Cardiology

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Alcoholic drinks are in the news again, served with a twist. A large cohort study saw a familiar J-shaped curve detailing risk for new atrial fibrillation (AFib) in which the risk rose steadily with greater number of drinks per week, except at the lowest levels of alcohol intake.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

There, the curve turned the other way. Light drinkers overall showed no higher AFib risk than nondrinkers, and the risk was lowest at any degree of alcohol intake up to 56 g per week.

On closer analysis of risk patterns, the type of alcoholic beverage mattered. Modest weekly intake of red wine, at least one serving but no more than seven, may have actually protected against new AFib, compared with zero intake.

Alcohol content per drink was defined by standards in the United Kingdom, where the cohort was based.

The risk of AFib also didn’t climb at low intake levels of white wine or with “very low” use of liquor or spirits. But it went up consistently at any level of beer or cider consumption, and to be sure, “high intake of any beverage was associated with greater AF[ib] risk,” notes a report on the study published July 27, 2021, in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The results, based on more than 400,000 adults in the community, “raise the possibility that, for current consumers, drinking red or white wine could potentially be a safer alternative to other types of alcoholic beverages with respect to AF[ib] risk,” the report proposes.

The J-shaped risk curve for new AFib by degree of alcohol consumption follows the pattern sometimes seen for cardiovascular risk in general. But the intake level at which AFib risk is flat or reduced “is at a far lower dose of alcohol than what we’ve seen for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Samuel J. Tu, BHlthMedSc, said in an interview.

“That being said, even with the threshold sitting quite low, it still tells us that cutting down on alcohol is a good thing and perhaps one of the best things for our heart,” said Mr. Tu, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, who also presented the findings at the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held in Boston and virtually.
 

How much alcohol is in a drink?

In a caution for anyone looking to beer, wine, or liquor to protect against AFib, or at least not cause it, the weekly number of drinks associated with the lowest AFib risk may be fewer than expected. That bottom of 56 g per week works out to one drink a day or less for British and only four or fewer per week for Americans, according to the study’s internationally varying definitions for the alcohol content of one drink.

For example, a drink was considered to have 8 g of alcohol in the United Kingdom, 14 g in the United States and some other countries, and up to 20 g in Austria. Those numbers came from definitions used by the respective national health agencies, such as the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, Mr. Tu explained.

“They all defined standard drinks slightly differently. But wherever we looked, the threshold we found was far lower than what our governments recommend” based on what is known about alcohol and overall cardiovascular risk, he said.
 

First to show a hint of protection

The current study “is especially noteworthy because it’s the really the first to demonstrate any hint that there could be a protective effect from any particular amount of alcohol in regard to atrial fibrillation,” Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The J-shaped association fits with what’s been observed with myocardial infarction and overall mortality, and hasn’t previously been seen in the setting of atrial fibrillation.”

Quite interestingly, “it appeared to be the wine drinkers, rather than those who consumed other types of alcohol, that enjoyed this benefit,” said Dr. Marcus, who was not involved in the research but co-authored an accompanying editorial with UCSF colleague Thomas A. Dewland, MD.

“It’s important to recognize the overwhelming evidence that alcohol in general increases the risk for atrial fibrillation,” he said. But “perhaps there’s something in wine that is anti-inflammatory that has some beneficial effect that maybe overwhelms the proarrhythmic aspect.”

The current study “opens the door to the question as to whether there is a small amount of alcohol, perhaps in the form of wine, where there are some benefits that outweigh the risks of atrial fibrillation.”

Still, the findings are observational and “clearly prone to confounding,” Dr. Marcus said. “We need to be very cautious in inferring causality.”

For example, it’s possible that “there is something about individuals that are able to drink alcohol on a regular basis and in small amounts that is the actual causal factor in reducing atrial fibrillation episodes.”

The analysis was based on 403,281 participants in the UK Biobank registry, a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom, who were aged 40-69 when recruited from 2006 to 2010; it excluded anyone with a history of AFib or who was a former drinker. About 52% were women, the report noted.

