polyostotic fibrous dysplasia, hyperparathyroidism, neurofibromatosis, and bronchogenic malignancy.^1,2 Other causes of oral hyperpigmentation include physiologic pigmentary or postinflammatory changes, oral melanoacanthosis, blue nevus, and melanoma.^2,3 While these diagnoses should be considered when encountering a mucosal lesion, they were unlikely in this patient because of the color changes in her nail beds.

Systemic skin and mucous membrane discoloration can also occur with the use of certain drugs and other substances, including chemotherapeutic agents, benzodiazepines, hormones, carotenoids, phenolphthalein, heavy metal salts, and several antimicrobial agents.¹ In dark-skinned individuals, hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa can be caused by a physiologic deposition of melanin.⁴

Pigmentary Changes
The use of antimalarial drugs, such as quinacrine, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine, has long been associated with pigmentary changes to the palatal mucosa and subungual areas.^1,3 These drugs can stimulate melanin production and cause hemosiderin deposition, resulting in pigmentary changes.⁵ Skin discoloration is believed to be the result of the formation of a melanin-drug complex in areas with an elevated affinity for melanin.¹ Besides malaria, these drugs are commonly used to treat SLE and discoid lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other rheumatologic conditions.⁵

The diagnosis of drug-induced hyperpigmentation is generally clinical, supported by the patient’s history—which often includes the use of antimalarial drugs—and presentation.¹ If a clear cause cannot be determined by clinical evaluation, then a biopsy to confirm a drug-induced cause may be necessary.² A classic study by Tuffanelli et al reported that the onset of hyperpigmentation related to antimalarial drug therapy may not occur until 4 to 70 months after initiation of treatment.⁶ Once the offending drug is discontinued, pigmentation changes slowly fade but often do not completely resolve,⁷ and patients should be advised of this.

Ocular Retinopathy
While pigmentary changes associated with antimalarial drugs are benign,³ a rare but serious adverse effect of antimalarials is retinal toxicity. Ocular retinopathy related to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine therapy has been well documented and may result in irreversible vision loss.^8,9 The most recent recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology suggest a baseline eye examination at initiation of antimalarial treatment and annual examinations starting after five years of therapy because the risk for toxicity relates to the cumulative dose.⁸ More frequent ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended for individuals at higher risk, such as those with preexisting retinal or macular disease.⁹

Outcome for the case patient >>

OUTCOME FOR THE CASE PATIENT
A biopsy of the roof of the patient’s mouth confirmed that the palatal hyperpigmentation was caused by her antimalarial medications. Since the patient displayed no evidence of active lupus skin lesions and laboratory results indicated that her SLE was inactive, one of the drugs, quinacrine, was discontinued.

The patient was referred for an ophthalmologic evaluation. No evidence of retinal toxicity was found.

Follow-up evaluations at two months and six months revealed no significant improvement in the discoloration of the patient’s oral mucosa or nail beds. At the six-month visit, her dosage of hydroxychloroquine was reevaluated.

The patient’s hydroxychloroquine dosage was determined based on 7.3 mg/kg/d. In the case of an overweight patient, especially one of shorter-than-average stature, hydroxychloroquine dosing should be based on ideal body weight to minimize the risk for overdosage; in general, a maximum dosage of 6.5 mg/kg/d is recommended.^8,9 As a result, the patient’s dosage was decreased to 300 mg/d.

At her nine-month follow-up evaluation, the discoloration to the patient’s oral mucosa had faded but had not resolved completely (see Figure 3). No significant change was noted in the subungual discoloration. The patient had experienced no exacerbations of lupus-related symptoms since her medication adjustments.

CONCLUSION
Although this patient’s hyperpigmentation was benign, staying alert to this potential adverse effect of antimalarial drugs is important in making a diagnosis. As with many skin lesions, if the clinical evaluation does not provide a clear cause, a biopsy may be needed. For anyone taking antimalarial drugs, regular ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended to facilitate early detection of the rare adverse effect of retinal toxicity. Nevertheless, with careful monitoring, antimalarial drugs are safe and effective for the treatment of inflammatory conditions such as SLE and rheumatoid arthritis.

REFERENCES
1. Kleinegger CL, Hammond HL, Finkelstein MW. Oral mucosal hyperpigmentation secondary to antimalarial drug therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;90(2):189-194.

2. Gondak R-O, da Silva-Jorge R, Jorge J, et al. Oral pigmented lesions: clinicopathologic features and review of the literature. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17(6):e919-e924.

3. Lerman MA, Karimbux N, Guze KA, Woo SB. Pigmentation of the hard palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;
107:8-12.

4. Kalampalikis A, Goetze S, Elsner P. Isolated hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa due to hydroxychloroquine. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2012; 10(12):921-922.

5. de Andrade BA, Fonseca FP, Pires FR, et al. Hard palate hyperpigmentation secondary to chronic chloroquine therapy: report of five cases.
J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40(9):833-838.

6. Tuffanelli D, Abraham RK, Dubois EI. Pigmentation from antimalarial therapy: its possible relationship to the ocular lesions. Arch Derm. 1963; 88:419-426.

7. Melikoglu MA, Melikoglu M, Gurbuz U, et al. Hydroxychloroquine-induced hyperpigmentation: a case report. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2008; 33(6):699-701. 

8. Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai YY, et al; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(2):
415-422.

9. Screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Position statement, American College of Rheumatology. www.rheumatology.org/Practice/Clinical/Position/Position_Statements/. Accessed July 17, 2014.

A 62-year-old African-American woman presented for evaluation of a bluish discoloration of the hard palate and nail beds, noticeable for several months. In addition, she had complaints of fatigue and arthralgia. She reported that she had been taking hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/d and quinacrine 100 mg/d for several years for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Her medical history was also significant for dry mouth syndrome treated with pilocarpine.

The patient’s vital signs included a temperature of 97°F;
respiratory rate, 15 breaths/min; pulse, 72 beats/min; and blood pressure, 130/80 mm Hg. Height was 62 in, weight was 189 lb, and BMI was 34.56. A bluish gray color was noted in the subungual areas of her nails (see Figure 1). There were several circumferential areas of skin hyperpigmentation resulting from healed lupus skin lesions on her arms. Nailfold capillaroscopy revealed several dilated blood vessels. The sclerae appeared dry, but no erythema or inflammation was noted.

Examination of the mouth revealed a bluish discoloration of the hard palate (see Figure 2) and decreased salivary pool. Respiratory, cardiovascular, and abdominal examination findings were normal. Musculoskeletal examination was unremarkable for acute joint tenderness or synovitis. Crepitation and bony changes were noted in the left knee, without effusion or decreased range of motion.

Laboratory studies were ordered, and the results are listed in the table.

DISCUSSION
Hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa can be associated with a number of conditions, including adrenal insufficiency, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hemochromatosis, polyostotic fibrous dysplasia, hyperparathyroidism, neurofibromatosis, and bronchogenic malignancy.^1,2 Other causes of oral hyperpigmentation include physiologic pigmentary or postinflammatory changes, oral melanoacanthosis, blue nevus, and melanoma.^2,3 While these diagnoses should be considered when encountering a mucosal lesion, they were unlikely in this patient because of the color changes in her nail beds.

Systemic skin and mucous membrane discoloration can also occur with the use of certain drugs and other substances, including chemotherapeutic agents, benzodiazepines, hormones, carotenoids, phenolphthalein, heavy metal salts, and several antimicrobial agents.¹ In dark-skinned individuals, hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa can be caused by a physiologic deposition of melanin.⁴

Pigmentary Changes
The use of antimalarial drugs, such as quinacrine, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine, has long been associated with pigmentary changes to the palatal mucosa and subungual areas.^1,3 These drugs can stimulate melanin production and cause hemosiderin deposition, resulting in pigmentary changes.⁵ Skin discoloration is believed to be the result of the formation of a melanin-drug complex in areas with an elevated affinity for melanin.¹ Besides malaria, these drugs are commonly used to treat SLE and discoid lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other rheumatologic conditions.⁵

The diagnosis of drug-induced hyperpigmentation is generally clinical, supported by the patient’s history—which often includes the use of antimalarial drugs—and presentation.¹ If a clear cause cannot be determined by clinical evaluation, then a biopsy to confirm a drug-induced cause may be necessary.² A classic study by Tuffanelli et al reported that the onset of hyperpigmentation related to antimalarial drug therapy may not occur until 4 to 70 months after initiation of treatment.⁶ Once the offending drug is discontinued, pigmentation changes slowly fade but often do not completely resolve,⁷ and patients should be advised of this.

Ocular Retinopathy
While pigmentary changes associated with antimalarial drugs are benign,³ a rare but serious adverse effect of antimalarials is retinal toxicity. Ocular retinopathy related to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine therapy has been well documented and may result in irreversible vision loss.^8,9 The most recent recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology suggest a baseline eye examination at initiation of antimalarial treatment and annual examinations starting after five years of therapy because the risk for toxicity relates to the cumulative dose.⁸ More frequent ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended for individuals at higher risk, such as those with preexisting retinal or macular disease.⁹

Outcome for the case patient >>

OUTCOME FOR THE CASE PATIENT
A biopsy of the roof of the patient’s mouth confirmed that the palatal hyperpigmentation was caused by her antimalarial medications. Since the patient displayed no evidence of active lupus skin lesions and laboratory results indicated that her SLE was inactive, one of the drugs, quinacrine, was discontinued.

The patient was referred for an ophthalmologic evaluation. No evidence of retinal toxicity was found.

Follow-up evaluations at two months and six months revealed no significant improvement in the discoloration of the patient’s oral mucosa or nail beds. At the six-month visit, her dosage of hydroxychloroquine was reevaluated.

The patient’s hydroxychloroquine dosage was determined based on 7.3 mg/kg/d. In the case of an overweight patient, especially one of shorter-than-average stature, hydroxychloroquine dosing should be based on ideal body weight to minimize the risk for overdosage; in general, a maximum dosage of 6.5 mg/kg/d is recommended.^8,9 As a result, the patient’s dosage was decreased to 300 mg/d.

