Acute Coronary Syndromes

Therapy initiated within national treatment-time goals set a decade ago for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains associated with improved survival in recent years. But for many such patients, time from first symptoms to initiation of reperfusion therapy still fails to meet those goals, suggests a cross-sectional registry analysis.

For example, patients initially transported to centers with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability had a median treatment time of 148 minutes, in the analysis spanning the second quarter (Q2) of 2018 to the third quarter (Q3) of 2021. But the goal for centers called for treatment initiation within 90 minutes for at least 75% of such STEMI patients.

Moreover, overall STEMI treatment times and in-hospital mortality rose in tandem significantly from Q2 2018 through the first quarter (Q1) of 2021, which included the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Median time to treatment went from 86 minutes to 91 minutes during that period. Meanwhile, in-hospital mortality went from 5.6% to 8.7%, report the study authors led by James G. Jollis, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Their report, based on 114,871 STEMI patients at 601 US hospitals contributing to the Get With The Guidelines – Coronary Artery Disease registry, was published online in JAMA.

Of those patients, 25,085 had been transferred from non-PCI hospitals, 32,483 were walk-ins, and 57,303 arrived via emergency medical services (EMS). Their median times from symptom onset to PCI were 240, 195, and 148 minutes, respectively.

In-hospital mortality was significantly reduced in an adjusted analysis for patients treated within target times, compared with those whose treatment missed the time goals, regardless of whether they were transported by EMS, walked into a hospital with on-site PCI, or were transferred from a non-PCI center (Table 1).

Still an important quality metric

STEMI treatment times remain an important quality metric to which hospitals should continue to pay attention because shorter times improve patient care, Deepak Bhatt, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“Having said that, as with all metrics, one needs to be thoughtful and realize that a difference of a couple of minutes is probably not a crucial thing,” said Dr. Bhatt, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the current study.

Interhospital transfers indeed involve longer delays, he observed, suggesting that regional integrated health systems should develop methods for optimizing STEMI care – even, for example, if they involve bypassing non-PCI centers or stopping patients briefly for stabilization followed by rapid transport to a PCI-capable facility.

“That, of course, requires cooperation among hospitals. Sometimes that requires hospitals putting aside economic considerations and just focusing on doing the right thing for that individual patient,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Transfer delays are common for patients presenting with STEMI at hospitals without PCI capability, he noted. “Having clear protocols in place that expedite that type of transfer, I think, could go a long way in reducing the time to treatment in patients that are presenting to the hospital without cath labs. That’s an important message that these data provide.”

The onset of COVID-19 led to widespread delays in STEMI time to treatment early in the pandemic. There were concerns about exposing cath lab personnel to SARS-CoV-2 and potential adverse consequences of sick personnel being unable to provide patient care in the subsequent weeks and months, Dr. Bhatt observed.

However, “All of that seems to have quieted down, and I don’t think COVID is impacting time to treatment right now.”
 

‘Suboptimal compliance’ with standards

The current findings of “suboptimal compliance with national targets underscore why reassessing quality metrics, in light of changing practice patterns and other secular trends, is critical,” write Andrew S. Oseran, MD, MBA, and Robert W. Yeh, MD, both of Harvard Medical School, in an accompanying editorial.

“While the importance of coordinated and expeditious care for this high-risk patient population is undeniable, the specific actions that hospitals can – or should – take to further improve overall STEMI outcomes are less clear,” they say.

“As physicians contemplate the optimal path forward in managing the care of STEMI patients, they must recognize the clinical and operational nuance that exists in caring for this diverse population and acknowledge the trade-offs associated with uniform quality metrics,” write the editorialists.

“Global reductions in time to treatment for STEMI patients has been one of health care’s great success stories. As we move forward, it may be time to consider whether efforts to achieve additional improvement in target treatment times will result in substantive benefits, or whether we have reached the point of diminishing returns.”

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

Therapy initiated within national treatment-time goals set a decade ago for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains associated with improved survival in recent years. But for many such patients, time from first symptoms to initiation of reperfusion therapy still fails to meet those goals, suggests a cross-sectional registry analysis.

For example, patients initially transported to centers with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability had a median treatment time of 148 minutes, in the analysis spanning the second quarter (Q2) of 2018 to the third quarter (Q3) of 2021. But the goal for centers called for treatment initiation within 90 minutes for at least 75% of such STEMI patients.

Moreover, overall STEMI treatment times and in-hospital mortality rose in tandem significantly from Q2 2018 through the first quarter (Q1) of 2021, which included the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Median time to treatment went from 86 minutes to 91 minutes during that period. Meanwhile, in-hospital mortality went from 5.6% to 8.7%, report the study authors led by James G. Jollis, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Their report, based on 114,871 STEMI patients at 601 US hospitals contributing to the Get With The Guidelines – Coronary Artery Disease registry, was published online in JAMA.

Of those patients, 25,085 had been transferred from non-PCI hospitals, 32,483 were walk-ins, and 57,303 arrived via emergency medical services (EMS). Their median times from symptom onset to PCI were 240, 195, and 148 minutes, respectively.

In-hospital mortality was significantly reduced in an adjusted analysis for patients treated within target times, compared with those whose treatment missed the time goals, regardless of whether they were transported by EMS, walked into a hospital with on-site PCI, or were transferred from a non-PCI center (Table 1).

Still an important quality metric

STEMI treatment times remain an important quality metric to which hospitals should continue to pay attention because shorter times improve patient care, Deepak Bhatt, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“Having said that, as with all metrics, one needs to be thoughtful and realize that a difference of a couple of minutes is probably not a crucial thing,” said Dr. Bhatt, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the current study.

Interhospital transfers indeed involve longer delays, he observed, suggesting that regional integrated health systems should develop methods for optimizing STEMI care – even, for example, if they involve bypassing non-PCI centers or stopping patients briefly for stabilization followed by rapid transport to a PCI-capable facility.

“That, of course, requires cooperation among hospitals. Sometimes that requires hospitals putting aside economic considerations and just focusing on doing the right thing for that individual patient,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Transfer delays are common for patients presenting with STEMI at hospitals without PCI capability, he noted. “Having clear protocols in place that expedite that type of transfer, I think, could go a long way in reducing the time to treatment in patients that are presenting to the hospital without cath labs. That’s an important message that these data provide.”

The onset of COVID-19 led to widespread delays in STEMI time to treatment early in the pandemic. There were concerns about exposing cath lab personnel to SARS-CoV-2 and potential adverse consequences of sick personnel being unable to provide patient care in the subsequent weeks and months, Dr. Bhatt observed.

However, “All of that seems to have quieted down, and I don’t think COVID is impacting time to treatment right now.”
 

‘Suboptimal compliance’ with standards

The current findings of “suboptimal compliance with national targets underscore why reassessing quality metrics, in light of changing practice patterns and other secular trends, is critical,” write Andrew S. Oseran, MD, MBA, and Robert W. Yeh, MD, both of Harvard Medical School, in an accompanying editorial.

“While the importance of coordinated and expeditious care for this high-risk patient population is undeniable, the specific actions that hospitals can – or should – take to further improve overall STEMI outcomes are less clear,” they say.

“As physicians contemplate the optimal path forward in managing the care of STEMI patients, they must recognize the clinical and operational nuance that exists in caring for this diverse population and acknowledge the trade-offs associated with uniform quality metrics,” write the editorialists.

“Global reductions in time to treatment for STEMI patients has been one of health care’s great success stories. As we move forward, it may be time to consider whether efforts to achieve additional improvement in target treatment times will result in substantive benefits, or whether we have reached the point of diminishing returns.”

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

Therapy initiated within national treatment-time goals set a decade ago for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains associated with improved survival in recent years. But for many such patients, time from first symptoms to initiation of reperfusion therapy still fails to meet those goals, suggests a cross-sectional registry analysis.

For example, patients initially transported to centers with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability had a median treatment time of 148 minutes, in the analysis spanning the second quarter (Q2) of 2018 to the third quarter (Q3) of 2021. But the goal for centers called for treatment initiation within 90 minutes for at least 75% of such STEMI patients.

Moreover, overall STEMI treatment times and in-hospital mortality rose in tandem significantly from Q2 2018 through the first quarter (Q1) of 2021, which included the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Median time to treatment went from 86 minutes to 91 minutes during that period. Meanwhile, in-hospital mortality went from 5.6% to 8.7%, report the study authors led by James G. Jollis, MD, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Their report, based on 114,871 STEMI patients at 601 US hospitals contributing to the Get With The Guidelines – Coronary Artery Disease registry, was published online in JAMA.

Of those patients, 25,085 had been transferred from non-PCI hospitals, 32,483 were walk-ins, and 57,303 arrived via emergency medical services (EMS). Their median times from symptom onset to PCI were 240, 195, and 148 minutes, respectively.

In-hospital mortality was significantly reduced in an adjusted analysis for patients treated within target times, compared with those whose treatment missed the time goals, regardless of whether they were transported by EMS, walked into a hospital with on-site PCI, or were transferred from a non-PCI center (Table 1).

Still an important quality metric

STEMI treatment times remain an important quality metric to which hospitals should continue to pay attention because shorter times improve patient care, Deepak Bhatt, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“Having said that, as with all metrics, one needs to be thoughtful and realize that a difference of a couple of minutes is probably not a crucial thing,” said Dr. Bhatt, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, who was not involved with the current study.

Interhospital transfers indeed involve longer delays, he observed, suggesting that regional integrated health systems should develop methods for optimizing STEMI care – even, for example, if they involve bypassing non-PCI centers or stopping patients briefly for stabilization followed by rapid transport to a PCI-capable facility.

“That, of course, requires cooperation among hospitals. Sometimes that requires hospitals putting aside economic considerations and just focusing on doing the right thing for that individual patient,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Transfer delays are common for patients presenting with STEMI at hospitals without PCI capability, he noted. “Having clear protocols in place that expedite that type of transfer, I think, could go a long way in reducing the time to treatment in patients that are presenting to the hospital without cath labs. That’s an important message that these data provide.”

The onset of COVID-19 led to widespread delays in STEMI time to treatment early in the pandemic. There were concerns about exposing cath lab personnel to SARS-CoV-2 and potential adverse consequences of sick personnel being unable to provide patient care in the subsequent weeks and months, Dr. Bhatt observed.

However, “All of that seems to have quieted down, and I don’t think COVID is impacting time to treatment right now.”
 

‘Suboptimal compliance’ with standards

The current findings of “suboptimal compliance with national targets underscore why reassessing quality metrics, in light of changing practice patterns and other secular trends, is critical,” write Andrew S. Oseran, MD, MBA, and Robert W. Yeh, MD, both of Harvard Medical School, in an accompanying editorial.