Their median alcohol consumption was eight U.K. drinks per week, with 5.5% reporting they had never consumed alcohol. About 21,300 incident cases of AFib or atrial flutter were documented over almost 4.5 million person-years, or a median follow-up of 11.4 years.

The hazard ratio for incident AFib among those with a weekly alcohol consumption corresponding to 1-7 U.K. drinks, compared with intake of less than 1 U.K. drink per week, was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.00). Within that range of 1-7 drinks, the absolute lowest AFib risk on the J curve was at 5 per week.
 

No increased risk of new AFib was seen in association with weekly U.K. drink levels of 10 for red wine, 8 for white wine, and 3 for spirits.

Compared with weekly intake of less than 1 U.K. drink per week, red wine intake at 1-7 per week showed an HR for AFib of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.97). Indeed, at no observed consumption level was red wine associated with a significant increase in AFib risk. White wine until the highest observed level of intake, above 28 U.K. drinks per week, at which point the HR for AFib was 1.48 (98% CI 1.19-1.86). The curve for spirit intake followed a similar but steeper curve, its HR risk reaching 1.61 (95% CI, 1.34-1.93) at intake levels beyond 28 U.K. drinks per week.

Consumption of beer or cider showed a linear association with AFib risk, which was elevated at all recorded intake levels, including 8-14 U.K. drinks per week (HR, 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17) and up to 28 or more per week (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.26-1.45).

The analysis is hypothesis generating at best, Dr. Marcus emphasized. “Ultimately, a randomized trial would be the only way to be fairly certain if there is indeed a causal protective relationship between red wine, in low amounts, and atrial fib.”

The message for patients, proposed Dr. Dewland and Dr. Marcus, is that alcohol abstinence is best for secondary AFib prevention, “especially if alcohol is a personal trigger for acute AF[ib] episodes,” and that for primary AFib prevention, “continued consumption of some alcohol may be reasonable, but the exact threshold is unclear and is likely a very low amount.”

Mr. Tu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Marcus disclosed receiving research funding from Baylis Medical; consulting for Johnson & Johnson and InCarda; and holding equity interest in InCarda. Dr. Dewland reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcoholic drinks are in the news again, served with a twist. A large cohort study saw a familiar J-shaped curve detailing risk for new atrial fibrillation (AFib) in which the risk rose steadily with greater number of drinks per week, except at the lowest levels of alcohol intake.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

There, the curve turned the other way. Light drinkers overall showed no higher AFib risk than nondrinkers, and the risk was lowest at any degree of alcohol intake up to 56 g per week.

On closer analysis of risk patterns, the type of alcoholic beverage mattered. Modest weekly intake of red wine, at least one serving but no more than seven, may have actually protected against new AFib, compared with zero intake.

Alcohol content per drink was defined by standards in the United Kingdom, where the cohort was based.

The risk of AFib also didn’t climb at low intake levels of white wine or with “very low” use of liquor or spirits. But it went up consistently at any level of beer or cider consumption, and to be sure, “high intake of any beverage was associated with greater AF[ib] risk,” notes a report on the study published July 27, 2021, in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The results, based on more than 400,000 adults in the community, “raise the possibility that, for current consumers, drinking red or white wine could potentially be a safer alternative to other types of alcoholic beverages with respect to AF[ib] risk,” the report proposes.

The J-shaped risk curve for new AFib by degree of alcohol consumption follows the pattern sometimes seen for cardiovascular risk in general. But the intake level at which AFib risk is flat or reduced “is at a far lower dose of alcohol than what we’ve seen for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Samuel J. Tu, BHlthMedSc, said in an interview.

“That being said, even with the threshold sitting quite low, it still tells us that cutting down on alcohol is a good thing and perhaps one of the best things for our heart,” said Mr. Tu, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, who also presented the findings at the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held in Boston and virtually.
 

How much alcohol is in a drink?

In a caution for anyone looking to beer, wine, or liquor to protect against AFib, or at least not cause it, the weekly number of drinks associated with the lowest AFib risk may be fewer than expected. That bottom of 56 g per week works out to one drink a day or less for British and only four or fewer per week for Americans, according to the study’s internationally varying definitions for the alcohol content of one drink.