At her nine-month follow-up evaluation, the discoloration to the patient’s oral mucosa had faded but had not resolved completely (see Figure 3). No significant change was noted in the subungual discoloration. The patient had experienced no exacerbations of lupus-related symptoms since her medication adjustments.

CONCLUSION
Although this patient’s hyperpigmentation was benign, staying alert to this potential adverse effect of antimalarial drugs is important in making a diagnosis. As with many skin lesions, if the clinical evaluation does not provide a clear cause, a biopsy may be needed. For anyone taking antimalarial drugs, regular ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended to facilitate early detection of the rare adverse effect of retinal toxicity. Nevertheless, with careful monitoring, antimalarial drugs are safe and effective for the treatment of inflammatory conditions such as SLE and rheumatoid arthritis.

REFERENCES
1. Kleinegger CL, Hammond HL, Finkelstein MW. Oral mucosal hyperpigmentation secondary to antimalarial drug therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;90(2):189-194.

2. Gondak R-O, da Silva-Jorge R, Jorge J, et al. Oral pigmented lesions: clinicopathologic features and review of the literature. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17(6):e919-e924.

3. Lerman MA, Karimbux N, Guze KA, Woo SB. Pigmentation of the hard palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;
107:8-12.

4. Kalampalikis A, Goetze S, Elsner P. Isolated hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa due to hydroxychloroquine. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2012; 10(12):921-922.

5. de Andrade BA, Fonseca FP, Pires FR, et al. Hard palate hyperpigmentation secondary to chronic chloroquine therapy: report of five cases.
J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40(9):833-838.

6. Tuffanelli D, Abraham RK, Dubois EI. Pigmentation from antimalarial therapy: its possible relationship to the ocular lesions. Arch Derm. 1963; 88:419-426.

7. Melikoglu MA, Melikoglu M, Gurbuz U, et al. Hydroxychloroquine-induced hyperpigmentation: a case report. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2008; 33(6):699-701. 

8. Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai YY, et al; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(2):
415-422.

9. Screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Position statement, American College of Rheumatology. www.rheumatology.org/Practice/Clinical/Position/Position_Statements/. Accessed July 17, 2014.

A 62-year-old African-American woman presented for evaluation of a bluish discoloration of the hard palate and nail beds, noticeable for several months. In addition, she had complaints of fatigue and arthralgia. She reported that she had been taking hydroxychloroquine 400 mg/d and quinacrine 100 mg/d for several years for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Her medical history was also significant for dry mouth syndrome treated with pilocarpine.

The patient’s vital signs included a temperature of 97°F;
respiratory rate, 15 breaths/min; pulse, 72 beats/min; and blood pressure, 130/80 mm Hg. Height was 62 in, weight was 189 lb, and BMI was 34.56. A bluish gray color was noted in the subungual areas of her nails (see Figure 1). There were several circumferential areas of skin hyperpigmentation resulting from healed lupus skin lesions on her arms. Nailfold capillaroscopy revealed several dilated blood vessels. The sclerae appeared dry, but no erythema or inflammation was noted.

Examination of the mouth revealed a bluish discoloration of the hard palate (see Figure 2) and decreased salivary pool. Respiratory, cardiovascular, and abdominal examination findings were normal. Musculoskeletal examination was unremarkable for acute joint tenderness or synovitis. Crepitation and bony changes were noted in the left knee, without effusion or decreased range of motion.

Laboratory studies were ordered, and the results are listed in the table.

DISCUSSION
Hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa can be associated with a number of conditions, including adrenal insufficiency, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hemochromatosis, polyostotic fibrous dysplasia, hyperparathyroidism, neurofibromatosis, and bronchogenic malignancy.^1,2 Other causes of oral hyperpigmentation include physiologic pigmentary or postinflammatory changes, oral melanoacanthosis, blue nevus, and melanoma.^2,3 While these diagnoses should be considered when encountering a mucosal lesion, they were unlikely in this patient because of the color changes in her nail beds.

Systemic skin and mucous membrane discoloration can also occur with the use of certain drugs and other substances, including chemotherapeutic agents, benzodiazepines, hormones, carotenoids, phenolphthalein, heavy metal salts, and several antimicrobial agents.¹ In dark-skinned individuals, hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa can be caused by a physiologic deposition of melanin.⁴

Pigmentary Changes
The use of antimalarial drugs, such as quinacrine, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine, has long been associated with pigmentary changes to the palatal mucosa and subungual areas.^1,3 These drugs can stimulate melanin production and cause hemosiderin deposition, resulting in pigmentary changes.⁵ Skin discoloration is believed to be the result of the formation of a melanin-drug complex in areas with an elevated affinity for melanin.¹ Besides malaria, these drugs are commonly used to treat SLE and discoid lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other rheumatologic conditions.⁵

The diagnosis of drug-induced hyperpigmentation is generally clinical, supported by the patient’s history—which often includes the use of antimalarial drugs—and presentation.¹ If a clear cause cannot be determined by clinical evaluation, then a biopsy to confirm a drug-induced cause may be necessary.² A classic study by Tuffanelli et al reported that the onset of hyperpigmentation related to antimalarial drug therapy may not occur until 4 to 70 months after initiation of treatment.⁶ Once the offending drug is discontinued, pigmentation changes slowly fade but often do not completely resolve,⁷ and patients should be advised of this.

Ocular Retinopathy
While pigmentary changes associated with antimalarial drugs are benign,³ a rare but serious adverse effect of antimalarials is retinal toxicity. Ocular retinopathy related to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine therapy has been well documented and may result in irreversible vision loss.^8,9 The most recent recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology suggest a baseline eye examination at initiation of antimalarial treatment and annual examinations starting after five years of therapy because the risk for toxicity relates to the cumulative dose.⁸ More frequent ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended for individuals at higher risk, such as those with preexisting retinal or macular disease.⁹

Outcome for the case patient >>

OUTCOME FOR THE CASE PATIENT
A biopsy of the roof of the patient’s mouth confirmed that the palatal hyperpigmentation was caused by her antimalarial medications. Since the patient displayed no evidence of active lupus skin lesions and laboratory results indicated that her SLE was inactive, one of the drugs, quinacrine, was discontinued.

The patient was referred for an ophthalmologic evaluation. No evidence of retinal toxicity was found.

Follow-up evaluations at two months and six months revealed no significant improvement in the discoloration of the patient’s oral mucosa or nail beds. At the six-month visit, her dosage of hydroxychloroquine was reevaluated.

The patient’s hydroxychloroquine dosage was determined based on 7.3 mg/kg/d. In the case of an overweight patient, especially one of shorter-than-average stature, hydroxychloroquine dosing should be based on ideal body weight to minimize the risk for overdosage; in general, a maximum dosage of 6.5 mg/kg/d is recommended.^8,9 As a result, the patient’s dosage was decreased to 300 mg/d.

At her nine-month follow-up evaluation, the discoloration to the patient’s oral mucosa had faded but had not resolved completely (see Figure 3). No significant change was noted in the subungual discoloration. The patient had experienced no exacerbations of lupus-related symptoms since her medication adjustments.

CONCLUSION
Although this patient’s hyperpigmentation was benign, staying alert to this potential adverse effect of antimalarial drugs is important in making a diagnosis. As with many skin lesions, if the clinical evaluation does not provide a clear cause, a biopsy may be needed. For anyone taking antimalarial drugs, regular ophthalmologic evaluations are recommended to facilitate early detection of the rare adverse effect of retinal toxicity. Nevertheless, with careful monitoring, antimalarial drugs are safe and effective for the treatment of inflammatory conditions such as SLE and rheumatoid arthritis.

REFERENCES
1. Kleinegger CL, Hammond HL, Finkelstein MW. Oral mucosal hyperpigmentation secondary to antimalarial drug therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000;90(2):189-194.

2. Gondak R-O, da Silva-Jorge R, Jorge J, et al. Oral pigmented lesions: clinicopathologic features and review of the literature. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17(6):e919-e924.

3. Lerman MA, Karimbux N, Guze KA, Woo SB. Pigmentation of the hard palate. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;
107:8-12.

4. Kalampalikis A, Goetze S, Elsner P. Isolated hyperpigmentation of the oral mucosa due to hydroxychloroquine. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2012; 10(12):921-922.

5. de Andrade BA, Fonseca FP, Pires FR, et al. Hard palate hyperpigmentation secondary to chronic chloroquine therapy: report of five cases.
J Cutan Pathol. 2013;40(9):833-838.

6. Tuffanelli D, Abraham RK, Dubois EI. Pigmentation from antimalarial therapy: its possible relationship to the ocular lesions. Arch Derm. 1963; 88:419-426.

7. Melikoglu MA, Melikoglu M, Gurbuz U, et al. Hydroxychloroquine-induced hyperpigmentation: a case report. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2008; 33(6):699-701. 

8. Marmor MF, Kellner U, Lai YY, et al; American Academy of Ophthalmology. Revised recommendations on screening for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(2):
415-422.

9. Screening for hydroxychloroquine retinopathy. Position statement, American College of Rheumatology. www.rheumatology.org/Practice/Clinical/Position/Position_Statements/. Accessed July 17, 2014.

Presenters

David Pressel, Jessica Tomaszewski, Emily Fingado, Adam Pressel

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to him/herself or others. Behavioral emergencies may be rare, but they are high-risk situations and staff might be untrained and uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, have ingested substances, or have a medication side effect are at highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be due to pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: get away and get help. Hospitals should have (or should develop) a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues, but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of JCAHO mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Hospitalists should ensure that their home institutions have developed policies and procedures, as well as ongoing training to address patient behavioral emergencies. TH

Dr. Pressel is a pediatric hospitalist and inpatient medical director at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

Presenters

David Pressel, Jessica Tomaszewski, Emily Fingado, Adam Pressel

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to him/herself or others. Behavioral emergencies may be rare, but they are high-risk situations and staff might be untrained and uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, have ingested substances, or have a medication side effect are at highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be due to pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: get away and get help. Hospitals should have (or should develop) a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues, but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of JCAHO mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Hospitalists should ensure that their home institutions have developed policies and procedures, as well as ongoing training to address patient behavioral emergencies. TH

Dr. Pressel is a pediatric hospitalist and inpatient medical director at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

Presenters

David Pressel, Jessica Tomaszewski, Emily Fingado, Adam Pressel

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to him/herself or others. Behavioral emergencies may be rare, but they are high-risk situations and staff might be untrained and uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, have ingested substances, or have a medication side effect are at highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be due to pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: get away and get help. Hospitals should have (or should develop) a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues, but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of JCAHO mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Hospitalists should ensure that their home institutions have developed policies and procedures, as well as ongoing training to address patient behavioral emergencies. TH

Dr. Pressel is a pediatric hospitalist and inpatient medical director at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

Presenters

Sarah F. Denniston, Jack M. Percelay, David M. Pressel, David I. Rappaport, Elisabeth H. Villavicencio

Summary

Co-management is a growing area of pediatric HM involving both surgical and medical subspecialties. According to SHM, co-management is “shared responsibility, authority, and accountability for the care of a hospitalized patient across clinical specialties.”