“While the importance of coordinated and expeditious care for this high-risk patient population is undeniable, the specific actions that hospitals can – or should – take to further improve overall STEMI outcomes are less clear,” they say.

“As physicians contemplate the optimal path forward in managing the care of STEMI patients, they must recognize the clinical and operational nuance that exists in caring for this diverse population and acknowledge the trade-offs associated with uniform quality metrics,” write the editorialists.

“Global reductions in time to treatment for STEMI patients has been one of health care’s great success stories. As we move forward, it may be time to consider whether efforts to achieve additional improvement in target treatment times will result in substantive benefits, or whether we have reached the point of diminishing returns.”

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

Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.

“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”

The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.

The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.

Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).

But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.

“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.

A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.

“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.

“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.

“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.

No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.

“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”

The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.

The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.

Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).

But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.

“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.

A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.

“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.

“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.

“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.

No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leading cardiology societies have issued a “call for action” on a global scale to reinvent randomized clinical trials fit for the 21st century.

“Randomized trials are an essential tool for reliably assessing the effects of treatments, but they have become too costly and too burdensome,” first author Louise Bowman, University of Oxford, England, told this news organization. “We urgently need to modernize our approach to clinical trials in order to continue to improve patient care.”

The joint opinion is from the European Society of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the World Heart Federation. It was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal, Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and Global Heart.

The authors note that the availability of large-scale “real-world” data is increasingly being touted as a way to bypass the challenges of conducting randomized trials. Yet, observational analyses of real-world data “are not a suitable alternative to randomization,” Prof. Bowman said.

Cardiology has historically led the way in transforming clinical practice with groundbreaking “mega-trials,” such as the International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS), Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto (GISSI), and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO).

But over the past 25 years, there has been a huge increase in the rules and related bureaucracy governing clinical trials, which hinders the ability to conduct trials swiftly and affordably, the authors point out.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that important clinical trials can be performed quickly and efficiently in busy hospitals, they note.

“The RECOVERY trial in COVID-19 has been an excellent example of this, with results that are estimated to have saved around 1 million lives worldwide within just 1 year,” Prof. Bowman told this news organization.

A Good Clinical Trials Collaborative made up of key stakeholders recently developed new guidelines designed to promote better, more efficient randomized controlled trials.

“If widely adopted and used alongside valuable 21st century electronic health records, we could transform the clinical trials landscape and do many more high-quality trials very cost-effectively,” Prof. Bowman said.

“Widespread adoption and implementation of the revised guidelines will require collaboration with a wide range of national and international organizations, including patient, professional, academic, and industry groups, funders and government organizations, and ethics, health policy, and regulatory bodies,” Prof. Bowman acknowledged.

“This is work that the Good Clinical Trials Collaborative is leading. It is hoped that this endorsement by the joint cardiovascular societies will increase awareness and provide valuable support to his important work,” she added.

No commercial funding was received. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

The chance of surviving a cardiac arrest varies widely across hospitals in the United States, even when the arrest occurs in the highly controlled setting of a cardiac catheterization lab, a new study indicates.

Among 4,787 patients who arrested in the cath lab at 231 hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) Resuscitation registry, only about one-third survived to discharge. The median risk-adjusted survival rate (RASR) for all hospitals was 36%.

When stratified by RASR tertiles, however, median survival rates were 20%, 36%, and 52% for hospitals in the lowest, middle, and highest tertiles.

The odds of survival differed by 71% in similar patients presenting at two randomly selected hospitals (median odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.87).

“The good news is that cardiac arrests in the cath lab are relatively infrequent, but the bad news is that they still occur and the outcomes are, in general, pretty dismal,” senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “So anything that we can do as hospitals [and] health care systems to improve the care of these patients could go a long way.”

Hospital and patient factors

Possible explanations for the wide disparity in survival are the small number of cardiac arrests in the cath lab, the increasing complexity of cases, and the fact that patients are often very sick and may experience a problem during a procedure, or both, Dr. Bhatt suggested. Cath labs also vary in how they handle resuscitative efforts and access to advanced mechanical support devices, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“It’s not available in every cath lab and, even in hospitals that have it, they may not have a given ECMO circuit available at the exact time the patient’s having a cardiac arrest,” he said. “That’s one example of something that can make, in my opinion, a big difference in whether a patient lives or dies if they’re having a cardiac arrest but may not always be easily deployed.”

When the investigators looked specifically at hospital-level factors, only yearly volume of cardiac arrests in the cath lab was significantly associated with risk-adjusted survival (P < .01), whereas hospital size, rural or urban setting, teaching status, and geographic location were not.

In multivariate adjusted analyses, factors associated with survival to discharge included age (OR, 0.78), Black race (OR, 0.68), respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.75), and initial cardiac arrest rhythm (OR, 3.32).

The median hospital RASR was 27% higher for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation arrests than for arrests with a nonshockable rhythm of asystole and pulseless electrical activity (55% vs. 28%).

Notably, hospitals in the lowest tertile of risk-adjusted survival rates had a higher prevalence of non-White patients, renal and respiratory comorbidity, and arrest with nonshockable rhythm.

“We want to make sure as we’re contemplating whether to resuscitate a patient or how aggressively to resuscitate, that we aren’t letting any of our own biases, whether they have to do with race or potentially sex and gender, interfere with more objective assessments of whether the patient can in fact be saved or not,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Reached for comment, Srihari S. Naidu, MD, who chaired the writing group for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions’ (SCAI) consensus statement on cardiogenic shock and co-authored its document on best practices in the cardiac cath lab, said the findings show that survival in the cath lab is higher than that seen in-hospital. “Still, there’s a lot of room for improvement,” he said.

He was particularly struck by the variability in survival. “Underprivileged individuals, so those who are non-White populations and have respiratory and renal problems, they seem to have a worse survival and that makes sense – patients with comorbidities – but it feeds into the issue of, ‘Are we treating our population similarly in terms of their baseline race and ethnicity as a gap in care?’ ”

Better survival at hospitals with high volumes likely reflects more experience in handling these events, a rapid response and personnel to help with resuscitation, and overall better critical care and cath lab environment, said Dr. Naidu, director of the cardiac cath lab at Westchester Medical Center and professor of medicine at New York Medical College, both in Valhalla, N.Y.

“So that leads into two things,” he said. “One is that probably we should be working on having all high-risk patients go to centers of excellence. So, for example, [for] patients in shock, patients with STEMI, regionalization of care to the high-volume cath labs that are experienced in cardiac arrest and critical care management may be a way to go.”

“Second, if experience counts, can that experience be simulated through drills and simulations in the cath lab?” Dr. Naidu said. “Should all cath labs have drills where we have a cardiac arrest patient, and how would we respond to that? Who’s going to do the compressions? Where’s the mechanical support device? What are the things we need to have a seamless cardiac arrest protocol for arrests during the cath lab?”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues acknowledge that despite adjustment for many key variables, the study lacked procedural details that may affect survival and information related to resuscitation efforts.

“We really do need to focus more research efforts, potentially more in the way of quality-improvement efforts, to try and help patients get these sorts of patients who are in dire straits to the cath lab but hopefully also through the hospital discharge and back home,” Dr. Bhatt said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Matthew L. Tomey, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, writes that the “findings and limitations of this study together sound a call to action.”

He also signaled the need for more research and for registries and reporting instruments to capture variables particular to in-laboratory cardiac arrest and resuscitation in the cardiac cath lab. “A necessary first step is the development of consensus data elements for supplemental reporting in cases of ILCA,” such as indication for cath lab presentation, timing of arrest relative to procedure, and cause of arrest.

Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Naidu and Dr. Tomey report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The chance of surviving a cardiac arrest varies widely across hospitals in the United States, even when the arrest occurs in the highly controlled setting of a cardiac catheterization lab, a new study indicates.

Among 4,787 patients who arrested in the cath lab at 231 hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) Resuscitation registry, only about one-third survived to discharge. The median risk-adjusted survival rate (RASR) for all hospitals was 36%.

When stratified by RASR tertiles, however, median survival rates were 20%, 36%, and 52% for hospitals in the lowest, middle, and highest tertiles.

The odds of survival differed by 71% in similar patients presenting at two randomly selected hospitals (median odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.87).

“The good news is that cardiac arrests in the cath lab are relatively infrequent, but the bad news is that they still occur and the outcomes are, in general, pretty dismal,” senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “So anything that we can do as hospitals [and] health care systems to improve the care of these patients could go a long way.”

Hospital and patient factors

Possible explanations for the wide disparity in survival are the small number of cardiac arrests in the cath lab, the increasing complexity of cases, and the fact that patients are often very sick and may experience a problem during a procedure, or both, Dr. Bhatt suggested. Cath labs also vary in how they handle resuscitative efforts and access to advanced mechanical support devices, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“It’s not available in every cath lab and, even in hospitals that have it, they may not have a given ECMO circuit available at the exact time the patient’s having a cardiac arrest,” he said. “That’s one example of something that can make, in my opinion, a big difference in whether a patient lives or dies if they’re having a cardiac arrest but may not always be easily deployed.”

When the investigators looked specifically at hospital-level factors, only yearly volume of cardiac arrests in the cath lab was significantly associated with risk-adjusted survival (P < .01), whereas hospital size, rural or urban setting, teaching status, and geographic location were not.

In multivariate adjusted analyses, factors associated with survival to discharge included age (OR, 0.78), Black race (OR, 0.68), respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.75), and initial cardiac arrest rhythm (OR, 3.32).

The median hospital RASR was 27% higher for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation arrests than for arrests with a nonshockable rhythm of asystole and pulseless electrical activity (55% vs. 28%).

Notably, hospitals in the lowest tertile of risk-adjusted survival rates had a higher prevalence of non-White patients, renal and respiratory comorbidity, and arrest with nonshockable rhythm.

“We want to make sure as we’re contemplating whether to resuscitate a patient or how aggressively to resuscitate, that we aren’t letting any of our own biases, whether they have to do with race or potentially sex and gender, interfere with more objective assessments of whether the patient can in fact be saved or not,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Reached for comment, Srihari S. Naidu, MD, who chaired the writing group for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions’ (SCAI) consensus statement on cardiogenic shock and co-authored its document on best practices in the cardiac cath lab, said the findings show that survival in the cath lab is higher than that seen in-hospital. “Still, there’s a lot of room for improvement,” he said.