For example, a drink was considered to have 8 g of alcohol in the United Kingdom, 14 g in the United States and some other countries, and up to 20 g in Austria. Those numbers came from definitions used by the respective national health agencies, such as the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, Mr. Tu explained.

“They all defined standard drinks slightly differently. But wherever we looked, the threshold we found was far lower than what our governments recommend” based on what is known about alcohol and overall cardiovascular risk, he said.
 

First to show a hint of protection

The current study “is especially noteworthy because it’s the really the first to demonstrate any hint that there could be a protective effect from any particular amount of alcohol in regard to atrial fibrillation,” Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The J-shaped association fits with what’s been observed with myocardial infarction and overall mortality, and hasn’t previously been seen in the setting of atrial fibrillation.”

Quite interestingly, “it appeared to be the wine drinkers, rather than those who consumed other types of alcohol, that enjoyed this benefit,” said Dr. Marcus, who was not involved in the research but co-authored an accompanying editorial with UCSF colleague Thomas A. Dewland, MD.

“It’s important to recognize the overwhelming evidence that alcohol in general increases the risk for atrial fibrillation,” he said. But “perhaps there’s something in wine that is anti-inflammatory that has some beneficial effect that maybe overwhelms the proarrhythmic aspect.”

The current study “opens the door to the question as to whether there is a small amount of alcohol, perhaps in the form of wine, where there are some benefits that outweigh the risks of atrial fibrillation.”

Still, the findings are observational and “clearly prone to confounding,” Dr. Marcus said. “We need to be very cautious in inferring causality.”

For example, it’s possible that “there is something about individuals that are able to drink alcohol on a regular basis and in small amounts that is the actual causal factor in reducing atrial fibrillation episodes.”

The analysis was based on 403,281 participants in the UK Biobank registry, a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom, who were aged 40-69 when recruited from 2006 to 2010; it excluded anyone with a history of AFib or who was a former drinker. About 52% were women, the report noted.

Their median alcohol consumption was eight U.K. drinks per week, with 5.5% reporting they had never consumed alcohol. About 21,300 incident cases of AFib or atrial flutter were documented over almost 4.5 million person-years, or a median follow-up of 11.4 years.

The hazard ratio for incident AFib among those with a weekly alcohol consumption corresponding to 1-7 U.K. drinks, compared with intake of less than 1 U.K. drink per week, was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.00). Within that range of 1-7 drinks, the absolute lowest AFib risk on the J curve was at 5 per week.
 

No increased risk of new AFib was seen in association with weekly U.K. drink levels of 10 for red wine, 8 for white wine, and 3 for spirits.

Compared with weekly intake of less than 1 U.K. drink per week, red wine intake at 1-7 per week showed an HR for AFib of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.97). Indeed, at no observed consumption level was red wine associated with a significant increase in AFib risk. White wine until the highest observed level of intake, above 28 U.K. drinks per week, at which point the HR for AFib was 1.48 (98% CI 1.19-1.86). The curve for spirit intake followed a similar but steeper curve, its HR risk reaching 1.61 (95% CI, 1.34-1.93) at intake levels beyond 28 U.K. drinks per week.

Consumption of beer or cider showed a linear association with AFib risk, which was elevated at all recorded intake levels, including 8-14 U.K. drinks per week (HR, 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17) and up to 28 or more per week (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.26-1.45).

The analysis is hypothesis generating at best, Dr. Marcus emphasized. “Ultimately, a randomized trial would be the only way to be fairly certain if there is indeed a causal protective relationship between red wine, in low amounts, and atrial fib.”

The message for patients, proposed Dr. Dewland and Dr. Marcus, is that alcohol abstinence is best for secondary AFib prevention, “especially if alcohol is a personal trigger for acute AF[ib] episodes,” and that for primary AFib prevention, “continued consumption of some alcohol may be reasonable, but the exact threshold is unclear and is likely a very low amount.”