Motivation for starting a co-management program may come from administrators due to quality, safety, or nursing concerns; surgeons or subspecialists driven by time or knowledge constraints; or from hospitalists looking to enhance patient safety, clinical skills, and practice development.

Pitfalls for hospitalists include patient “dumping,” care fragmentation, and working outside their scope of practice.

SHM identifies five keys to success for hospitalist co-management programs:

1. Identify obstacles and challenges, including the program’s stakeholders, goals, risks and assumptions.
2. Clarify roles and responsibilities for areas such as admission and discharge, communication, documentation and delineation of responsibilities. These should be specified in a service agreement.
3. Identify champions, ideally to include a surgeon or subspecialist, hospitalist, administrator, and input from a family advisory council.
4. Measure performance in areas such as length of stay, resource utilization, quality and safety metrics.
5. Address financial issues. Most programs require some financial support to supplement billing revenue.

The AMA ethical guidelines for co-management arrangements state that the highest-quality care, not economic considerations, should be the guiding factor. Additionally, one physician should ultimately be responsible for the patient, there can be no kickbacks, and co-management arrangements need to be disclosed to the patient or family. TH

David Pressel is a pediatric hospitalist and inpatient medical director at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

Presenters

Sarah F. Denniston, Jack M. Percelay, David M. Pressel, David I. Rappaport, Elisabeth H. Villavicencio

Summary

Co-management is a growing area of pediatric HM involving both surgical and medical subspecialties. According to SHM, co-management is “shared responsibility, authority, and accountability for the care of a hospitalized patient across clinical specialties.”

Motivation for starting a co-management program may come from administrators due to quality, safety, or nursing concerns; surgeons or subspecialists driven by time or knowledge constraints; or from hospitalists looking to enhance patient safety, clinical skills, and practice development.

Pitfalls for hospitalists include patient “dumping,” care fragmentation, and working outside their scope of practice.

SHM identifies five keys to success for hospitalist co-management programs:

1. Identify obstacles and challenges, including the program’s stakeholders, goals, risks and assumptions.
2. Clarify roles and responsibilities for areas such as admission and discharge, communication, documentation and delineation of responsibilities. These should be specified in a service agreement.
3. Identify champions, ideally to include a surgeon or subspecialist, hospitalist, administrator, and input from a family advisory council.
4. Measure performance in areas such as length of stay, resource utilization, quality and safety metrics.
5. Address financial issues. Most programs require some financial support to supplement billing revenue.

The AMA ethical guidelines for co-management arrangements state that the highest-quality care, not economic considerations, should be the guiding factor. Additionally, one physician should ultimately be responsible for the patient, there can be no kickbacks, and co-management arrangements need to be disclosed to the patient or family. TH

David Pressel is a pediatric hospitalist and inpatient medical director at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

Presenters

Sarah F. Denniston, Jack M. Percelay, David M. Pressel, David I. Rappaport, Elisabeth H. Villavicencio

Summary

Co-management is a growing area of pediatric HM involving both surgical and medical subspecialties. According to SHM, co-management is “shared responsibility, authority, and accountability for the care of a hospitalized patient across clinical specialties.”

Motivation for starting a co-management program may come from administrators due to quality, safety, or nursing concerns; surgeons or subspecialists driven by time or knowledge constraints; or from hospitalists looking to enhance patient safety, clinical skills, and practice development.

Pitfalls for hospitalists include patient “dumping,” care fragmentation, and working outside their scope of practice.

SHM identifies five keys to success for hospitalist co-management programs:

1. Identify obstacles and challenges, including the program’s stakeholders, goals, risks and assumptions.
2. Clarify roles and responsibilities for areas such as admission and discharge, communication, documentation and delineation of responsibilities. These should be specified in a service agreement.
3. Identify champions, ideally to include a surgeon or subspecialist, hospitalist, administrator, and input from a family advisory council.
4. Measure performance in areas such as length of stay, resource utilization, quality and safety metrics.
5. Address financial issues. Most programs require some financial support to supplement billing revenue.

The AMA ethical guidelines for co-management arrangements state that the highest-quality care, not economic considerations, should be the guiding factor. Additionally, one physician should ultimately be responsible for the patient, there can be no kickbacks, and co-management arrangements need to be disclosed to the patient or family. TH

David Pressel is a pediatric hospitalist and inpatient medical director at Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and a member of Team Hospitalist.

Jerry, a 48-year-old white man, is referred to endocrinology for abnormal results of thyroid tests performed four weeks ago (see table for values). Two months ago, Jerry developed an upper respiratory infection (URI) with fever, odynophagia, and anterior neck discomfort. His symptoms resolved after two weeks; however, he has since developed fatigue and nervousness.

The remaining review of systems is unremarkable. Medical history is negative. Jerry denies any factors that can affect thyroid function: He does not take thyroid medication, OTC thyroid supplements, amiodarone, lithium, or interferon-α, does not have high iodine intake, and has not undergone head/neck irradiation. There is no personal or family history of thyroid disease, organ-specific autoimmune disease (ie, vitiligo, myasthenia gravis, or Sjögren syndrome) or systemic autoimmune disease (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or progressive systemic sclerosis).

Vital signs are stable. On physical examination, his thyroid gland is firm, with slight enlargement of the left lobe and mild tenderness. There are no palpable nodules or cervical adenopathy. The remainder of the exam is unremarkable.

Lab studies (see table) reveal an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and suppressed TSH, with normal free thyroxine (T4) and free triiodothyronine (T3) levels. His thyroid peroxidase antibody (Anti-TPO) is negative. Radioactive iodine uptake (RAIU) reveals a low 24-hour uptake of 4% (normal, 5% to 30%).

Jerry is given the presumptive diagnosis of subacute thyroiditis (SAT). He is advised that the condition will progress through multiple phases—from the initial thyrotoxicosis to euthyroidism
to transient hypothyroid—before resolution and is educated on the symptoms and signs to watch for. Since he presented in a euthyroid phase, with only mild anterior neck tenderness, no treatment is indicated. He is instructed to follow up for thyroid function testing in four to six weeks and to call with any symptomatic changes.

Two months later, Jerry returns with complaints of ongoing fatigue, unintentional weight gain, and “mental fog.” Physical exam findings are unremarkable except for a small, firm thyroid gland without the tenderness elicited previously. Labwork reveals an elevated TSH with low free T4 and free T3. He is again counseled regarding the natural history of SAT and reassured that his symptoms will abate as his thyroid hormone levels normalize. He is advised to continue the plan of follow-up testing every four to six weeks.

Approximately eight weeks later, Jerry’s thyroid function studies indicate normal levels, and he is notified of the results. Jerry comments that his symptoms have completely resolved and he is back to feeling like his usual self. He is discharged to follow-up as needed.

What is subacute thyroiditis? 

WHAT IS SUBACUTE ­THYROIDITIS?
Subacute thyroiditis  is also known as de Quervain thyroiditis or granulomatous giant cell thyroiditis.^1,2 The most common cause of thyroid pain, it is a self-limited inflammatory disorder in which a painful tender goiter is associated with malaise, fever, and transient thyroid dysfunction.^2,3 As with other thyroid disorders, SAT occurs most frequently in women ages 40 to 50.^2,3 Thought to be of viral origin, it usually occurs after a URI and commonly correlates with the peak incidence of viral infections (spring/fall).^2,3

The disruptive process begins with inflammatory destruction of thyroid follicles.² This causes leakage of stored colloid, which is broken down, releasing unregulated T4 and T3 into the circulation and resulting in a thyrotoxicosis that typically lasts six weeks.^1,2,4 Thyroid cells are incapable of producing new thyroid hormone during this time, so as excess circulating hormone is utilized, T4 and T3 levels become normal, then deficient, and the patient transitions through a period of euthyroidism to transient hypothyroidism.^1,2,4 As the disruption of thyroid parenchyma abates, recovery ensues. The follicles regenerate, colloid is repleted, and normal thyroid function is restored.^1-4

SAT typically lasts four to six months, although painful thyromegaly may persist for one year after resolution of thyroid dysfunction.² Throughout the course of SAT, thyroid test results can be confusing, and misdiagnosis of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism may occur unless each phase of SAT is recognized.