He was particularly struck by the variability in survival. “Underprivileged individuals, so those who are non-White populations and have respiratory and renal problems, they seem to have a worse survival and that makes sense – patients with comorbidities – but it feeds into the issue of, ‘Are we treating our population similarly in terms of their baseline race and ethnicity as a gap in care?’ ”

Better survival at hospitals with high volumes likely reflects more experience in handling these events, a rapid response and personnel to help with resuscitation, and overall better critical care and cath lab environment, said Dr. Naidu, director of the cardiac cath lab at Westchester Medical Center and professor of medicine at New York Medical College, both in Valhalla, N.Y.

“So that leads into two things,” he said. “One is that probably we should be working on having all high-risk patients go to centers of excellence. So, for example, [for] patients in shock, patients with STEMI, regionalization of care to the high-volume cath labs that are experienced in cardiac arrest and critical care management may be a way to go.”

“Second, if experience counts, can that experience be simulated through drills and simulations in the cath lab?” Dr. Naidu said. “Should all cath labs have drills where we have a cardiac arrest patient, and how would we respond to that? Who’s going to do the compressions? Where’s the mechanical support device? What are the things we need to have a seamless cardiac arrest protocol for arrests during the cath lab?”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues acknowledge that despite adjustment for many key variables, the study lacked procedural details that may affect survival and information related to resuscitation efforts.

“We really do need to focus more research efforts, potentially more in the way of quality-improvement efforts, to try and help patients get these sorts of patients who are in dire straits to the cath lab but hopefully also through the hospital discharge and back home,” Dr. Bhatt said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Matthew L. Tomey, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, writes that the “findings and limitations of this study together sound a call to action.”

He also signaled the need for more research and for registries and reporting instruments to capture variables particular to in-laboratory cardiac arrest and resuscitation in the cardiac cath lab. “A necessary first step is the development of consensus data elements for supplemental reporting in cases of ILCA,” such as indication for cath lab presentation, timing of arrest relative to procedure, and cause of arrest.

Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Naidu and Dr. Tomey report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

The chance of surviving a cardiac arrest varies widely across hospitals in the United States, even when the arrest occurs in the highly controlled setting of a cardiac catheterization lab, a new study indicates.

Among 4,787 patients who arrested in the cath lab at 231 hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) Resuscitation registry, only about one-third survived to discharge. The median risk-adjusted survival rate (RASR) for all hospitals was 36%.

When stratified by RASR tertiles, however, median survival rates were 20%, 36%, and 52% for hospitals in the lowest, middle, and highest tertiles.

The odds of survival differed by 71% in similar patients presenting at two randomly selected hospitals (median odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-1.87).

“The good news is that cardiac arrests in the cath lab are relatively infrequent, but the bad news is that they still occur and the outcomes are, in general, pretty dismal,” senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “So anything that we can do as hospitals [and] health care systems to improve the care of these patients could go a long way.”

Hospital and patient factors

Possible explanations for the wide disparity in survival are the small number of cardiac arrests in the cath lab, the increasing complexity of cases, and the fact that patients are often very sick and may experience a problem during a procedure, or both, Dr. Bhatt suggested. Cath labs also vary in how they handle resuscitative efforts and access to advanced mechanical support devices, such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

“It’s not available in every cath lab and, even in hospitals that have it, they may not have a given ECMO circuit available at the exact time the patient’s having a cardiac arrest,” he said. “That’s one example of something that can make, in my opinion, a big difference in whether a patient lives or dies if they’re having a cardiac arrest but may not always be easily deployed.”

When the investigators looked specifically at hospital-level factors, only yearly volume of cardiac arrests in the cath lab was significantly associated with risk-adjusted survival (P < .01), whereas hospital size, rural or urban setting, teaching status, and geographic location were not.

In multivariate adjusted analyses, factors associated with survival to discharge included age (OR, 0.78), Black race (OR, 0.68), respiratory insufficiency (OR, 0.75), and initial cardiac arrest rhythm (OR, 3.32).

The median hospital RASR was 27% higher for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation arrests than for arrests with a nonshockable rhythm of asystole and pulseless electrical activity (55% vs. 28%).

Notably, hospitals in the lowest tertile of risk-adjusted survival rates had a higher prevalence of non-White patients, renal and respiratory comorbidity, and arrest with nonshockable rhythm.

“We want to make sure as we’re contemplating whether to resuscitate a patient or how aggressively to resuscitate, that we aren’t letting any of our own biases, whether they have to do with race or potentially sex and gender, interfere with more objective assessments of whether the patient can in fact be saved or not,” Dr. Bhatt said.

Reached for comment, Srihari S. Naidu, MD, who chaired the writing group for the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions’ (SCAI) consensus statement on cardiogenic shock and co-authored its document on best practices in the cardiac cath lab, said the findings show that survival in the cath lab is higher than that seen in-hospital. “Still, there’s a lot of room for improvement,” he said.

He was particularly struck by the variability in survival. “Underprivileged individuals, so those who are non-White populations and have respiratory and renal problems, they seem to have a worse survival and that makes sense – patients with comorbidities – but it feeds into the issue of, ‘Are we treating our population similarly in terms of their baseline race and ethnicity as a gap in care?’ ”

Better survival at hospitals with high volumes likely reflects more experience in handling these events, a rapid response and personnel to help with resuscitation, and overall better critical care and cath lab environment, said Dr. Naidu, director of the cardiac cath lab at Westchester Medical Center and professor of medicine at New York Medical College, both in Valhalla, N.Y.

“So that leads into two things,” he said. “One is that probably we should be working on having all high-risk patients go to centers of excellence. So, for example, [for] patients in shock, patients with STEMI, regionalization of care to the high-volume cath labs that are experienced in cardiac arrest and critical care management may be a way to go.”

“Second, if experience counts, can that experience be simulated through drills and simulations in the cath lab?” Dr. Naidu said. “Should all cath labs have drills where we have a cardiac arrest patient, and how would we respond to that? Who’s going to do the compressions? Where’s the mechanical support device? What are the things we need to have a seamless cardiac arrest protocol for arrests during the cath lab?”

Dr. Bhatt and colleagues acknowledge that despite adjustment for many key variables, the study lacked procedural details that may affect survival and information related to resuscitation efforts.

“We really do need to focus more research efforts, potentially more in the way of quality-improvement efforts, to try and help patients get these sorts of patients who are in dire straits to the cath lab but hopefully also through the hospital discharge and back home,” Dr. Bhatt said.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Matthew L. Tomey, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, writes that the “findings and limitations of this study together sound a call to action.”

He also signaled the need for more research and for registries and reporting instruments to capture variables particular to in-laboratory cardiac arrest and resuscitation in the cardiac cath lab. “A necessary first step is the development of consensus data elements for supplemental reporting in cases of ILCA,” such as indication for cath lab presentation, timing of arrest relative to procedure, and cause of arrest.

Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry. Dr. Naidu and Dr. Tomey report having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dispatching trained volunteer responders via smartphones to retrieve automated external defibrillators for patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) did not significantly increase bystander AED use in a randomized clinical trial in Sweden.

Most patients in OHCA can be saved if cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation are initiated within minutes, but despite the “substantial” public availability of AEDs and widespread CPR training among the Swedish public, use rates of both are low, Mattias Ringh, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues wrote.

A previous study by the team showed that dispatching volunteer responders via a smartphone app significantly increased bystander CPR. The current study, called the Swedish AED and Mobile Bystander Activation (SAMBA) trial, aimed to see whether dispatching volunteer responders to collect a nearby AED would increase bystander AED use. A control group of volunteer responders was instructed to go straight to the scene and start CPR.

“The results showed that the volunteer responders were first to provide treatment with both CPR and AEDs in a large proportion of cases in both groups, thereby creating a ‘statistical’ dilutional effect,” Dr. Ringh said in an interview. In effect, the control arm also became an active arm.

“But if we agree that treatment with AEDs and CPR is saving lives, then dispatching volunteer responders is doing just that, although we could not fully measure the effect in our study,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

No significant differences

The SAMBA trial assessed outcomes of the smartphone dispatch system (Heartrunner), which is triggered at emergency dispatch centers in response to suspected OHCAs at the same time that an ambulance with advanced life support equipment is dispatched.

The volunteer responder system locates a maximum of 30 volunteer responders within a 1.3-km radius from the suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the researchers explained in their report. Volunteer responders are requested via their smartphone application to accept or decline the alert. If they accept an alert, the volunteer responders receive map-aided route directions to the location of the suspected arrest.

In patients allocated to intervention in this study, four of five of all volunteer responders who accepted the alert received instructions to collect the nearest available AED and then go directly to the patient with suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the authors noted. Route directions to the scene of the cardiac arrest and the AED were displayed on their smartphones. One of the 5 volunteer responders, closest to the arrest, was dispatched to go directly to initiate CPR.

In patients allocated to the control group, all volunteer responders who accepted the alert were instructed to go directly to the patient with suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to perform CPR. No route directions to or locations of AEDs were displayed.

The study was conducted in Stockholm and in Västra Götaland from 2018 to 2020. At the start of the study, there were 3,123 AEDs and 24,493 volunteer responders in Stockholm and 3,195 AEDs and 19,117 volunteer responders in Västra Götaland.

Post-randomization exclusions included patients without OHCA, those with OHCAs not treated by emergency medical services, and those with OHCAs witnessed by EMS.

The primary outcome was overall bystander AED attachment before the arrival of EMS, including those attached by the volunteer responders but also by lay volunteers who did not use the smartphone app.

Volunteer responders were activated for 947 individuals with OHCA; 461 patients were randomized to the intervention group and 486 to the control group. In both groups, the patients’ median age was 73 and about 65% were men.

Attachment of the AED before the arrival of EMS or first responders occurred in 61 patients (13.2%) in the intervention group versus 46 (9.5%) in the control group (P = .08). However, the majority of all AEDs were attached by lay volunteers who were not volunteer responders using the smartphone app (37 in the intervention arm vs. 28 in the control arm), the researchers noted.

No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes, which included bystander CPR (69% vs. 71.6%, respectively) and defibrillation before EMS arrival (3.7% vs. 3.9%) between groups.

Among the volunteer responders using the app, crossover was 11% and compliance to instructions was 31%. Overall, volunteer responders attached 38% of all bystander-attached AEDs and provided 45% of all bystander defibrillations and 43% of all bystander CPR.

Going forward, Dr. Ringh and colleagues will be further analyzing the results to understand how to better optimize the logistical challenges involved with smartphone dispatch to OHCA patients. “In the longer term, investigating the impact on survival is also warranted,” he concluded.
 