Mr. Tu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Marcus disclosed receiving research funding from Baylis Medical; consulting for Johnson & Johnson and InCarda; and holding equity interest in InCarda. Dr. Dewland reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcoholic drinks are in the news again, served with a twist. A large cohort study saw a familiar J-shaped curve detailing risk for new atrial fibrillation (AFib) in which the risk rose steadily with greater number of drinks per week, except at the lowest levels of alcohol intake.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

There, the curve turned the other way. Light drinkers overall showed no higher AFib risk than nondrinkers, and the risk was lowest at any degree of alcohol intake up to 56 g per week.

On closer analysis of risk patterns, the type of alcoholic beverage mattered. Modest weekly intake of red wine, at least one serving but no more than seven, may have actually protected against new AFib, compared with zero intake.

Alcohol content per drink was defined by standards in the United Kingdom, where the cohort was based.

The risk of AFib also didn’t climb at low intake levels of white wine or with “very low” use of liquor or spirits. But it went up consistently at any level of beer or cider consumption, and to be sure, “high intake of any beverage was associated with greater AF[ib] risk,” notes a report on the study published July 27, 2021, in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

The results, based on more than 400,000 adults in the community, “raise the possibility that, for current consumers, drinking red or white wine could potentially be a safer alternative to other types of alcoholic beverages with respect to AF[ib] risk,” the report proposes.

The J-shaped risk curve for new AFib by degree of alcohol consumption follows the pattern sometimes seen for cardiovascular risk in general. But the intake level at which AFib risk is flat or reduced “is at a far lower dose of alcohol than what we’ve seen for cardiovascular disease,” lead author Samuel J. Tu, BHlthMedSc, said in an interview.

“That being said, even with the threshold sitting quite low, it still tells us that cutting down on alcohol is a good thing and perhaps one of the best things for our heart,” said Mr. Tu, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, who also presented the findings at the Heart Rhythm Society 2021 Scientific Sessions, held in Boston and virtually.
 

How much alcohol is in a drink?

In a caution for anyone looking to beer, wine, or liquor to protect against AFib, or at least not cause it, the weekly number of drinks associated with the lowest AFib risk may be fewer than expected. That bottom of 56 g per week works out to one drink a day or less for British and only four or fewer per week for Americans, according to the study’s internationally varying definitions for the alcohol content of one drink.

For example, a drink was considered to have 8 g of alcohol in the United Kingdom, 14 g in the United States and some other countries, and up to 20 g in Austria. Those numbers came from definitions used by the respective national health agencies, such as the National Health Service in the United Kingdom and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States, Mr. Tu explained.

“They all defined standard drinks slightly differently. But wherever we looked, the threshold we found was far lower than what our governments recommend” based on what is known about alcohol and overall cardiovascular risk, he said.
 

First to show a hint of protection

The current study “is especially noteworthy because it’s the really the first to demonstrate any hint that there could be a protective effect from any particular amount of alcohol in regard to atrial fibrillation,” Gregory M. Marcus, MD, MAS, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview. “The J-shaped association fits with what’s been observed with myocardial infarction and overall mortality, and hasn’t previously been seen in the setting of atrial fibrillation.”

Quite interestingly, “it appeared to be the wine drinkers, rather than those who consumed other types of alcohol, that enjoyed this benefit,” said Dr. Marcus, who was not involved in the research but co-authored an accompanying editorial with UCSF colleague Thomas A. Dewland, MD.

“It’s important to recognize the overwhelming evidence that alcohol in general increases the risk for atrial fibrillation,” he said. But “perhaps there’s something in wine that is anti-inflammatory that has some beneficial effect that maybe overwhelms the proarrhythmic aspect.”

The current study “opens the door to the question as to whether there is a small amount of alcohol, perhaps in the form of wine, where there are some benefits that outweigh the risks of atrial fibrillation.”

Still, the findings are observational and “clearly prone to confounding,” Dr. Marcus said. “We need to be very cautious in inferring causality.”

For example, it’s possible that “there is something about individuals that are able to drink alcohol on a regular basis and in small amounts that is the actual causal factor in reducing atrial fibrillation episodes.”