Phases of SAT >> 

PRODROME
The precursor URI is followed in days or weeks by the clinical manifestations of SAT. These typically include myalgia, pharyngitis, low-grade fever, and fatigue.²

There may be pain of varying degrees in part or all of one or both lobes; the pain often migrates to the entire gland and may radiate to the angle of the jaw or the ear of the affected side(s). Moving the head, swallowing, or coughing aggravates the pain.²

The hallmark of SAT is a markedly elevated ESR (often > 100 mm/h).^1-3 Leukocyte count is normal (50% of cases) or only slightly elevated (50%).²

THYROTOXIC PHASE
Fifty percent of patients have mild to moderate symptoms of hyperthyroidism, including nervousness, weight loss, heat intolerance, or palpitations; hoarseness or dysphagia may be present.² Signs include tremors or tachycardia. The thyroid gland may reveal slight to moderate unilateral enlargement, usually firm in the involved area, and tenderness may be mild, moderate, or severe.² Cervical lymphadenopathy is absent.²  Serum T4 and T3 levels are elevated, and TSH is suppressed.^1-4  

Thyroid antibodies (antithyroid peroxidase antibodies [Anti-TPO or TPOAb] or antithyroglobulin antibodies [Anti-TG or TgAb]) have been found in 42% to 62% of patients with SAT.² These transitory immunologic markers develop several weeks after the onset and appear to be a physiologic response to the inflammatory insult to the gland.² In most patients, the antibody titer gradually decreases, then disappears as the disease resolves.^2-4

The 24-hour RAIU is low
(< 5%) in the toxic phase of SAT, and thyroid scan will reveal a patchy and irregular distribution of the tracer.^2,3 The thyrotoxicosis during this early phase is caused by the inflammatory release of preformed thyroid hormones (not hyperfunctioning in the gland), resulting in a “low-uptake thyrotoxicosis.”² This differentiates SAT from the elevated uptake seen in Graves disease (> 30% at 24 hours).²

TRANSIENT HYPOTHYROIDISM PHASE
As circulating T4 and T3 are utilized but follicular function remains temporarily impaired, levels decline, resulting in a period of euthyroidism followed by hypothyroidism. TSH levels, previously suppressed in the thyrotoxic phase, now become elevated. This transient hypothyroidism occurs in two-thirds of patients, and the presentation varies from subclinical to pronounced.²

RECOVERY PHASE
After several weeks or months, all thyroid function studies return to normal and complete recovery commonly ensues. SAT rarely recurs, most likely due to immunity to the precipitating virus.^1,2,4

Management of SAT >> 

MANAGEMENT
Thyroid function should be monitored by testing every two to four weeks, dependent on the severity of the patient’s symptoms and rate of progression.¹ Often, no treatment is required.^1,2

Symptomatic relief of mild thyroid pain can be achieved with NSAIDs or aspirin (2 to 3 g/d). Severe symptoms can be treated with short-term prednisone, which should be tapered and discontinued.^1-3 Steroids suppress the inflammatory response, and the dramatic relief of thyroid pain within 24 hours can be diagnostic of SAT.²

During the thyrotoxic phase, β-blockers (propranolol) can alleviate adrenergic symptoms, with the dose tapered once the patient is euthyroid.^1-3 Antithyroid medications that directly inhibit thyroid hormone synthesis (eg, methimazole or propylthiouracil) are ineffective due to the lack of T4 and T3 production in the follicular cells after the inflammatory response.^2,3

During the transient hypothyroid phase, thyroid hormone replacement may be indicated if the TSH level is markedly elevated or the phase refractory. However, levothyroxine therapy should be low dose (< 100 μg) and not be considered lifelong.^2,3

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
During the prodrome, SAT is often misdiagnosed as pharyngitis. Acute suppurative thyroiditis initially may mimic SAT, but the febrile and leukocytic responses are greater, and localized edema, erythema, and tenderness become more evident as the condition progresses.

Painless or silent thyroiditis is distinguished from SAT by the lack of pain or tenderness and a normal ESR in the presence of a similar pattern of thyroid dysfunction. Graves disease presents with symptoms similar to the thyrotoxic phase of SAT, but T3 is usually disproportionately elevated compared to T4, RAIU is elevated, and thyroid antibodies are prevalent.²

CONCLUSION
Primary care providers may encounter SAT at some point, and a level of clinical suspicion must be maintained. Referral to endocrinology may be warranted in some cases; however, textbook cases can often be followed in primary care. Patient education is the foundation of SAT care. Symptomatic treatments may be employed as needed. Fortunately, for most patients, this self-limited disease state rarely leads to complications.

REFERENCES
1. Cooper DS. The thyroid gland. In: Gardner D, Shobeck D (eds). Greenspan’s Basic and Clinical Endocrinology. 9th ed. China: McGraw-Hill; 2011:163-226.

2. Guimaraes VC. Subacute and Riedel’s thyroiditis. In: Jameson JL, De Groot LJ (eds). Endocrinology Adult and Pediatric. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2010:1595-1600.

3. Jameson JL. Disorders of the thyroid gland.  In: Jameson JL (ed). Harrison’s Endocrin­ology. 2nd ed. China: McGraw-Hill; 2010: 62-98.

4. Smallridge RC. Thyroiditis. In: McDermott MT (ed). Endocrine Secrets. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013:289-293.

Jerry, a 48-year-old white man, is referred to endocrinology for abnormal results of thyroid tests performed four weeks ago (see table for values). Two months ago, Jerry developed an upper respiratory infection (URI) with fever, odynophagia, and anterior neck discomfort. His symptoms resolved after two weeks; however, he has since developed fatigue and nervousness.

The remaining review of systems is unremarkable. Medical history is negative. Jerry denies any factors that can affect thyroid function: He does not take thyroid medication, OTC thyroid supplements, amiodarone, lithium, or interferon-α, does not have high iodine intake, and has not undergone head/neck irradiation. There is no personal or family history of thyroid disease, organ-specific autoimmune disease (ie, vitiligo, myasthenia gravis, or Sjögren syndrome) or systemic autoimmune disease (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or progressive systemic sclerosis).

Vital signs are stable. On physical examination, his thyroid gland is firm, with slight enlargement of the left lobe and mild tenderness. There are no palpable nodules or cervical adenopathy. The remainder of the exam is unremarkable.

Lab studies (see table) reveal an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and suppressed TSH, with normal free thyroxine (T4) and free triiodothyronine (T3) levels. His thyroid peroxidase antibody (Anti-TPO) is negative. Radioactive iodine uptake (RAIU) reveals a low 24-hour uptake of 4% (normal, 5% to 30%).

Jerry is given the presumptive diagnosis of subacute thyroiditis (SAT). He is advised that the condition will progress through multiple phases—from the initial thyrotoxicosis to euthyroidism
to transient hypothyroid—before resolution and is educated on the symptoms and signs to watch for. Since he presented in a euthyroid phase, with only mild anterior neck tenderness, no treatment is indicated. He is instructed to follow up for thyroid function testing in four to six weeks and to call with any symptomatic changes.

Two months later, Jerry returns with complaints of ongoing fatigue, unintentional weight gain, and “mental fog.” Physical exam findings are unremarkable except for a small, firm thyroid gland without the tenderness elicited previously. Labwork reveals an elevated TSH with low free T4 and free T3. He is again counseled regarding the natural history of SAT and reassured that his symptoms will abate as his thyroid hormone levels normalize. He is advised to continue the plan of follow-up testing every four to six weeks.

Approximately eight weeks later, Jerry’s thyroid function studies indicate normal levels, and he is notified of the results. Jerry comments that his symptoms have completely resolved and he is back to feeling like his usual self. He is discharged to follow-up as needed.

What is subacute thyroiditis? 

WHAT IS SUBACUTE ­THYROIDITIS?
Subacute thyroiditis  is also known as de Quervain thyroiditis or granulomatous giant cell thyroiditis.^1,2 The most common cause of thyroid pain, it is a self-limited inflammatory disorder in which a painful tender goiter is associated with malaise, fever, and transient thyroid dysfunction.^2,3 As with other thyroid disorders, SAT occurs most frequently in women ages 40 to 50.^2,3 Thought to be of viral origin, it usually occurs after a URI and commonly correlates with the peak incidence of viral infections (spring/fall).^2,3

The disruptive process begins with inflammatory destruction of thyroid follicles.² This causes leakage of stored colloid, which is broken down, releasing unregulated T4 and T3 into the circulation and resulting in a thyrotoxicosis that typically lasts six weeks.^1,2,4 Thyroid cells are incapable of producing new thyroid hormone during this time, so as excess circulating hormone is utilized, T4 and T3 levels become normal, then deficient, and the patient transitions through a period of euthyroidism to transient hypothyroidism.^1,2,4 As the disruption of thyroid parenchyma abates, recovery ensues. The follicles regenerate, colloid is repleted, and normal thyroid function is restored.^1-4

SAT typically lasts four to six months, although painful thyromegaly may persist for one year after resolution of thyroid dysfunction.² Throughout the course of SAT, thyroid test results can be confusing, and misdiagnosis of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism may occur unless each phase of SAT is recognized.

Phases of SAT >> 

PRODROME
The precursor URI is followed in days or weeks by the clinical manifestations of SAT. These typically include myalgia, pharyngitis, low-grade fever, and fatigue.²

There may be pain of varying degrees in part or all of one or both lobes; the pain often migrates to the entire gland and may radiate to the angle of the jaw or the ear of the affected side(s). Moving the head, swallowing, or coughing aggravates the pain.²

The hallmark of SAT is a markedly elevated ESR (often > 100 mm/h).^1-3 Leukocyte count is normal (50% of cases) or only slightly elevated (50%).²

THYROTOXIC PHASE
Fifty percent of patients have mild to moderate symptoms of hyperthyroidism, including nervousness, weight loss, heat intolerance, or palpitations; hoarseness or dysphagia may be present.² Signs include tremors or tachycardia. The thyroid gland may reveal slight to moderate unilateral enlargement, usually firm in the involved area, and tenderness may be mild, moderate, or severe.² Cervical lymphadenopathy is absent.²  Serum T4 and T3 levels are elevated, and TSH is suppressed.^1-4  

Thyroid antibodies (antithyroid peroxidase antibodies [Anti-TPO or TPOAb] or antithyroglobulin antibodies [Anti-TG or TgAb]) have been found in 42% to 62% of patients with SAT.² These transitory immunologic markers develop several weeks after the onset and appear to be a physiologic response to the inflammatory insult to the gland.² In most patients, the antibody titer gradually decreases, then disappears as the disease resolves.^2-4

The 24-hour RAIU is low
(< 5%) in the toxic phase of SAT, and thyroid scan will reveal a patchy and irregular distribution of the tracer.^2,3 The thyrotoxicosis during this early phase is caused by the inflammatory release of preformed thyroid hormones (not hyperfunctioning in the gland), resulting in a “low-uptake thyrotoxicosis.”² This differentiates SAT from the elevated uptake seen in Graves disease (> 30% at 24 hours).²