U.S. in worse shape

In a comment, Christopher Calandrella, DO, chair of emergency medicine at Long Island Jewish Forest Hills,, New York, part of Northwell Health, said: “Significant data are available to support the importance of prompt initiation of CPR and defibrillation for OHCA, and although this study did not demonstrate a meaningful increase in use of AEDs with the trial system, layperson CPR was initiated in approximately 70% of cases in the cohort as a whole. Because of this, I believe it is evident that patients still benefit from a system that encourages bystanders to provide aid prior to the arrival of EMS.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “despite the training of volunteers in applying an AED, overall, only a small percentage of patients in either group had placement and use of the device. While the reasons likely are multifactorial, it may be in part due to the significant stress and anxiety associated with OHCA.”

Additional research would be helpful, he said. “Future studies focusing on more rural areas with lower population density and limited availability of AEDs may be beneficial. Expanding the research outside of Europe to other countries would be useful. Next-phase trials looking at 30-day survival in these patients would also be important.”

Currently in the United States, research is underway to evaluate the use of smartphones to improve in-hospital cardiac arrests, he added, “but no nationwide programs are in place for OHCA.”

Similarly, Kevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD, and Benjamin S. Abella, MD, MPhil, both of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in a related editorial: “It is sobering to recognize that, in the U.S., it may be nearly impossible to even test an idea like this, given the lack of a supporting data infrastructure.”

Although there is an app in the United States to link OHCA events to bystander response, they noted, less than half of eligible 911 centers have linked to it.

“Furthermore, the bystander CPR rate in the U.S. is less than 35%, only about half of the Swedish rate, indicating far fewer people are trained in CPR and comfortable performing it in the U.S.,” they wrote. “A wealthy country like the U.S. should be able to develop a far more effective approach to preventing millions of ... families from having a loved one die of OHCA in the decade to come.”

The study was funded by unrestricted grant from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and Stockholm County. The authors, editorialists, and Dr. Calandrella disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dispatching trained volunteer responders via smartphones to retrieve automated external defibrillators for patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) did not significantly increase bystander AED use in a randomized clinical trial in Sweden.

Most patients in OHCA can be saved if cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation are initiated within minutes, but despite the “substantial” public availability of AEDs and widespread CPR training among the Swedish public, use rates of both are low, Mattias Ringh, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues wrote.

A previous study by the team showed that dispatching volunteer responders via a smartphone app significantly increased bystander CPR. The current study, called the Swedish AED and Mobile Bystander Activation (SAMBA) trial, aimed to see whether dispatching volunteer responders to collect a nearby AED would increase bystander AED use. A control group of volunteer responders was instructed to go straight to the scene and start CPR.

“The results showed that the volunteer responders were first to provide treatment with both CPR and AEDs in a large proportion of cases in both groups, thereby creating a ‘statistical’ dilutional effect,” Dr. Ringh said in an interview. In effect, the control arm also became an active arm.

“But if we agree that treatment with AEDs and CPR is saving lives, then dispatching volunteer responders is doing just that, although we could not fully measure the effect in our study,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

No significant differences

The SAMBA trial assessed outcomes of the smartphone dispatch system (Heartrunner), which is triggered at emergency dispatch centers in response to suspected OHCAs at the same time that an ambulance with advanced life support equipment is dispatched.

The volunteer responder system locates a maximum of 30 volunteer responders within a 1.3-km radius from the suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the researchers explained in their report. Volunteer responders are requested via their smartphone application to accept or decline the alert. If they accept an alert, the volunteer responders receive map-aided route directions to the location of the suspected arrest.

In patients allocated to intervention in this study, four of five of all volunteer responders who accepted the alert received instructions to collect the nearest available AED and then go directly to the patient with suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the authors noted. Route directions to the scene of the cardiac arrest and the AED were displayed on their smartphones. One of the 5 volunteer responders, closest to the arrest, was dispatched to go directly to initiate CPR.

In patients allocated to the control group, all volunteer responders who accepted the alert were instructed to go directly to the patient with suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to perform CPR. No route directions to or locations of AEDs were displayed.

The study was conducted in Stockholm and in Västra Götaland from 2018 to 2020. At the start of the study, there were 3,123 AEDs and 24,493 volunteer responders in Stockholm and 3,195 AEDs and 19,117 volunteer responders in Västra Götaland.

Post-randomization exclusions included patients without OHCA, those with OHCAs not treated by emergency medical services, and those with OHCAs witnessed by EMS.

The primary outcome was overall bystander AED attachment before the arrival of EMS, including those attached by the volunteer responders but also by lay volunteers who did not use the smartphone app.

Volunteer responders were activated for 947 individuals with OHCA; 461 patients were randomized to the intervention group and 486 to the control group. In both groups, the patients’ median age was 73 and about 65% were men.

Attachment of the AED before the arrival of EMS or first responders occurred in 61 patients (13.2%) in the intervention group versus 46 (9.5%) in the control group (P = .08). However, the majority of all AEDs were attached by lay volunteers who were not volunteer responders using the smartphone app (37 in the intervention arm vs. 28 in the control arm), the researchers noted.

No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes, which included bystander CPR (69% vs. 71.6%, respectively) and defibrillation before EMS arrival (3.7% vs. 3.9%) between groups.

Among the volunteer responders using the app, crossover was 11% and compliance to instructions was 31%. Overall, volunteer responders attached 38% of all bystander-attached AEDs and provided 45% of all bystander defibrillations and 43% of all bystander CPR.

Going forward, Dr. Ringh and colleagues will be further analyzing the results to understand how to better optimize the logistical challenges involved with smartphone dispatch to OHCA patients. “In the longer term, investigating the impact on survival is also warranted,” he concluded.
 

U.S. in worse shape

In a comment, Christopher Calandrella, DO, chair of emergency medicine at Long Island Jewish Forest Hills,, New York, part of Northwell Health, said: “Significant data are available to support the importance of prompt initiation of CPR and defibrillation for OHCA, and although this study did not demonstrate a meaningful increase in use of AEDs with the trial system, layperson CPR was initiated in approximately 70% of cases in the cohort as a whole. Because of this, I believe it is evident that patients still benefit from a system that encourages bystanders to provide aid prior to the arrival of EMS.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “despite the training of volunteers in applying an AED, overall, only a small percentage of patients in either group had placement and use of the device. While the reasons likely are multifactorial, it may be in part due to the significant stress and anxiety associated with OHCA.”

Additional research would be helpful, he said. “Future studies focusing on more rural areas with lower population density and limited availability of AEDs may be beneficial. Expanding the research outside of Europe to other countries would be useful. Next-phase trials looking at 30-day survival in these patients would also be important.”

Currently in the United States, research is underway to evaluate the use of smartphones to improve in-hospital cardiac arrests, he added, “but no nationwide programs are in place for OHCA.”

Similarly, Kevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD, and Benjamin S. Abella, MD, MPhil, both of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in a related editorial: “It is sobering to recognize that, in the U.S., it may be nearly impossible to even test an idea like this, given the lack of a supporting data infrastructure.”

Although there is an app in the United States to link OHCA events to bystander response, they noted, less than half of eligible 911 centers have linked to it.

“Furthermore, the bystander CPR rate in the U.S. is less than 35%, only about half of the Swedish rate, indicating far fewer people are trained in CPR and comfortable performing it in the U.S.,” they wrote. “A wealthy country like the U.S. should be able to develop a far more effective approach to preventing millions of ... families from having a loved one die of OHCA in the decade to come.”

The study was funded by unrestricted grant from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and Stockholm County. The authors, editorialists, and Dr. Calandrella disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dispatching trained volunteer responders via smartphones to retrieve automated external defibrillators for patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) did not significantly increase bystander AED use in a randomized clinical trial in Sweden.

Most patients in OHCA can be saved if cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation are initiated within minutes, but despite the “substantial” public availability of AEDs and widespread CPR training among the Swedish public, use rates of both are low, Mattias Ringh, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, and colleagues wrote.

A previous study by the team showed that dispatching volunteer responders via a smartphone app significantly increased bystander CPR. The current study, called the Swedish AED and Mobile Bystander Activation (SAMBA) trial, aimed to see whether dispatching volunteer responders to collect a nearby AED would increase bystander AED use. A control group of volunteer responders was instructed to go straight to the scene and start CPR.

“The results showed that the volunteer responders were first to provide treatment with both CPR and AEDs in a large proportion of cases in both groups, thereby creating a ‘statistical’ dilutional effect,” Dr. Ringh said in an interview. In effect, the control arm also became an active arm.

“But if we agree that treatment with AEDs and CPR is saving lives, then dispatching volunteer responders is doing just that, although we could not fully measure the effect in our study,” he added.

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

No significant differences

The SAMBA trial assessed outcomes of the smartphone dispatch system (Heartrunner), which is triggered at emergency dispatch centers in response to suspected OHCAs at the same time that an ambulance with advanced life support equipment is dispatched.

The volunteer responder system locates a maximum of 30 volunteer responders within a 1.3-km radius from the suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the researchers explained in their report. Volunteer responders are requested via their smartphone application to accept or decline the alert. If they accept an alert, the volunteer responders receive map-aided route directions to the location of the suspected arrest.

In patients allocated to intervention in this study, four of five of all volunteer responders who accepted the alert received instructions to collect the nearest available AED and then go directly to the patient with suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the authors noted. Route directions to the scene of the cardiac arrest and the AED were displayed on their smartphones. One of the 5 volunteer responders, closest to the arrest, was dispatched to go directly to initiate CPR.

In patients allocated to the control group, all volunteer responders who accepted the alert were instructed to go directly to the patient with suspected out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to perform CPR. No route directions to or locations of AEDs were displayed.

The study was conducted in Stockholm and in Västra Götaland from 2018 to 2020. At the start of the study, there were 3,123 AEDs and 24,493 volunteer responders in Stockholm and 3,195 AEDs and 19,117 volunteer responders in Västra Götaland.

Post-randomization exclusions included patients without OHCA, those with OHCAs not treated by emergency medical services, and those with OHCAs witnessed by EMS.

The primary outcome was overall bystander AED attachment before the arrival of EMS, including those attached by the volunteer responders but also by lay volunteers who did not use the smartphone app.

Volunteer responders were activated for 947 individuals with OHCA; 461 patients were randomized to the intervention group and 486 to the control group. In both groups, the patients’ median age was 73 and about 65% were men.

Attachment of the AED before the arrival of EMS or first responders occurred in 61 patients (13.2%) in the intervention group versus 46 (9.5%) in the control group (P = .08). However, the majority of all AEDs were attached by lay volunteers who were not volunteer responders using the smartphone app (37 in the intervention arm vs. 28 in the control arm), the researchers noted.