The analysis was based on 403,281 participants in the UK Biobank registry, a prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom, who were aged 40-69 when recruited from 2006 to 2010; it excluded anyone with a history of AFib or who was a former drinker. About 52% were women, the report noted.

Their median alcohol consumption was eight U.K. drinks per week, with 5.5% reporting they had never consumed alcohol. About 21,300 incident cases of AFib or atrial flutter were documented over almost 4.5 million person-years, or a median follow-up of 11.4 years.

The hazard ratio for incident AFib among those with a weekly alcohol consumption corresponding to 1-7 U.K. drinks, compared with intake of less than 1 U.K. drink per week, was 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.00). Within that range of 1-7 drinks, the absolute lowest AFib risk on the J curve was at 5 per week.
 

No increased risk of new AFib was seen in association with weekly U.K. drink levels of 10 for red wine, 8 for white wine, and 3 for spirits.

Compared with weekly intake of less than 1 U.K. drink per week, red wine intake at 1-7 per week showed an HR for AFib of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.91-0.97). Indeed, at no observed consumption level was red wine associated with a significant increase in AFib risk. White wine until the highest observed level of intake, above 28 U.K. drinks per week, at which point the HR for AFib was 1.48 (98% CI 1.19-1.86). The curve for spirit intake followed a similar but steeper curve, its HR risk reaching 1.61 (95% CI, 1.34-1.93) at intake levels beyond 28 U.K. drinks per week.

Consumption of beer or cider showed a linear association with AFib risk, which was elevated at all recorded intake levels, including 8-14 U.K. drinks per week (HR, 1.11; 95% CI 1.06-1.17) and up to 28 or more per week (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.26-1.45).

The analysis is hypothesis generating at best, Dr. Marcus emphasized. “Ultimately, a randomized trial would be the only way to be fairly certain if there is indeed a causal protective relationship between red wine, in low amounts, and atrial fib.”

The message for patients, proposed Dr. Dewland and Dr. Marcus, is that alcohol abstinence is best for secondary AFib prevention, “especially if alcohol is a personal trigger for acute AF[ib] episodes,” and that for primary AFib prevention, “continued consumption of some alcohol may be reasonable, but the exact threshold is unclear and is likely a very low amount.”

Mr. Tu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Marcus disclosed receiving research funding from Baylis Medical; consulting for Johnson & Johnson and InCarda; and holding equity interest in InCarda. Dr. Dewland reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Aerobic exercise may help reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension responds poorly to medications, a new study suggests.

A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that patients with resistant hypertension assigned to a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program had lower blood pressure compared with patients who received usual care.

“Resistant hypertension persists as a big clinical challenge because the available treatment options to lower blood pressure in this clinical population, namely drugs and renal denervation, show limited success,” Fernando Ribeiro, PhD, University of Aveiro, Portugal, told this news organization. “Aerobic exercise was safe and associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction in 24-hour, daytime ambulatory, and office blood pressure.”

The findings were published online August 4 in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers enrolled 53 patients aged 40-75 years with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension in this prospective, single-blinded trial. Nearly half (24) were women.

Resistant hypertension was defined as having a “mean systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and/or 135 mm Hg or greater during daytime hours while taking maximally tolerated doses of at least 3 antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, or to have a controlled BP while taking 4 or more antihypertensive agents.”

From March 2017 to December 2019 at two sites in Portugal, 26 patients were randomly assigned to a 12-week aerobic exercise training program involving three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care. Another 27 patients in the control group were allocated to receive usual care only.

24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02) in patients in the exercise group compared with the control group. In the exercise group, there were additional reductions of:

• -5.1 mm Hg of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001)
• -8.4 mm Hg of daytime systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5, P = .006)
• -5.7 mm Hg of daytime diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001)
• -10.0 mm Hg of office systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01)

Additionally, a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5-6.6; P < .001) was observed in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Although prior research has suggested that exercise may lower blood pressure, this study is particularly useful because it “outlines very specifically what types of exercise you can recommend,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Although important, exercise is “one part of the overall management of high blood pressure. If people are being prescribed medication, they should continue taking it and work on lifestyle changes like reducing salt intake and drinking in moderation,” added Dr. Lackland, who was not involved in the research.