TRANSIENT HYPOTHYROIDISM PHASE
As circulating T4 and T3 are utilized but follicular function remains temporarily impaired, levels decline, resulting in a period of euthyroidism followed by hypothyroidism. TSH levels, previously suppressed in the thyrotoxic phase, now become elevated. This transient hypothyroidism occurs in two-thirds of patients, and the presentation varies from subclinical to pronounced.²

RECOVERY PHASE
After several weeks or months, all thyroid function studies return to normal and complete recovery commonly ensues. SAT rarely recurs, most likely due to immunity to the precipitating virus.^1,2,4

Management of SAT >> 

MANAGEMENT
Thyroid function should be monitored by testing every two to four weeks, dependent on the severity of the patient’s symptoms and rate of progression.¹ Often, no treatment is required.^1,2

Symptomatic relief of mild thyroid pain can be achieved with NSAIDs or aspirin (2 to 3 g/d). Severe symptoms can be treated with short-term prednisone, which should be tapered and discontinued.^1-3 Steroids suppress the inflammatory response, and the dramatic relief of thyroid pain within 24 hours can be diagnostic of SAT.²

During the thyrotoxic phase, β-blockers (propranolol) can alleviate adrenergic symptoms, with the dose tapered once the patient is euthyroid.^1-3 Antithyroid medications that directly inhibit thyroid hormone synthesis (eg, methimazole or propylthiouracil) are ineffective due to the lack of T4 and T3 production in the follicular cells after the inflammatory response.^2,3

During the transient hypothyroid phase, thyroid hormone replacement may be indicated if the TSH level is markedly elevated or the phase refractory. However, levothyroxine therapy should be low dose (< 100 μg) and not be considered lifelong.^2,3

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
During the prodrome, SAT is often misdiagnosed as pharyngitis. Acute suppurative thyroiditis initially may mimic SAT, but the febrile and leukocytic responses are greater, and localized edema, erythema, and tenderness become more evident as the condition progresses.

Painless or silent thyroiditis is distinguished from SAT by the lack of pain or tenderness and a normal ESR in the presence of a similar pattern of thyroid dysfunction. Graves disease presents with symptoms similar to the thyrotoxic phase of SAT, but T3 is usually disproportionately elevated compared to T4, RAIU is elevated, and thyroid antibodies are prevalent.²

CONCLUSION
Primary care providers may encounter SAT at some point, and a level of clinical suspicion must be maintained. Referral to endocrinology may be warranted in some cases; however, textbook cases can often be followed in primary care. Patient education is the foundation of SAT care. Symptomatic treatments may be employed as needed. Fortunately, for most patients, this self-limited disease state rarely leads to complications.

REFERENCES
1. Cooper DS. The thyroid gland. In: Gardner D, Shobeck D (eds). Greenspan’s Basic and Clinical Endocrinology. 9th ed. China: McGraw-Hill; 2011:163-226.

2. Guimaraes VC. Subacute and Riedel’s thyroiditis. In: Jameson JL, De Groot LJ (eds). Endocrinology Adult and Pediatric. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2010:1595-1600.

3. Jameson JL. Disorders of the thyroid gland.  In: Jameson JL (ed). Harrison’s Endocrin­ology. 2nd ed. China: McGraw-Hill; 2010: 62-98.

4. Smallridge RC. Thyroiditis. In: McDermott MT (ed). Endocrine Secrets. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013:289-293.

Jerry, a 48-year-old white man, is referred to endocrinology for abnormal results of thyroid tests performed four weeks ago (see table for values). Two months ago, Jerry developed an upper respiratory infection (URI) with fever, odynophagia, and anterior neck discomfort. His symptoms resolved after two weeks; however, he has since developed fatigue and nervousness.

The remaining review of systems is unremarkable. Medical history is negative. Jerry denies any factors that can affect thyroid function: He does not take thyroid medication, OTC thyroid supplements, amiodarone, lithium, or interferon-α, does not have high iodine intake, and has not undergone head/neck irradiation. There is no personal or family history of thyroid disease, organ-specific autoimmune disease (ie, vitiligo, myasthenia gravis, or Sjögren syndrome) or systemic autoimmune disease (rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, or progressive systemic sclerosis).

Vital signs are stable. On physical examination, his thyroid gland is firm, with slight enlargement of the left lobe and mild tenderness. There are no palpable nodules or cervical adenopathy. The remainder of the exam is unremarkable.

Lab studies (see table) reveal an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and suppressed TSH, with normal free thyroxine (T4) and free triiodothyronine (T3) levels. His thyroid peroxidase antibody (Anti-TPO) is negative. Radioactive iodine uptake (RAIU) reveals a low 24-hour uptake of 4% (normal, 5% to 30%).

Jerry is given the presumptive diagnosis of subacute thyroiditis (SAT). He is advised that the condition will progress through multiple phases—from the initial thyrotoxicosis to euthyroidism
to transient hypothyroid—before resolution and is educated on the symptoms and signs to watch for. Since he presented in a euthyroid phase, with only mild anterior neck tenderness, no treatment is indicated. He is instructed to follow up for thyroid function testing in four to six weeks and to call with any symptomatic changes.

Two months later, Jerry returns with complaints of ongoing fatigue, unintentional weight gain, and “mental fog.” Physical exam findings are unremarkable except for a small, firm thyroid gland without the tenderness elicited previously. Labwork reveals an elevated TSH with low free T4 and free T3. He is again counseled regarding the natural history of SAT and reassured that his symptoms will abate as his thyroid hormone levels normalize. He is advised to continue the plan of follow-up testing every four to six weeks.

Approximately eight weeks later, Jerry’s thyroid function studies indicate normal levels, and he is notified of the results. Jerry comments that his symptoms have completely resolved and he is back to feeling like his usual self. He is discharged to follow-up as needed.

What is subacute thyroiditis? 

WHAT IS SUBACUTE ­THYROIDITIS?
Subacute thyroiditis  is also known as de Quervain thyroiditis or granulomatous giant cell thyroiditis.^1,2 The most common cause of thyroid pain, it is a self-limited inflammatory disorder in which a painful tender goiter is associated with malaise, fever, and transient thyroid dysfunction.^2,3 As with other thyroid disorders, SAT occurs most frequently in women ages 40 to 50.^2,3 Thought to be of viral origin, it usually occurs after a URI and commonly correlates with the peak incidence of viral infections (spring/fall).^2,3

The disruptive process begins with inflammatory destruction of thyroid follicles.² This causes leakage of stored colloid, which is broken down, releasing unregulated T4 and T3 into the circulation and resulting in a thyrotoxicosis that typically lasts six weeks.^1,2,4 Thyroid cells are incapable of producing new thyroid hormone during this time, so as excess circulating hormone is utilized, T4 and T3 levels become normal, then deficient, and the patient transitions through a period of euthyroidism to transient hypothyroidism.^1,2,4 As the disruption of thyroid parenchyma abates, recovery ensues. The follicles regenerate, colloid is repleted, and normal thyroid function is restored.^1-4

SAT typically lasts four to six months, although painful thyromegaly may persist for one year after resolution of thyroid dysfunction.² Throughout the course of SAT, thyroid test results can be confusing, and misdiagnosis of hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism may occur unless each phase of SAT is recognized.

Phases of SAT >> 

PRODROME
The precursor URI is followed in days or weeks by the clinical manifestations of SAT. These typically include myalgia, pharyngitis, low-grade fever, and fatigue.²

There may be pain of varying degrees in part or all of one or both lobes; the pain often migrates to the entire gland and may radiate to the angle of the jaw or the ear of the affected side(s). Moving the head, swallowing, or coughing aggravates the pain.²

The hallmark of SAT is a markedly elevated ESR (often > 100 mm/h).^1-3 Leukocyte count is normal (50% of cases) or only slightly elevated (50%).²

THYROTOXIC PHASE
Fifty percent of patients have mild to moderate symptoms of hyperthyroidism, including nervousness, weight loss, heat intolerance, or palpitations; hoarseness or dysphagia may be present.² Signs include tremors or tachycardia. The thyroid gland may reveal slight to moderate unilateral enlargement, usually firm in the involved area, and tenderness may be mild, moderate, or severe.² Cervical lymphadenopathy is absent.²  Serum T4 and T3 levels are elevated, and TSH is suppressed.^1-4  

Thyroid antibodies (antithyroid peroxidase antibodies [Anti-TPO or TPOAb] or antithyroglobulin antibodies [Anti-TG or TgAb]) have been found in 42% to 62% of patients with SAT.² These transitory immunologic markers develop several weeks after the onset and appear to be a physiologic response to the inflammatory insult to the gland.² In most patients, the antibody titer gradually decreases, then disappears as the disease resolves.^2-4

The 24-hour RAIU is low
(< 5%) in the toxic phase of SAT, and thyroid scan will reveal a patchy and irregular distribution of the tracer.^2,3 The thyrotoxicosis during this early phase is caused by the inflammatory release of preformed thyroid hormones (not hyperfunctioning in the gland), resulting in a “low-uptake thyrotoxicosis.”² This differentiates SAT from the elevated uptake seen in Graves disease (> 30% at 24 hours).²

TRANSIENT HYPOTHYROIDISM PHASE
As circulating T4 and T3 are utilized but follicular function remains temporarily impaired, levels decline, resulting in a period of euthyroidism followed by hypothyroidism. TSH levels, previously suppressed in the thyrotoxic phase, now become elevated. This transient hypothyroidism occurs in two-thirds of patients, and the presentation varies from subclinical to pronounced.²

RECOVERY PHASE
After several weeks or months, all thyroid function studies return to normal and complete recovery commonly ensues. SAT rarely recurs, most likely due to immunity to the precipitating virus.^1,2,4

Management of SAT >> 

MANAGEMENT
Thyroid function should be monitored by testing every two to four weeks, dependent on the severity of the patient’s symptoms and rate of progression.¹ Often, no treatment is required.^1,2

Symptomatic relief of mild thyroid pain can be achieved with NSAIDs or aspirin (2 to 3 g/d). Severe symptoms can be treated with short-term prednisone, which should be tapered and discontinued.^1-3 Steroids suppress the inflammatory response, and the dramatic relief of thyroid pain within 24 hours can be diagnostic of SAT.²

During the thyrotoxic phase, β-blockers (propranolol) can alleviate adrenergic symptoms, with the dose tapered once the patient is euthyroid.^1-3 Antithyroid medications that directly inhibit thyroid hormone synthesis (eg, methimazole or propylthiouracil) are ineffective due to the lack of T4 and T3 production in the follicular cells after the inflammatory response.^2,3

During the transient hypothyroid phase, thyroid hormone replacement may be indicated if the TSH level is markedly elevated or the phase refractory. However, levothyroxine therapy should be low dose (< 100 μg) and not be considered lifelong.^2,3

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS
During the prodrome, SAT is often misdiagnosed as pharyngitis. Acute suppurative thyroiditis initially may mimic SAT, but the febrile and leukocytic responses are greater, and localized edema, erythema, and tenderness become more evident as the condition progresses.