No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes, which included bystander CPR (69% vs. 71.6%, respectively) and defibrillation before EMS arrival (3.7% vs. 3.9%) between groups.

Among the volunteer responders using the app, crossover was 11% and compliance to instructions was 31%. Overall, volunteer responders attached 38% of all bystander-attached AEDs and provided 45% of all bystander defibrillations and 43% of all bystander CPR.

Going forward, Dr. Ringh and colleagues will be further analyzing the results to understand how to better optimize the logistical challenges involved with smartphone dispatch to OHCA patients. “In the longer term, investigating the impact on survival is also warranted,” he concluded.
 

U.S. in worse shape

In a comment, Christopher Calandrella, DO, chair of emergency medicine at Long Island Jewish Forest Hills,, New York, part of Northwell Health, said: “Significant data are available to support the importance of prompt initiation of CPR and defibrillation for OHCA, and although this study did not demonstrate a meaningful increase in use of AEDs with the trial system, layperson CPR was initiated in approximately 70% of cases in the cohort as a whole. Because of this, I believe it is evident that patients still benefit from a system that encourages bystanders to provide aid prior to the arrival of EMS.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “despite the training of volunteers in applying an AED, overall, only a small percentage of patients in either group had placement and use of the device. While the reasons likely are multifactorial, it may be in part due to the significant stress and anxiety associated with OHCA.”

Additional research would be helpful, he said. “Future studies focusing on more rural areas with lower population density and limited availability of AEDs may be beneficial. Expanding the research outside of Europe to other countries would be useful. Next-phase trials looking at 30-day survival in these patients would also be important.”

Currently in the United States, research is underway to evaluate the use of smartphones to improve in-hospital cardiac arrests, he added, “but no nationwide programs are in place for OHCA.”

Similarly, Kevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD, and Benjamin S. Abella, MD, MPhil, both of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in a related editorial: “It is sobering to recognize that, in the U.S., it may be nearly impossible to even test an idea like this, given the lack of a supporting data infrastructure.”

Although there is an app in the United States to link OHCA events to bystander response, they noted, less than half of eligible 911 centers have linked to it.

“Furthermore, the bystander CPR rate in the U.S. is less than 35%, only about half of the Swedish rate, indicating far fewer people are trained in CPR and comfortable performing it in the U.S.,” they wrote. “A wealthy country like the U.S. should be able to develop a far more effective approach to preventing millions of ... families from having a loved one die of OHCA in the decade to come.”

The study was funded by unrestricted grant from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and Stockholm County. The authors, editorialists, and Dr. Calandrella disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease without another cardiac diagnosis have a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality than women with no cardiac disease, a new study suggests.

However, after adjustment for other comorbidities, the risk associated with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease without additional evidence of cardiomyopathy was relatively similar to that of other low-risk cardiac diseases.

“These are reassuring findings,” lead author of the study, Anna E. Denoble, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization. “The risk is not zero. Women with preexisting ischemic heart disease are at a small increased risk compared to women without preexisting cardiac disease. But with good control of cardiovascular risk factors, these women have a good chance of a positive outcome.”

The study was published online in JACC: Advances.

“To our knowledge, this study provides the largest analysis to date examining the risk of severe morbidity and mortality among pregnant people with pre-existing ischemic heart disease,” the authors noted.

Dr. Denoble, a maternal and fetal medicine specialist, explained that in recent years, there has been an increase in the number of patients with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy or who are pregnant when they present, but there is little information on outcomes for these patients.

The diagnosis of ischemic heart disease is not included in the main classification used for heart disease in pregnancy – the modified World Health Organization classification, Dr. Denoble noted. “This classification includes information on pregnancy outcomes in women with many cardiac conditions, including arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, heart failure, and aortic aneurysm, but ischemic heart disease is missing.”

She suggested this is probably because ischemic heart disease is regarded as a condition that occurs mainly in older people. “But we are seeing more and more women with ischemic heart disease who are pregnant or considering pregnancy. This could be because women are now often older when considering pregnancy, and also risk factors for ischemic heart disease, such as obesity and diabetes, are becoming more frequent in younger women.”

The researchers conducted the current study to investigate pregnancy outcomes for these women.

The retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database on women who had experienced a delivery hospitalization from Oct. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. They compared outcomes for women with isolated preexisting ischemic heart disease with those of women who had no apparent cardiac condition and to those with mild or more severe cardiac conditions included in the mWHO classification after controlling for other comorbidities.

The primary outcome was severe maternal morbidity or death. Dr. Denoble explained that severe maternal morbidity includes mechanical ventilation, blood transfusion, and hysterectomy – the more severe maternal adverse outcomes of pregnancy.

Results showed that, of 11,556,136 delivery hospitalizations, 65,331 patients had another cardiac diagnosis, and 3,009 had ischemic heart disease alone. Patients with ischemic heart disease were older, and rates of diabetes and hypertension were higher.

In unadjusted analyses, adverse outcomes were more common among patients with ischemic heart disease alone than among patients with no cardiac disease and mild cardiac conditions (mWHO class I-II cardiac disease).

Of those with preexisting ischemic heart disease, 6.6% experienced severe maternal morbidity or death, compared with 1.5% of those without a cardiac disease (unadjusted relative risk vs. no cardiac disease, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-5.2).

In comparison, 4.2% of women with mWHO I-II cardiac diseases and 23.1% of those with more severe mWHO II/III-IV cardiac diseases experienced severe maternal morbidity or death.

Similar differences were noted for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, as well as cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality.

After adjustment, ischemic heart disease alone was associated with a higher risk of severe maternal morbidity or death compared to no cardiac disease (adjusted RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92).

In comparison, the aRR was 1.90 for WHO class I-II diseases and 5.87 (95% CI, 5.49-6.27) for more severe cardiac conditions defined as WHO II/III-IV diseases.

Risk for nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 1.60) and cardiac severe maternal morbidity or death (aRR, 2.98) were also higher for those with ischemic heart disease than for women without any cardiac disease.

There were no significant differences in preterm birth for those with preexisting ischemic heart disease compared to those with no cardiac disease after adjustment.

The risk of severe maternal morbidity and mortality, nontransfusion severe maternal morbidity and mortality, and cardiac severe maternal morbidity and mortality for ischemic heart disease alone most closely approximated that of mWHO class I or II cardiac diseases, the researchers said.

“We found that individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease had a rate of severe maternal morbidity/mortality in the same range as those with other cardiac diagnoses in the mild cardiac disease classification (class I or II),” Dr. Denoble commented.

“This prognosis suggests it is very reasonable for these women to consider pregnancy. The risk of adverse outcomes is not so high that pregnancy is contraindicated,” she added.

Dr. Denoble said this information will be very helpful when counseling women with preexisting ischemic heart disease who are considering pregnancy. “These patients may need some extra monitoring, but in general, they have a high chance of a good outcome,” she noted.

“I would still advise these women to register with a high-risk obstetrics provider to have a baseline cardiovascular pregnancy evaluation. As long as that is reassuring, then further frequent intensive supervision may not be necessary,” she said.

However, the authors pointed out, “it is important to communicate to patients that while pregnancy may be considered low risk in the setting of pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 6.6% of patients with pre-existing ischemic heart disease alone did experience severe maternal morbidity or death during the delivery hospitalization.”

They added that other medical comorbidities should be factored into discussions regarding the risks of pregnancy.

The researchers also noted that the study was limited to evaluation of maternal outcomes occurring during the delivery hospitalization and that additional research that assesses rates of maternal adverse cardiac events and maternal morbidity occurring prior to or after the delivery hospitalization would be beneficial.

Future studies examining the potential gradation in risk associated with additional cardiac comorbidities in individuals with preexisting ischemic heart disease would also be worthwhile, they added.

The study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Foundation for Women and Girls with Blood Disorders. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new strategy for the management of atherosclerotic plaque as a source of major adverse cardiac events is needed with the focus shifting from the flow-limiting coronary artery luminal lesions to the overall atherosclerotic burden, be it obstructive or nonobstructive, according to a review article.

The article, by Peter H. Stone, MD, and Peter Libby, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and William E. Boden, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.  

The review explored new data from vascular biology, atherosclerosis imaging, natural history outcome studies, and large-scale clinical trials that support what the authors refer to as “The Plaque Hypothesis” – the idea that major adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction and cardiac death are triggered by destabilization of vulnerable plaque, which may be obstructive or nonobstructive.

“We need to consider embracing a new management strategy that directs our diagnostic and management focus to evaluate the entire length of the atheromatous coronary artery and broaden the target of our therapeutic intervention to include all regions of the plaque (both flow-limiting and non–flow-limiting), even those that are distant from the presumed ischemia-producing obstruction,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Stone explained to this news organization that, for several decades, the medical community has focused on plaques causing severe obstruction of coronary arteries as being responsible for major adverse cardiac events. This approach – known as the Ischemia Hypothesis – has been the accepted strategy for many years, with all guidelines advising the identification of the stenoses that cause the most obstruction for treatment with stenting.

However, the authors pointed out that a number of studies have now suggested that, while these severe obstructive stenoses cause angina, they do not seem to be responsible for the hard events of MI, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and cardiac death. 

Several studies including the COURAGE trial and BARI-2D, and the recent ISCHEMIA trial have all failed to show a reduction in these hard endpoints by intervening on these severe obstructive lesions, Dr. Stone noted. 

“We present evidence for a new approach – that it is the composition and vascular biology of the atherosclerotic plaques that cause MI, ACS, and cardiac death, rather than simply how obstructive they are,” he said.  

Dr. Stone pointed out that plaque seen on a coronary angiogram looks at only the lumen of the artery, but plaque is primarily based in the wall of the artery, and if that plaque is inflamed it can easily be the culprit responsible for adverse events even without encroaching into the lumen.

“Our paper describes many factors which can cause plaques to destabilize and cause an ACS. These include anatomical, biochemical, and biomechanical features that together cause plaque rupture or erosion and precipitate a clinical event. It is not sufficient to just look for obstructive plaques on a coronary angiogram,” he said. “We are barking up the wrong tree. We need to look for inflamed plaque in the whole wall of the coronary arteries.”

The authors described different factors that identify a plaque at high risk of destabilization. These include a large area of vulnerable plaque, a thin-cap atheroma, a severe inflamed core, macrocalcifications, a large plaque burden, and a physical profile that would encourage a thrombus to become trapped.  