Painless or silent thyroiditis is distinguished from SAT by the lack of pain or tenderness and a normal ESR in the presence of a similar pattern of thyroid dysfunction. Graves disease presents with symptoms similar to the thyrotoxic phase of SAT, but T3 is usually disproportionately elevated compared to T4, RAIU is elevated, and thyroid antibodies are prevalent.²

CONCLUSION
Primary care providers may encounter SAT at some point, and a level of clinical suspicion must be maintained. Referral to endocrinology may be warranted in some cases; however, textbook cases can often be followed in primary care. Patient education is the foundation of SAT care. Symptomatic treatments may be employed as needed. Fortunately, for most patients, this self-limited disease state rarely leads to complications.

REFERENCES
1. Cooper DS. The thyroid gland. In: Gardner D, Shobeck D (eds). Greenspan’s Basic and Clinical Endocrinology. 9th ed. China: McGraw-Hill; 2011:163-226.

2. Guimaraes VC. Subacute and Riedel’s thyroiditis. In: Jameson JL, De Groot LJ (eds). Endocrinology Adult and Pediatric. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2010:1595-1600.

3. Jameson JL. Disorders of the thyroid gland.  In: Jameson JL (ed). Harrison’s Endocrin­ology. 2nd ed. China: McGraw-Hill; 2010: 62-98.

4. Smallridge RC. Thyroiditis. In: McDermott MT (ed). Endocrine Secrets. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013:289-293.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Do not recommend elastic compression stockings to decrease the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome after deep vein thrombosis.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a large randomized controlled trial¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 56-year-old man presents to your clinic three days after receiving a diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). He was prescribed warfarin (5 mg/d) with enoxaparin bridging (120 mg/d). He has read about postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) online and is very concerned about this possible adverse effect. He asks about using elastic compression stockings (ECS). What should you tell him?

PTS can be a frustrating, debilitating condition. Its clinical features range from minor limb swelling to severe edema and pain, irreversible skin changes, and leg ulcerations.² It occurs in 25% to 50% of patients after DVT.³ Because current PTS treatments are not very effective, prevention is essential.^4,5

Patients are frequently encouraged to wear ECS after DVT to reduce the incidence of PTS by decreasing venous hypertension and reflux. These stockings are expensive and uncomfortable. Prior research suggested that use of ECS can reduce PTS incidence by half, but the studies were small, single-center, and not placebo-controlled.^6,7

On the next page: Study summary >> 

STUDY SUMMARY
RCT sets aside a common practice
Kahn et al¹ conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of active versus placebo ECS in patients from 24 centers in the United States and Canada who’d had an ultrasound-confirmed proximal DVT (in the popliteal or more proximal deep leg vein) within the previous 14 days. Most patients received standard anticoagulation therapy to treat their DVT (five to 10 days of heparin and three to six months of warfarin). Patients were excluded if they had received thrombolytics, had arterial claudication, had a life expectancy of less than six months, were unable to put on ECS due to physical disabilities or allergy, or were unable to participate in follow-up visits.

Patients were randomly assigned to wear active (30 to 40 mm Hg graduated) ECS or identical-looking placebo ECS (< 5 mm Hg compression at the ankle) for two years. Providers, study personnel and statisticians, and patients were all blinded to treatment allocation. Patients were asked to wear the stocking on the affected leg each day from waking until bedtime.

Follow-up occurred at one, six, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of PTS diagnosed at six months or later using the Ginsberg criteria of ipsilateral pain and swelling of at least one month’s duration.⁸ Secondary outcomes included severity of PTS, leg ulcers, recurrence of ­venous thromboembolism (VTE), death, adverse events, venous valvular reflux, and quality of life (QOL). Outcomes were measured objectively through use of a validated scale (the Villalta scale) for PTS severity and two questionnaires to assess QOL.^9-11

There were 409 patients in the ECS group and 394 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics, including BMI, VTE risk factors, and anticoagulation treatment regimens, were similar between groups. The average age of participants in the study group was 55.4 years and in the placebo group, 54.8 years. Men comprised 62.4% of the active group and 57.9% of the placebo group. Approximately 90% of the participants in both groups were white.

At one month, approximately 95% of participants in both groups used the stockings; at 24 months, that was reduced to a little less than 70%. The percentage of people who used the stockings for at least three days per week was similar in both groups.

The cumulative incidence of PTS during follow-up was 14.2% in the active group and 12.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.13). There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Prespecified subgroup analyses found that age, BMI, and severity of DVT had no effect on outcomes. There was a marginal benefit for ECS for women versus men, but this does not likely reflect a true difference because the confidence intervals surrounding the hazard ratios for men and women overlapped and crossed the null value.

On the next page: What's new & challenges to implementation >>

WHAT’S NEW
New evidence contradicts ­previous studies
Two prior studies showed that using 30 to 40 mm Hg ECS decreased the incidence of PTS after proximal DVT.^6,7 However, these were smaller, open-label, single-center studies. This study by Kahn et al¹ was the first placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter study that used validated instruments to measure PTS and QOL. It found no benefit in using ECS, thus contradicting the results of the prior studies.

There are currently no guidelines or consensus statements that recommend for or against the use of ECS after DVT.

CAVEATS
High nonadherence rates might have affected results
In both groups, adherence to the assigned intervention diminished throughout the study (from 95% at one month to slightly less than 70% at two years). Theoretically, this could have affected efficacy outcomes. However, the decrease was similar in both groups and represents what is observed in clinical practice. A prespecified per protocol analysis of patients who wore their ECS more regularly found no benefit.

It is possible that a “placebo effect” could explain the lack of difference between groups. However, the placebo stockings provided virtually no compression, and the two-year cumulative incidence of PTS in both the treatment and placebo groups was similar to that seen in control groups in prior studies.^6,7

Finally, the incidence of PTS in this study was much lower than the 25% to 50% incidence reported previously. Kahn et al¹ suggested that this was because they used more stringent and standardized criteria for PTS than was used in previous research.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are no barriers to ending this practice
We can identify no challenges to implementation of this recommendation.

On the next page: References >>

REFERENCES
1. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al; SOX trial investigators. Compression stockings to ­prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383:880-888.

2. Kahn SR, Shrier I, Julian JA, et al. Determinants and time course of the postthrombotic syndrome after acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:698-707.

3. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125:1-7.

4. Cohen JM, Akl EA, Kahn SR. Pharmacologic and compression therapies for postthrombotic syndrome: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 2012;141: 308-320.

5. Henke PK, Comerota AJ. An update on etiology, prevention, and therapy of postthrombotic syndrome. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:
500-509.

6. Brandjes DP, Büller HR, Heijboer H, et al. Randomised trial of effect of compression stockings in patients with symptomatic proximal-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1997;349:
759-762.

7. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Prins MH, et al. Below-knee elastic compression stockings to prevent the post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:249-256.

8. Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J, Julian J, et al. Prevention and treatment of postphlebitic syndrome: results of a 3-part study. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2105-2109.

9. Villalta S, Bagatella P, Piccioli A, et al. Assessment of validity and reproducibility of a clinical scale for the post-thrombotic syndrome. Haemostasis. 1994;24:158a.

10. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247-263.

11. Kahn SR, Lamping DL, Ducruet T, et al; VETO Study Investigators. VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire was a reliable and valid disease-specific quality of life measure for deep venous thrombosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:1049-1056.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2014. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2014;63(7):388-390.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Do not recommend elastic compression stockings to decrease the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome after deep vein thrombosis.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a large randomized controlled trial¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 56-year-old man presents to your clinic three days after receiving a diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). He was prescribed warfarin (5 mg/d) with enoxaparin bridging (120 mg/d). He has read about postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) online and is very concerned about this possible adverse effect. He asks about using elastic compression stockings (ECS). What should you tell him?

PTS can be a frustrating, debilitating condition. Its clinical features range from minor limb swelling to severe edema and pain, irreversible skin changes, and leg ulcerations.² It occurs in 25% to 50% of patients after DVT.³ Because current PTS treatments are not very effective, prevention is essential.^4,5

Patients are frequently encouraged to wear ECS after DVT to reduce the incidence of PTS by decreasing venous hypertension and reflux. These stockings are expensive and uncomfortable. Prior research suggested that use of ECS can reduce PTS incidence by half, but the studies were small, single-center, and not placebo-controlled.^6,7

On the next page: Study summary >> 

STUDY SUMMARY
RCT sets aside a common practice
Kahn et al¹ conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of active versus placebo ECS in patients from 24 centers in the United States and Canada who’d had an ultrasound-confirmed proximal DVT (in the popliteal or more proximal deep leg vein) within the previous 14 days. Most patients received standard anticoagulation therapy to treat their DVT (five to 10 days of heparin and three to six months of warfarin). Patients were excluded if they had received thrombolytics, had arterial claudication, had a life expectancy of less than six months, were unable to put on ECS due to physical disabilities or allergy, or were unable to participate in follow-up visits.

Patients were randomly assigned to wear active (30 to 40 mm Hg graduated) ECS or identical-looking placebo ECS (< 5 mm Hg compression at the ankle) for two years. Providers, study personnel and statisticians, and patients were all blinded to treatment allocation. Patients were asked to wear the stocking on the affected leg each day from waking until bedtime.

Follow-up occurred at one, six, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of PTS diagnosed at six months or later using the Ginsberg criteria of ipsilateral pain and swelling of at least one month’s duration.⁸ Secondary outcomes included severity of PTS, leg ulcers, recurrence of ­venous thromboembolism (VTE), death, adverse events, venous valvular reflux, and quality of life (QOL). Outcomes were measured objectively through use of a validated scale (the Villalta scale) for PTS severity and two questionnaires to assess QOL.^9-11

There were 409 patients in the ECS group and 394 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics, including BMI, VTE risk factors, and anticoagulation treatment regimens, were similar between groups. The average age of participants in the study group was 55.4 years and in the placebo group, 54.8 years. Men comprised 62.4% of the active group and 57.9% of the placebo group. Approximately 90% of the participants in both groups were white.

At one month, approximately 95% of participants in both groups used the stockings; at 24 months, that was reduced to a little less than 70%. The percentage of people who used the stockings for at least three days per week was similar in both groups.

The cumulative incidence of PTS during follow-up was 14.2% in the active group and 12.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.13). There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Prespecified subgroup analyses found that age, BMI, and severity of DVT had no effect on outcomes. There was a marginal benefit for ECS for women versus men, but this does not likely reflect a true difference because the confidence intervals surrounding the hazard ratios for men and women overlapped and crossed the null value.

On the next page: What's new & challenges to implementation >>

WHAT’S NEW
New evidence contradicts ­previous studies
Two prior studies showed that using 30 to 40 mm Hg ECS decreased the incidence of PTS after proximal DVT.^6,7 However, these were smaller, open-label, single-center studies. This study by Kahn et al¹ was the first placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter study that used validated instruments to measure PTS and QOL. It found no benefit in using ECS, thus contradicting the results of the prior studies.

There are currently no guidelines or consensus statements that recommend for or against the use of ECS after DVT.

CAVEATS
High nonadherence rates might have affected results
In both groups, adherence to the assigned intervention diminished throughout the study (from 95% at one month to slightly less than 70% at two years). Theoretically, this could have affected efficacy outcomes. However, the decrease was similar in both groups and represents what is observed in clinical practice. A prespecified per protocol analysis of patients who wore their ECS more regularly found no benefit.

It is possible that a “placebo effect” could explain the lack of difference between groups. However, the placebo stockings provided virtually no compression, and the two-year cumulative incidence of PTS in both the treatment and placebo groups was similar to that seen in control groups in prior studies.^6,7

Finally, the incidence of PTS in this study was much lower than the 25% to 50% incidence reported previously. Kahn et al¹ suggested that this was because they used more stringent and standardized criteria for PTS than was used in previous research.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are no barriers to ending this practice
We can identify no challenges to implementation of this recommendation.

On the next page: References >>

REFERENCES
1. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al; SOX trial investigators. Compression stockings to ­prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383:880-888.

2. Kahn SR, Shrier I, Julian JA, et al. Determinants and time course of the postthrombotic syndrome after acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:698-707.

3. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125:1-7.

4. Cohen JM, Akl EA, Kahn SR. Pharmacologic and compression therapies for postthrombotic syndrome: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 2012;141: 308-320.

5. Henke PK, Comerota AJ. An update on etiology, prevention, and therapy of postthrombotic syndrome. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:
500-509.

6. Brandjes DP, Büller HR, Heijboer H, et al. Randomised trial of effect of compression stockings in patients with symptomatic proximal-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1997;349:
759-762.

7. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Prins MH, et al. Below-knee elastic compression stockings to prevent the post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:249-256.

8. Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J, Julian J, et al. Prevention and treatment of postphlebitic syndrome: results of a 3-part study. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2105-2109.

9. Villalta S, Bagatella P, Piccioli A, et al. Assessment of validity and reproducibility of a clinical scale for the post-thrombotic syndrome. Haemostasis. 1994;24:158a.

10. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247-263.

11. Kahn SR, Lamping DL, Ducruet T, et al; VETO Study Investigators. VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire was a reliable and valid disease-specific quality of life measure for deep venous thrombosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:1049-1056.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2014. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2014;63(7):388-390.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Do not recommend elastic compression stockings to decrease the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome after deep vein thrombosis.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a large randomized controlled trial¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 56-year-old man presents to your clinic three days after receiving a diagnosis of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT). He was prescribed warfarin (5 mg/d) with enoxaparin bridging (120 mg/d). He has read about postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) online and is very concerned about this possible adverse effect. He asks about using elastic compression stockings (ECS). What should you tell him?

PTS can be a frustrating, debilitating condition. Its clinical features range from minor limb swelling to severe edema and pain, irreversible skin changes, and leg ulcerations.² It occurs in 25% to 50% of patients after DVT.³ Because current PTS treatments are not very effective, prevention is essential.^4,5

Patients are frequently encouraged to wear ECS after DVT to reduce the incidence of PTS by decreasing venous hypertension and reflux. These stockings are expensive and uncomfortable. Prior research suggested that use of ECS can reduce PTS incidence by half, but the studies were small, single-center, and not placebo-controlled.^6,7

On the next page: Study summary >> 

STUDY SUMMARY
RCT sets aside a common practice
Kahn et al¹ conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of active versus placebo ECS in patients from 24 centers in the United States and Canada who’d had an ultrasound-confirmed proximal DVT (in the popliteal or more proximal deep leg vein) within the previous 14 days. Most patients received standard anticoagulation therapy to treat their DVT (five to 10 days of heparin and three to six months of warfarin). Patients were excluded if they had received thrombolytics, had arterial claudication, had a life expectancy of less than six months, were unable to put on ECS due to physical disabilities or allergy, or were unable to participate in follow-up visits.

Patients were randomly assigned to wear active (30 to 40 mm Hg graduated) ECS or identical-looking placebo ECS (< 5 mm Hg compression at the ankle) for two years. Providers, study personnel and statisticians, and patients were all blinded to treatment allocation. Patients were asked to wear the stocking on the affected leg each day from waking until bedtime.

Follow-up occurred at one, six, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of PTS diagnosed at six months or later using the Ginsberg criteria of ipsilateral pain and swelling of at least one month’s duration.⁸ Secondary outcomes included severity of PTS, leg ulcers, recurrence of ­venous thromboembolism (VTE), death, adverse events, venous valvular reflux, and quality of life (QOL). Outcomes were measured objectively through use of a validated scale (the Villalta scale) for PTS severity and two questionnaires to assess QOL.^9-11

There were 409 patients in the ECS group and 394 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics, including BMI, VTE risk factors, and anticoagulation treatment regimens, were similar between groups. The average age of participants in the study group was 55.4 years and in the placebo group, 54.8 years. Men comprised 62.4% of the active group and 57.9% of the placebo group. Approximately 90% of the participants in both groups were white.

At one month, approximately 95% of participants in both groups used the stockings; at 24 months, that was reduced to a little less than 70%. The percentage of people who used the stockings for at least three days per week was similar in both groups.

The cumulative incidence of PTS during follow-up was 14.2% in the active group and 12.7% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.13). There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. Prespecified subgroup analyses found that age, BMI, and severity of DVT had no effect on outcomes. There was a marginal benefit for ECS for women versus men, but this does not likely reflect a true difference because the confidence intervals surrounding the hazard ratios for men and women overlapped and crossed the null value.

On the next page: What's new & challenges to implementation >>

WHAT’S NEW
New evidence contradicts ­previous studies
Two prior studies showed that using 30 to 40 mm Hg ECS decreased the incidence of PTS after proximal DVT.^6,7 However, these were smaller, open-label, single-center studies. This study by Kahn et al¹ was the first placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter study that used validated instruments to measure PTS and QOL. It found no benefit in using ECS, thus contradicting the results of the prior studies.

There are currently no guidelines or consensus statements that recommend for or against the use of ECS after DVT.

CAVEATS
High nonadherence rates might have affected results
In both groups, adherence to the assigned intervention diminished throughout the study (from 95% at one month to slightly less than 70% at two years). Theoretically, this could have affected efficacy outcomes. However, the decrease was similar in both groups and represents what is observed in clinical practice. A prespecified per protocol analysis of patients who wore their ECS more regularly found no benefit.

It is possible that a “placebo effect” could explain the lack of difference between groups. However, the placebo stockings provided virtually no compression, and the two-year cumulative incidence of PTS in both the treatment and placebo groups was similar to that seen in control groups in prior studies.^6,7

Finally, the incidence of PTS in this study was much lower than the 25% to 50% incidence reported previously. Kahn et al¹ suggested that this was because they used more stringent and standardized criteria for PTS than was used in previous research.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are no barriers to ending this practice
We can identify no challenges to implementation of this recommendation.

On the next page: References >>

REFERENCES
1. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al; SOX trial investigators. Compression stockings to ­prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383:880-888.

2. Kahn SR, Shrier I, Julian JA, et al. Determinants and time course of the postthrombotic syndrome after acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:698-707.

3. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Cogo A, et al. The long-term clinical course of acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125:1-7.

4. Cohen JM, Akl EA, Kahn SR. Pharmacologic and compression therapies for postthrombotic syndrome: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Chest. 2012;141: 308-320.

5. Henke PK, Comerota AJ. An update on etiology, prevention, and therapy of postthrombotic syndrome. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:
500-509.

6. Brandjes DP, Büller HR, Heijboer H, et al. Randomised trial of effect of compression stockings in patients with symptomatic proximal-vein thrombosis. Lancet. 1997;349:
759-762.

7. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Prins MH, et al. Below-knee elastic compression stockings to prevent the post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:249-256.

8. Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J, Julian J, et al. Prevention and treatment of postphlebitic syndrome: results of a 3-part study. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2105-2109.

9. Villalta S, Bagatella P, Piccioli A, et al. Assessment of validity and reproducibility of a clinical scale for the post-thrombotic syndrome. Haemostasis. 1994;24:158a.

10. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247-263.

11. Kahn SR, Lamping DL, Ducruet T, et al; VETO Study Investigators. VEINES-QOL/Sym questionnaire was a reliable and valid disease-specific quality of life measure for deep venous thrombosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:1049-1056.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2014. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2014;63(7):388-390.