“Atherosclerotic plaques are very heterogeneous and complex structures and it is not just the mountain peaks but also the lower foothills that can precipitate a flow-limiting obstruction,” Dr. Stone noted. 

“The slope of the mountain is probably very important in the ability for a thrombus to form. If the slope is gradual there isn’t a problem. But if the slope is jagged with sharp edges this can cause a thrombus to become trapped. We need to look at the entirety of plaque and all its risk features to identify the culprit areas that could cause MI or cardiac death. These are typically not the obstructive plaques we have all been fixated on for many years,” he added. 

“We need to focus on plaque heterogeneity. Once plaque is old and just made up of scar tissue which is not inflamed it does not cause much [of] a problem – we can probably just leave it alone. Some of these obstructive plaques may cause some angina but many do not cause major cardiac events unless they have other high-risk features,” he said. 

“Cardiac events are still caused by obstruction of blood flow but that can be an abrupt process where a thrombus attaches itself to an area of destabilized plaque. These areas of plaque were not necessarily obstructing to start with. We believe that this is the explanation behind the observation that 50% of all people who have an MI (half of which are fatal) do not have symptoms beforehand,” Dr. Stone commented. 

Because these areas of destabilized plaque do not cause symptoms, he believes that vast populations of people with established cardiovascular risk factors should undergo screening. “At the moment we wait for people to experience chest pain or to have an MI – that is far too little too late.” 

To identify these areas of high-risk plaques, imaging techniques looking inside the artery wall are needed such as intravascular ultrasound. However, this is an invasive procedure, and the noninvasive coronary CT angiography also gives a good picture, so it is probably the best way to begin as a wider screening modality, with more invasive screening methods then used in those found to be at risk, Dr. Stone suggested.  

Plaques that are identified as likely to destabilize can be treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting.  

While systemic therapies are useful, those currently available are not sufficient, Dr. Stone noted. For example, there are still high levels of major cardiac events in patients treated with the PCSK9 inhibitors, which bring about very large reductions in LDL cholesterol. “These therapies are beneficial, but they are not enough on their own. So, these areas of unstable plaque would need to be treated with stenting or something similar. We believe that the intervention of stenting is good but at present it is targeted at the wrong areas,” he stated.  

“Clearly what we’ve been doing – stenting only obstructive lesions – does not reduce hard clinical events. Imaging methods have improved so much in recent years that we can now identify high-risk areas of plaque. This whole field of studying the vulnerable plaque has been ongoing for many years, but it is only recently that imaging methods have become good enough to identify plaques at risk. This field is now coming of age,” he added.

The next steps are to start identifying these plaques in larger populations, more accurately characterizing those at the highest risk, and then performing randomized trials of preemptive intervention in those believed to be at highest risk, and follow up for clinical events, Dr. Stone explained.  

Advances in detecting unstable plaque may also permit early evaluation of novel therapeutics and gauge the intensity of lifestyle and disease-modifying pharmacotherapy, the authors suggested.

This work was supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, the RRM Charitable Fund, the Simard Fund, and the Schaubert Family. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant to or involved in clinical trials with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baim Institute, Beren Therapeutics, Esperion Therapeutics, Genentech, Kancera, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck, Norvo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and is a member of the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Cartesian Therapeutics, CSL Behring, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Dewpoint Therapeutics, Elucid Bioimaging, Kancera, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Olatec Therapeutics, MedImmune, Moderna, Novartis, PlaqueTec, TenSixteen Bio, Soley Thereapeutics, and XBiotech.

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

A new strategy for the management of atherosclerotic plaque as a source of major adverse cardiac events is needed with the focus shifting from the flow-limiting coronary artery luminal lesions to the overall atherosclerotic burden, be it obstructive or nonobstructive, according to a review article.

The article, by Peter H. Stone, MD, and Peter Libby, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and William E. Boden, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.  

The review explored new data from vascular biology, atherosclerosis imaging, natural history outcome studies, and large-scale clinical trials that support what the authors refer to as “The Plaque Hypothesis” – the idea that major adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction and cardiac death are triggered by destabilization of vulnerable plaque, which may be obstructive or nonobstructive.

“We need to consider embracing a new management strategy that directs our diagnostic and management focus to evaluate the entire length of the atheromatous coronary artery and broaden the target of our therapeutic intervention to include all regions of the plaque (both flow-limiting and non–flow-limiting), even those that are distant from the presumed ischemia-producing obstruction,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Stone explained to this news organization that, for several decades, the medical community has focused on plaques causing severe obstruction of coronary arteries as being responsible for major adverse cardiac events. This approach – known as the Ischemia Hypothesis – has been the accepted strategy for many years, with all guidelines advising the identification of the stenoses that cause the most obstruction for treatment with stenting.

However, the authors pointed out that a number of studies have now suggested that, while these severe obstructive stenoses cause angina, they do not seem to be responsible for the hard events of MI, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and cardiac death. 

Several studies including the COURAGE trial and BARI-2D, and the recent ISCHEMIA trial have all failed to show a reduction in these hard endpoints by intervening on these severe obstructive lesions, Dr. Stone noted. 

“We present evidence for a new approach – that it is the composition and vascular biology of the atherosclerotic plaques that cause MI, ACS, and cardiac death, rather than simply how obstructive they are,” he said.  

Dr. Stone pointed out that plaque seen on a coronary angiogram looks at only the lumen of the artery, but plaque is primarily based in the wall of the artery, and if that plaque is inflamed it can easily be the culprit responsible for adverse events even without encroaching into the lumen.

“Our paper describes many factors which can cause plaques to destabilize and cause an ACS. These include anatomical, biochemical, and biomechanical features that together cause plaque rupture or erosion and precipitate a clinical event. It is not sufficient to just look for obstructive plaques on a coronary angiogram,” he said. “We are barking up the wrong tree. We need to look for inflamed plaque in the whole wall of the coronary arteries.”

The authors described different factors that identify a plaque at high risk of destabilization. These include a large area of vulnerable plaque, a thin-cap atheroma, a severe inflamed core, macrocalcifications, a large plaque burden, and a physical profile that would encourage a thrombus to become trapped.  

“Atherosclerotic plaques are very heterogeneous and complex structures and it is not just the mountain peaks but also the lower foothills that can precipitate a flow-limiting obstruction,” Dr. Stone noted. 

“The slope of the mountain is probably very important in the ability for a thrombus to form. If the slope is gradual there isn’t a problem. But if the slope is jagged with sharp edges this can cause a thrombus to become trapped. We need to look at the entirety of plaque and all its risk features to identify the culprit areas that could cause MI or cardiac death. These are typically not the obstructive plaques we have all been fixated on for many years,” he added. 

“We need to focus on plaque heterogeneity. Once plaque is old and just made up of scar tissue which is not inflamed it does not cause much [of] a problem – we can probably just leave it alone. Some of these obstructive plaques may cause some angina but many do not cause major cardiac events unless they have other high-risk features,” he said. 

“Cardiac events are still caused by obstruction of blood flow but that can be an abrupt process where a thrombus attaches itself to an area of destabilized plaque. These areas of plaque were not necessarily obstructing to start with. We believe that this is the explanation behind the observation that 50% of all people who have an MI (half of which are fatal) do not have symptoms beforehand,” Dr. Stone commented. 

Because these areas of destabilized plaque do not cause symptoms, he believes that vast populations of people with established cardiovascular risk factors should undergo screening. “At the moment we wait for people to experience chest pain or to have an MI – that is far too little too late.” 

To identify these areas of high-risk plaques, imaging techniques looking inside the artery wall are needed such as intravascular ultrasound. However, this is an invasive procedure, and the noninvasive coronary CT angiography also gives a good picture, so it is probably the best way to begin as a wider screening modality, with more invasive screening methods then used in those found to be at risk, Dr. Stone suggested.  

Plaques that are identified as likely to destabilize can be treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting.  

While systemic therapies are useful, those currently available are not sufficient, Dr. Stone noted. For example, there are still high levels of major cardiac events in patients treated with the PCSK9 inhibitors, which bring about very large reductions in LDL cholesterol. “These therapies are beneficial, but they are not enough on their own. So, these areas of unstable plaque would need to be treated with stenting or something similar. We believe that the intervention of stenting is good but at present it is targeted at the wrong areas,” he stated.  

“Clearly what we’ve been doing – stenting only obstructive lesions – does not reduce hard clinical events. Imaging methods have improved so much in recent years that we can now identify high-risk areas of plaque. This whole field of studying the vulnerable plaque has been ongoing for many years, but it is only recently that imaging methods have become good enough to identify plaques at risk. This field is now coming of age,” he added.

The next steps are to start identifying these plaques in larger populations, more accurately characterizing those at the highest risk, and then performing randomized trials of preemptive intervention in those believed to be at highest risk, and follow up for clinical events, Dr. Stone explained.  

Advances in detecting unstable plaque may also permit early evaluation of novel therapeutics and gauge the intensity of lifestyle and disease-modifying pharmacotherapy, the authors suggested.

This work was supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, the RRM Charitable Fund, the Simard Fund, and the Schaubert Family. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant to or involved in clinical trials with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baim Institute, Beren Therapeutics, Esperion Therapeutics, Genentech, Kancera, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck, Norvo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and is a member of the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Cartesian Therapeutics, CSL Behring, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Dewpoint Therapeutics, Elucid Bioimaging, Kancera, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Olatec Therapeutics, MedImmune, Moderna, Novartis, PlaqueTec, TenSixteen Bio, Soley Thereapeutics, and XBiotech.

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

A new strategy for the management of atherosclerotic plaque as a source of major adverse cardiac events is needed with the focus shifting from the flow-limiting coronary artery luminal lesions to the overall atherosclerotic burden, be it obstructive or nonobstructive, according to a review article.

The article, by Peter H. Stone, MD, and Peter Libby, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and William E. Boden, MD, Boston University School of Medicine, was published online in JAMA Cardiology.  

The review explored new data from vascular biology, atherosclerosis imaging, natural history outcome studies, and large-scale clinical trials that support what the authors refer to as “The Plaque Hypothesis” – the idea that major adverse cardiac events such as myocardial infarction and cardiac death are triggered by destabilization of vulnerable plaque, which may be obstructive or nonobstructive.

“We need to consider embracing a new management strategy that directs our diagnostic and management focus to evaluate the entire length of the atheromatous coronary artery and broaden the target of our therapeutic intervention to include all regions of the plaque (both flow-limiting and non–flow-limiting), even those that are distant from the presumed ischemia-producing obstruction,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Stone explained to this news organization that, for several decades, the medical community has focused on plaques causing severe obstruction of coronary arteries as being responsible for major adverse cardiac events. This approach – known as the Ischemia Hypothesis – has been the accepted strategy for many years, with all guidelines advising the identification of the stenoses that cause the most obstruction for treatment with stenting.

However, the authors pointed out that a number of studies have now suggested that, while these severe obstructive stenoses cause angina, they do not seem to be responsible for the hard events of MI, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and cardiac death. 

Several studies including the COURAGE trial and BARI-2D, and the recent ISCHEMIA trial have all failed to show a reduction in these hard endpoints by intervening on these severe obstructive lesions, Dr. Stone noted. 

“We present evidence for a new approach – that it is the composition and vascular biology of the atherosclerotic plaques that cause MI, ACS, and cardiac death, rather than simply how obstructive they are,” he said.  

Dr. Stone pointed out that plaque seen on a coronary angiogram looks at only the lumen of the artery, but plaque is primarily based in the wall of the artery, and if that plaque is inflamed it can easily be the culprit responsible for adverse events even without encroaching into the lumen.

“Our paper describes many factors which can cause plaques to destabilize and cause an ACS. These include anatomical, biochemical, and biomechanical features that together cause plaque rupture or erosion and precipitate a clinical event. It is not sufficient to just look for obstructive plaques on a coronary angiogram,” he said. “We are barking up the wrong tree. We need to look for inflamed plaque in the whole wall of the coronary arteries.”

The authors described different factors that identify a plaque at high risk of destabilization. These include a large area of vulnerable plaque, a thin-cap atheroma, a severe inflamed core, macrocalcifications, a large plaque burden, and a physical profile that would encourage a thrombus to become trapped.  

“Atherosclerotic plaques are very heterogeneous and complex structures and it is not just the mountain peaks but also the lower foothills that can precipitate a flow-limiting obstruction,” Dr. Stone noted. 

“The slope of the mountain is probably very important in the ability for a thrombus to form. If the slope is gradual there isn’t a problem. But if the slope is jagged with sharp edges this can cause a thrombus to become trapped. We need to look at the entirety of plaque and all its risk features to identify the culprit areas that could cause MI or cardiac death. These are typically not the obstructive plaques we have all been fixated on for many years,” he added. 

“We need to focus on plaque heterogeneity. Once plaque is old and just made up of scar tissue which is not inflamed it does not cause much [of] a problem – we can probably just leave it alone. Some of these obstructive plaques may cause some angina but many do not cause major cardiac events unless they have other high-risk features,” he said. 

“Cardiac events are still caused by obstruction of blood flow but that can be an abrupt process where a thrombus attaches itself to an area of destabilized plaque. These areas of plaque were not necessarily obstructing to start with. We believe that this is the explanation behind the observation that 50% of all people who have an MI (half of which are fatal) do not have symptoms beforehand,” Dr. Stone commented. 

Because these areas of destabilized plaque do not cause symptoms, he believes that vast populations of people with established cardiovascular risk factors should undergo screening. “At the moment we wait for people to experience chest pain or to have an MI – that is far too little too late.” 

To identify these areas of high-risk plaques, imaging techniques looking inside the artery wall are needed such as intravascular ultrasound. However, this is an invasive procedure, and the noninvasive coronary CT angiography also gives a good picture, so it is probably the best way to begin as a wider screening modality, with more invasive screening methods then used in those found to be at risk, Dr. Stone suggested.  

Plaques that are identified as likely to destabilize can be treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting.  

While systemic therapies are useful, those currently available are not sufficient, Dr. Stone noted. For example, there are still high levels of major cardiac events in patients treated with the PCSK9 inhibitors, which bring about very large reductions in LDL cholesterol. “These therapies are beneficial, but they are not enough on their own. So, these areas of unstable plaque would need to be treated with stenting or something similar. We believe that the intervention of stenting is good but at present it is targeted at the wrong areas,” he stated.  

“Clearly what we’ve been doing – stenting only obstructive lesions – does not reduce hard clinical events. Imaging methods have improved so much in recent years that we can now identify high-risk areas of plaque. This whole field of studying the vulnerable plaque has been ongoing for many years, but it is only recently that imaging methods have become good enough to identify plaques at risk. This field is now coming of age,” he added.

The next steps are to start identifying these plaques in larger populations, more accurately characterizing those at the highest risk, and then performing randomized trials of preemptive intervention in those believed to be at highest risk, and follow up for clinical events, Dr. Stone explained.  

Advances in detecting unstable plaque may also permit early evaluation of novel therapeutics and gauge the intensity of lifestyle and disease-modifying pharmacotherapy, the authors suggested.

This work was supported in part by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, the RRM Charitable Fund, the Simard Fund, and the Schaubert Family. Dr. Libby is an unpaid consultant to or involved in clinical trials with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baim Institute, Beren Therapeutics, Esperion Therapeutics, Genentech, Kancera, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Merck, Norvo Nordisk, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and is a member of the scientific advisory board for Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Cartesian Therapeutics, CSL Behring, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Dewpoint Therapeutics, Elucid Bioimaging, Kancera, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Olatec Therapeutics, MedImmune, Moderna, Novartis, PlaqueTec, TenSixteen Bio, Soley Thereapeutics, and XBiotech.

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

Age-related changes in general and cardiovascular health likely require modifications in how acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is diagnosed and managed in adults aged 75 and older, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

The statement outlines a framework to integrate geriatric risks into the management of ACS, including the diagnostic approach, pharmacotherapy, revascularization strategies, prevention of adverse events, and transition care planning.

The 31-page statement was published online in the AHA journal Circulation (2022 Dec 12. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001112). It updates a 2007 AHA statement on treatment of ACS in the elderly.
 

Complex patient group

Adults aged 75 and older make up roughly 30%-40% of all hospitalized patients with ACS and the majority of ACS-related deaths occur in this group, the writing group notes.

“Older patients have more pronounced anatomical changes and more severe functional impairment, and they are more likely to have additional health conditions,” writing group chair Abdulla A. Damluji, MD, PhD, director of the Inova Center of Outcomes Research in Fairfax, Va., notes in a news release.

“These include frailty, other chronic disorders (treated with multiple medications), physical dysfunction, cognitive decline and/or urinary incontinence – and these are not regularly studied in the context of ACS,” Dr. Damluji explained.

The writing group notes that the presence of one or more geriatric syndromes may substantially affect ACS clinical presentation, clinical course and prognosis, therapeutic decision-making, and response to treatment.

“It is therefore fundamental that clinicians caring for older patients with ACS be alert to the presence of geriatric syndromes and be able to integrate them into the care plan when appropriate,” they say.

They recommend a holistic, individualized, and patient-centered approach to ACS care in the elderly, taking into consideration coexisting and overlapping health issues.
 

Considerations for clinical care

The AHA statement offers several “considerations for clinical practice” with regard to ACS diagnosis and management in elderly adults. They include:

• ACS presentations without chest pain, such as shortness of breath, syncope, or sudden confusion, are more common in older adults.
• Many older adults have persistent elevations in cardiac troponin levels from myocardial fibrosis and kidney disease that diminish the positive predictive value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays for identifying acute and chronic myocardial injury. For this reason, evaluating patterns of rise and fall is essential.
• Age-related changes in metabolism, weight, and muscle mass may require different choices in anticoagulant medications to lower bleeding risk.
• Clopidogrel (Plavix) is the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor because of a significantly lower bleeding profile than ticagrelor (Brilinta) or prasugrel (Effient). For patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) or complex anatomy, the use of ticagrelor is “reasonable.”
• Poor kidney function can increase the risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury.
• Although the risks are greater, percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery are beneficial in select older adults with ACS.
• Post-MI care should include cardiac rehabilitation tailored to address each patient’s circumstances and personal goals of care.
• For patients with cognitive difficulties and limited mobility, consider simplified medication plans with fewer doses per day and 90-day supplies to prevent the need for frequent refills.
• Patient care plans should be individualized, with input from a multidisciplinary team that may include cardiologists, surgeons, geriatricians, primary care clinicians, nutritionists, social workers, and family members.
• Determine a priori goals of care in older patients to help avoid an unwanted or futile intervention.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardiovascular Diseases in Older Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.

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

Age-related changes in general and cardiovascular health likely require modifications in how acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is diagnosed and managed in adults aged 75 and older, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

The statement outlines a framework to integrate geriatric risks into the management of ACS, including the diagnostic approach, pharmacotherapy, revascularization strategies, prevention of adverse events, and transition care planning.

The 31-page statement was published online in the AHA journal Circulation (2022 Dec 12. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001112). It updates a 2007 AHA statement on treatment of ACS in the elderly.
 

Complex patient group

Adults aged 75 and older make up roughly 30%-40% of all hospitalized patients with ACS and the majority of ACS-related deaths occur in this group, the writing group notes.

“Older patients have more pronounced anatomical changes and more severe functional impairment, and they are more likely to have additional health conditions,” writing group chair Abdulla A. Damluji, MD, PhD, director of the Inova Center of Outcomes Research in Fairfax, Va., notes in a news release.

“These include frailty, other chronic disorders (treated with multiple medications), physical dysfunction, cognitive decline and/or urinary incontinence – and these are not regularly studied in the context of ACS,” Dr. Damluji explained.

The writing group notes that the presence of one or more geriatric syndromes may substantially affect ACS clinical presentation, clinical course and prognosis, therapeutic decision-making, and response to treatment.

“It is therefore fundamental that clinicians caring for older patients with ACS be alert to the presence of geriatric syndromes and be able to integrate them into the care plan when appropriate,” they say.

They recommend a holistic, individualized, and patient-centered approach to ACS care in the elderly, taking into consideration coexisting and overlapping health issues.
 

Considerations for clinical care

The AHA statement offers several “considerations for clinical practice” with regard to ACS diagnosis and management in elderly adults. They include:

• ACS presentations without chest pain, such as shortness of breath, syncope, or sudden confusion, are more common in older adults.
• Many older adults have persistent elevations in cardiac troponin levels from myocardial fibrosis and kidney disease that diminish the positive predictive value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays for identifying acute and chronic myocardial injury. For this reason, evaluating patterns of rise and fall is essential.
• Age-related changes in metabolism, weight, and muscle mass may require different choices in anticoagulant medications to lower bleeding risk.
• Clopidogrel (Plavix) is the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor because of a significantly lower bleeding profile than ticagrelor (Brilinta) or prasugrel (Effient). For patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) or complex anatomy, the use of ticagrelor is “reasonable.”
• Poor kidney function can increase the risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury.
• Although the risks are greater, percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery are beneficial in select older adults with ACS.
• Post-MI care should include cardiac rehabilitation tailored to address each patient’s circumstances and personal goals of care.
• For patients with cognitive difficulties and limited mobility, consider simplified medication plans with fewer doses per day and 90-day supplies to prevent the need for frequent refills.
• Patient care plans should be individualized, with input from a multidisciplinary team that may include cardiologists, surgeons, geriatricians, primary care clinicians, nutritionists, social workers, and family members.
• Determine a priori goals of care in older patients to help avoid an unwanted or futile intervention.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardiovascular Diseases in Older Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.