ANSWER
There are degenerative changes present. Bilateral hip prostheses are noted. Within the coccyx, there is bone remodeling and angulation that are likely chronic and related to remote trauma or injury (arrow). Below this, some cortical lucency (circled) is noted, most likely consistent with an acute fracture. The patient was prescribed a nonsteroidal medication and a mild narcotic pain medication. 

ANSWER
There are degenerative changes present. Bilateral hip prostheses are noted. Within the coccyx, there is bone remodeling and angulation that are likely chronic and related to remote trauma or injury (arrow). Below this, some cortical lucency (circled) is noted, most likely consistent with an acute fracture. The patient was prescribed a nonsteroidal medication and a mild narcotic pain medication. 

ANSWER
There are degenerative changes present. Bilateral hip prostheses are noted. Within the coccyx, there is bone remodeling and angulation that are likely chronic and related to remote trauma or injury (arrow). Below this, some cortical lucency (circled) is noted, most likely consistent with an acute fracture. The patient was prescribed a nonsteroidal medication and a mild narcotic pain medication. 

ANSWER
The correct interpretation of this ECG includes sinus tachycardia and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Sinus tachycardia is evidenced by an atrial rate greater than 100 beats/min with a P wave for every QRS complex and a QRS complex for every P wave.

Left ventricular hypertrophy is present when either the sum of the R wave voltage in lead I and the S wave in lead III is 25 mm or higher or the sum of the S wave in lead V₁ and the R wave in either V₅ or V₆ is 35 mm or higher.

In follow-up to these findings, an echocardiogram was recommended and performed. It revealed a normal heart consistent with that of a young athlete.

The patient and his parents were reassured as to the young man’s condition but decided to seek a second opinion.  

ANSWER
The correct interpretation of this ECG includes sinus tachycardia and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Sinus tachycardia is evidenced by an atrial rate greater than 100 beats/min with a P wave for every QRS complex and a QRS complex for every P wave.

Left ventricular hypertrophy is present when either the sum of the R wave voltage in lead I and the S wave in lead III is 25 mm or higher or the sum of the S wave in lead V₁ and the R wave in either V₅ or V₆ is 35 mm or higher.

In follow-up to these findings, an echocardiogram was recommended and performed. It revealed a normal heart consistent with that of a young athlete.

The patient and his parents were reassured as to the young man’s condition but decided to seek a second opinion.  

ANSWER
The correct interpretation of this ECG includes sinus tachycardia and left ventricular hypertrophy.

Sinus tachycardia is evidenced by an atrial rate greater than 100 beats/min with a P wave for every QRS complex and a QRS complex for every P wave.

Left ventricular hypertrophy is present when either the sum of the R wave voltage in lead I and the S wave in lead III is 25 mm or higher or the sum of the S wave in lead V₁ and the R wave in either V₅ or V₆ is 35 mm or higher.

In follow-up to these findings, an echocardiogram was recommended and performed. It revealed a normal heart consistent with that of a young athlete.

The patient and his parents were reassured as to the young man’s condition but decided to seek a second opinion.  

Researchers in the lab

Credit: Rhoda Baer

Investigators have identified drug combinations that may overcome resistance to ibrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The group discovered a mutation in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that confers resistance to the drug.

They also found that high levels of PI3K-AKT and CDK4 signaling could explain innate resistance to ibrutinib, so combining a CDK4 inhibitor and a PI3K inhibitor might be effective in patients who don’t respond to ibrutinib.

Selina Chen-Kiang, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and her colleagues detailed these findings in Cancer Discovery. Some of Dr Chen-Kiang’s colleagues reported relationships with Janssen and Pharmacyclics, the companies developing ibrutinib.

“[Ibrutinib] doesn’t work for about 32% of patients, and their lymphomas are said to have primary resistance to ibrutinib,” Dr Chen-Kiang noted. “We are also learning that most patients whose lymphomas respond to ibrutinib eventually relapse because their tumors acquire resistance to the drug.”

“The knowledge that we gained from longitudinal RNA and genomic sequencing of mantle cell lymphomas with primary and acquired resistance to ibrutinib allowed us to identify rational drug combinations that may overcome resistance in these 2 settings.”

Dr Chen-Kiang and her colleagues conducted whole-exome and whole-transcriptome analyses of 5 serial biopsies from a patient with MCL who initially responded to ibrutinib before progressing.

After comparing these data with results from an analysis of healthy tissues from the same patient, the investigators found that a mutation in BTK, the C481S mutation, appeared at relapse.

The researchers found the same mutation at relapse in a second MCL patient with acquired resistance to ibrutinib but not in any patients with primary resistance to the drug.

Further analyses revealed the consequences of the relapse-specific BTK C481S mutation, including activation of the PI3K and CDK4 signaling pathways, which promote cell survival and proliferation.

Inhibiting CDK4 with the investigational anticancer drug palbociclib made ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cells carrying the BTK C481S mutation sensitive to investigational drugs that inhibit PI3K.

And palbociclib made ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cells harboring normal BTK sensitive to both ibrutinib and investigational drugs that inhibit PI3K. The researchers recently opened a clinical trial to test ibrutinib and palbociclib in combination (NCT02159755).

“We are very excited to have generated data . . . that may be meaningful for patients,” Dr Chen-Kiang said. “It is also exciting because CDK4 is a new kind of drug target. It controls the cell cycle, which is a central cancer pathway. As such, it is not just important for mantle cell lymphoma but for many forms of cancer.”

Researchers in the lab

Credit: Rhoda Baer

Investigators have identified drug combinations that may overcome resistance to ibrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The group discovered a mutation in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that confers resistance to the drug.

They also found that high levels of PI3K-AKT and CDK4 signaling could explain innate resistance to ibrutinib, so combining a CDK4 inhibitor and a PI3K inhibitor might be effective in patients who don’t respond to ibrutinib.

Selina Chen-Kiang, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and her colleagues detailed these findings in Cancer Discovery. Some of Dr Chen-Kiang’s colleagues reported relationships with Janssen and Pharmacyclics, the companies developing ibrutinib.

“[Ibrutinib] doesn’t work for about 32% of patients, and their lymphomas are said to have primary resistance to ibrutinib,” Dr Chen-Kiang noted. “We are also learning that most patients whose lymphomas respond to ibrutinib eventually relapse because their tumors acquire resistance to the drug.”

“The knowledge that we gained from longitudinal RNA and genomic sequencing of mantle cell lymphomas with primary and acquired resistance to ibrutinib allowed us to identify rational drug combinations that may overcome resistance in these 2 settings.”

Dr Chen-Kiang and her colleagues conducted whole-exome and whole-transcriptome analyses of 5 serial biopsies from a patient with MCL who initially responded to ibrutinib before progressing.

After comparing these data with results from an analysis of healthy tissues from the same patient, the investigators found that a mutation in BTK, the C481S mutation, appeared at relapse.

The researchers found the same mutation at relapse in a second MCL patient with acquired resistance to ibrutinib but not in any patients with primary resistance to the drug.

Further analyses revealed the consequences of the relapse-specific BTK C481S mutation, including activation of the PI3K and CDK4 signaling pathways, which promote cell survival and proliferation.

Inhibiting CDK4 with the investigational anticancer drug palbociclib made ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cells carrying the BTK C481S mutation sensitive to investigational drugs that inhibit PI3K.

And palbociclib made ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cells harboring normal BTK sensitive to both ibrutinib and investigational drugs that inhibit PI3K. The researchers recently opened a clinical trial to test ibrutinib and palbociclib in combination (NCT02159755).

“We are very excited to have generated data . . . that may be meaningful for patients,” Dr Chen-Kiang said. “It is also exciting because CDK4 is a new kind of drug target. It controls the cell cycle, which is a central cancer pathway. As such, it is not just important for mantle cell lymphoma but for many forms of cancer.”

Researchers in the lab

Credit: Rhoda Baer

Investigators have identified drug combinations that may overcome resistance to ibrutinib in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

The group discovered a mutation in Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) that confers resistance to the drug.

They also found that high levels of PI3K-AKT and CDK4 signaling could explain innate resistance to ibrutinib, so combining a CDK4 inhibitor and a PI3K inhibitor might be effective in patients who don’t respond to ibrutinib.

Selina Chen-Kiang, PhD, of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and her colleagues detailed these findings in Cancer Discovery. Some of Dr Chen-Kiang’s colleagues reported relationships with Janssen and Pharmacyclics, the companies developing ibrutinib.

“[Ibrutinib] doesn’t work for about 32% of patients, and their lymphomas are said to have primary resistance to ibrutinib,” Dr Chen-Kiang noted. “We are also learning that most patients whose lymphomas respond to ibrutinib eventually relapse because their tumors acquire resistance to the drug.”

“The knowledge that we gained from longitudinal RNA and genomic sequencing of mantle cell lymphomas with primary and acquired resistance to ibrutinib allowed us to identify rational drug combinations that may overcome resistance in these 2 settings.”

Dr Chen-Kiang and her colleagues conducted whole-exome and whole-transcriptome analyses of 5 serial biopsies from a patient with MCL who initially responded to ibrutinib before progressing.

After comparing these data with results from an analysis of healthy tissues from the same patient, the investigators found that a mutation in BTK, the C481S mutation, appeared at relapse.

The researchers found the same mutation at relapse in a second MCL patient with acquired resistance to ibrutinib but not in any patients with primary resistance to the drug.

Further analyses revealed the consequences of the relapse-specific BTK C481S mutation, including activation of the PI3K and CDK4 signaling pathways, which promote cell survival and proliferation.

Inhibiting CDK4 with the investigational anticancer drug palbociclib made ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cells carrying the BTK C481S mutation sensitive to investigational drugs that inhibit PI3K.

And palbociclib made ibrutinib-resistant lymphoma cells harboring normal BTK sensitive to both ibrutinib and investigational drugs that inhibit PI3K. The researchers recently opened a clinical trial to test ibrutinib and palbociclib in combination (NCT02159755).

“We are very excited to have generated data . . . that may be meaningful for patients,” Dr Chen-Kiang said. “It is also exciting because CDK4 is a new kind of drug target. It controls the cell cycle, which is a central cancer pathway. As such, it is not just important for mantle cell lymphoma but for many forms of cancer.”