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

Age-related changes in general and cardiovascular health likely require modifications in how acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is diagnosed and managed in adults aged 75 and older, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

The statement outlines a framework to integrate geriatric risks into the management of ACS, including the diagnostic approach, pharmacotherapy, revascularization strategies, prevention of adverse events, and transition care planning.

The 31-page statement was published online in the AHA journal Circulation (2022 Dec 12. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001112). It updates a 2007 AHA statement on treatment of ACS in the elderly.
 

Complex patient group

Adults aged 75 and older make up roughly 30%-40% of all hospitalized patients with ACS and the majority of ACS-related deaths occur in this group, the writing group notes.

“Older patients have more pronounced anatomical changes and more severe functional impairment, and they are more likely to have additional health conditions,” writing group chair Abdulla A. Damluji, MD, PhD, director of the Inova Center of Outcomes Research in Fairfax, Va., notes in a news release.

“These include frailty, other chronic disorders (treated with multiple medications), physical dysfunction, cognitive decline and/or urinary incontinence – and these are not regularly studied in the context of ACS,” Dr. Damluji explained.

The writing group notes that the presence of one or more geriatric syndromes may substantially affect ACS clinical presentation, clinical course and prognosis, therapeutic decision-making, and response to treatment.

“It is therefore fundamental that clinicians caring for older patients with ACS be alert to the presence of geriatric syndromes and be able to integrate them into the care plan when appropriate,” they say.

They recommend a holistic, individualized, and patient-centered approach to ACS care in the elderly, taking into consideration coexisting and overlapping health issues.
 

Considerations for clinical care

The AHA statement offers several “considerations for clinical practice” with regard to ACS diagnosis and management in elderly adults. They include:

• ACS presentations without chest pain, such as shortness of breath, syncope, or sudden confusion, are more common in older adults.
• Many older adults have persistent elevations in cardiac troponin levels from myocardial fibrosis and kidney disease that diminish the positive predictive value of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays for identifying acute and chronic myocardial injury. For this reason, evaluating patterns of rise and fall is essential.
• Age-related changes in metabolism, weight, and muscle mass may require different choices in anticoagulant medications to lower bleeding risk.
• Clopidogrel (Plavix) is the preferred P2Y12 inhibitor because of a significantly lower bleeding profile than ticagrelor (Brilinta) or prasugrel (Effient). For patients with ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) or complex anatomy, the use of ticagrelor is “reasonable.”
• Poor kidney function can increase the risk for contrast-induced acute kidney injury.
• Although the risks are greater, percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery are beneficial in select older adults with ACS.
• Post-MI care should include cardiac rehabilitation tailored to address each patient’s circumstances and personal goals of care.
• For patients with cognitive difficulties and limited mobility, consider simplified medication plans with fewer doses per day and 90-day supplies to prevent the need for frequent refills.
• Patient care plans should be individualized, with input from a multidisciplinary team that may include cardiologists, surgeons, geriatricians, primary care clinicians, nutritionists, social workers, and family members.
• Determine a priori goals of care in older patients to help avoid an unwanted or futile intervention.

This scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Cardiovascular Diseases in Older Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; and the Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

Outcomes were similar for comatose patients who received 36 versus 72 hours of device-based temperature control after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a randomized trial shows.

“Since 2005, active fever prevention in comatose patients has been advocated by the guidelines for 72 hours after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest,” Christian Hassager, MD, of the University of Copenhagen, told this news organization. “Our study is the first randomized trial ever on this subject – and it challenges the guidelines.”

At 90 days, a primary endpoint – a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a high Cerebral Performance Category score – occurred in 32.4% of those in the 36-hour group and 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group; mortality was 29.5% versus 30.3%, respectively.

The study was published online  in The New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the Resuscitation Science Symposium during the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
 

No significant differences

Assessment of the two device-based fever-prevention strategies for the duration was a predefined, additional randomly assigned open-label intervention in the Blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets in Post Resuscitation Care (BOX) trial, which involved comatose adult patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at two Danish cardiac arrest centers.

The main BOX analysis compared different primary strategies in these patients in a two-by-two factorial design: higher versus lower blood pressure targets and higher versus lower oxygenation targets. They found no difference between the various strategies in terms of death and discharge from hospital in a poor neurologic state. Those results were presented at the European Society of Cardiology Congress on Aug. 27, and simultaneously published in separate articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this current analysis, a total of 789 comatose patients (mean age, 62; 80% men) received device-based temperature control targeting 36° C for 24 hours followed by 37° C for either 12 or 48 hours (total intervention times, 36 and 72 hours, respectively) or until the patient regained consciousness.

Patients were kept sedated and were receiving mechanical ventilation during the temperature control at 36° C, the authors note. Target core body temperature was controlled using commercially available surface cooling at one of the sites in 286 patients (Criticool and Allon, Belmont Medical Technologies) and using intravenous cooling in 503 patients at the other site (Thermogard XP, and Cool Line Catheter, Zoll).

Body temperature was maintained at 37° C with the same type of device that had been used for 36° C during the initial 24 hours. If the patient awakened, cooling was terminated.

Physicians in both groups were permitted to use non–device-based fever treatment (that is, for a body temperature > 37.5° C) with drugs such as paracetamol, by uncovering the patient’s body, or both, at the discretion of the treating physician. Ice packs or pads were not used.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category of 3 or 4 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) within 90 days after randomization.

Secondary outcomes at 90 days included death from any cause and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability).

A primary endpoint event occurred in 32.3% of patients in the 36-hour group and in 33.6% of those in the 72-hour group (hazard ratio, 0.99). Mortality was 29.5% in the 36-hour group and 30.3% in the 72-hour group.

The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 26 and 27, respectively. No significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events were observed.

The authors concluded that “active device-based fever prevention for 36 or 72 hours after cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma.”

Dr. Hassager added, “We will continue with a new trial where we will randomize to treatment as usual or immediate wakeup call and no temperature intervention at all.”
 

Findings ‘very persuasive’

Intensivist Ken Parhar, MD, clinical associate professor, Critical Care Medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.) and Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, and medical director, Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, commented on the study.

“The findings are very clear and very persuasive,” he said. “I think this should be incorporated into future guidelines, though it would be nice to see the trial repeated in another center.”

Dr. Parhar has kept comatose patients under temperature control for less than 72 hours, but mainly because those patients started to wake up. “This study provides clarity on the safety of that process – that we don’t have to unnecessarily keep somebody sedated just for an arbitrary timeline,” he said. “Beyond 36 hours, we need to continue to use our judgment.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as was the work of one of the coauthors. Dr. Hassager’s work was funded by a grant from the Lundbeck Foundation; he also received an individual research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, as well as honoraria from ABIOMED. No other disclosures were declared.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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

CHICAGO – A single chest x-ray could predict a patient’s 10-year risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, say researchers who presented the results of their deep-learning model at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Current American College of Cardiologists and American Heart Association guidelines recommend estimating 10-year risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) to determine whether a patient should receive statins to help prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Statins are recommended for patients with a 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher, the authors noted.

The current ASCVD risk score is determined with nine factors: age, sex, race, systolic blood pressure, hypertension treatment, smoking, type 2 diabetes, and a lipid panel.
 

Not all data points available in EHR

But not all of those data points may be available through the electronic health record, “which makes novel and easier approaches for population-wide screening desirable,” said lead researcher Jakob Weiss, MD, a radiologist affiliated with the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital and the AI in medicine program at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Chest x-ray images, on the other hand, are commonly available. The images carry rich information beyond diagnostic data but have not been used in this type of prediction model because AI models have been lacking, Dr. Weiss said.

The researchers trained a deep-learning model with single chest x-rays only.

They used 147,497 chest x-rays from 40,643 participants in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCO) Screening Trial, a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Weiss acknowledged that the population used to train the model was heavily White and that should be a consideration in validating the model.

They compared their model’s ability to predict 10-year ASCVD risk with the standard ACC/AHA model.

“Based on a single chest radiograph image, deep learning can predict the risk of future cardiovascular events independent of cardiovascular risk factors and with similar performance to the established and guideline-recommended ASCVD risk score,” Dr. Weiss said.
 

Tested against independent group

They tested the model against an independent group of 11,430 outpatients (average age, 60 years; 42.9% male) who underwent a routine outpatient chest x-ray at Mass General Brigham and were potentially eligible to receive statins.

Of those 11,430 patients, 1,096 (9.6%) had a major adverse cardiac event over the median follow-up of 10.3 years.

There was a significant association of CXR-CVD risk and MACE among patients eligible to receive statins, the researchers found (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-2.30; P < .001), which remained significant after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86; P < .001).

Some of the variables were missing in the standard model, but in a subgroup of 2,401 patients, all the variables were available.

They calculated ASCVD risk in that subgroup using the standard model and the CXR model and found that the performance was similar (c-statistic, 0.64 vs. 0.65; P = .48) to the ASCVD risk score (aHR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.20-2.09; P = .001).

Ritu R. Gill MD, MPH, associate professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that “the predictive algorithm is promising and potentially translatable and could enhance the annual medical checkup in a select population.

“The algorithm was developed using the PLCO cohort with radiographs, which are likely subjects in the lung cancer screening arm,” she said. “This cohort would be at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, as smoking is a known risk factor for atherosclerotic disease, and therefore the results are expected.

“The algorithm needs to be validated in an independent database with inclusion of subjects with younger age groups and adjusted for gender and racial diversity,” Gill said.

David Cho, MD, a cardiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, who also was not part of the study, said in an interview that “this work is a great example of AI being able to detect clinically relevant outcomes with a widely used and low-cost screening test.

“The volume of data needed to train these models is already out there,” Dr. Cho said. “It just needs to be mined.”

He noted that this tool, if validated in randomized trials, could help determine risk among patients living in places where access to specialized cardiac care is limited.

Dr. Weiss and Dr. Cho disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gill has received research support from Cannon Inc and consultant fees from Imbio and WorldCare.

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