Also commenting on the findings, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that there are many potential benefits from exercise training. “It might improve endothelial function, decrease vascular stiffness and nervous system reactivity to stress, and improve quality of life for patients,” she said.

The study has several limitations, including a small sample size and a patient population that mostly has “relatively mild hypertension,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said, adding, “We don’t know whether these findings will apply to patients with more severe hypertension.”

It would also have been helpful if investigators monitored patient adherence to prescribed medications through urine or blood samples rather than a questionnaire, and to measure nighttime blood pressure, which is a more important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, said Dr. Vongpatanasin, who was not associated with the research.

Moving forward, it will be important to “investigate why some patients are nonresponders to the exercise intervention and why some are super-responders,” study author Dr. Ribeiro said.

Dr. Ribeiro, Dr. Lackland, and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This study was funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund Operational Competitiveness Factors Program (COMPETE) and by the Portuguese government through the Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in the study.

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

Aerobic exercise may help reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension responds poorly to medications, a new study suggests.

A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that patients with resistant hypertension assigned to a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program had lower blood pressure compared with patients who received usual care.

“Resistant hypertension persists as a big clinical challenge because the available treatment options to lower blood pressure in this clinical population, namely drugs and renal denervation, show limited success,” Fernando Ribeiro, PhD, University of Aveiro, Portugal, told this news organization. “Aerobic exercise was safe and associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction in 24-hour, daytime ambulatory, and office blood pressure.”

The findings were published online August 4 in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers enrolled 53 patients aged 40-75 years with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension in this prospective, single-blinded trial. Nearly half (24) were women.

Resistant hypertension was defined as having a “mean systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and/or 135 mm Hg or greater during daytime hours while taking maximally tolerated doses of at least 3 antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, or to have a controlled BP while taking 4 or more antihypertensive agents.”

From March 2017 to December 2019 at two sites in Portugal, 26 patients were randomly assigned to a 12-week aerobic exercise training program involving three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care. Another 27 patients in the control group were allocated to receive usual care only.

24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02) in patients in the exercise group compared with the control group. In the exercise group, there were additional reductions of:

• -5.1 mm Hg of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001)
• -8.4 mm Hg of daytime systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5, P = .006)
• -5.7 mm Hg of daytime diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001)
• -10.0 mm Hg of office systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01)

Additionally, a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5-6.6; P < .001) was observed in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Although prior research has suggested that exercise may lower blood pressure, this study is particularly useful because it “outlines very specifically what types of exercise you can recommend,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Although important, exercise is “one part of the overall management of high blood pressure. If people are being prescribed medication, they should continue taking it and work on lifestyle changes like reducing salt intake and drinking in moderation,” added Dr. Lackland, who was not involved in the research.

Also commenting on the findings, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that there are many potential benefits from exercise training. “It might improve endothelial function, decrease vascular stiffness and nervous system reactivity to stress, and improve quality of life for patients,” she said.

The study has several limitations, including a small sample size and a patient population that mostly has “relatively mild hypertension,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said, adding, “We don’t know whether these findings will apply to patients with more severe hypertension.”

It would also have been helpful if investigators monitored patient adherence to prescribed medications through urine or blood samples rather than a questionnaire, and to measure nighttime blood pressure, which is a more important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, said Dr. Vongpatanasin, who was not associated with the research.

Moving forward, it will be important to “investigate why some patients are nonresponders to the exercise intervention and why some are super-responders,” study author Dr. Ribeiro said.

Dr. Ribeiro, Dr. Lackland, and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This study was funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund Operational Competitiveness Factors Program (COMPETE) and by the Portuguese government through the Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in the study.

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

Aerobic exercise may help reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension responds poorly to medications, a new study suggests.

A randomized controlled clinical trial showed that patients with resistant hypertension assigned to a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training program had lower blood pressure compared with patients who received usual care.

“Resistant hypertension persists as a big clinical challenge because the available treatment options to lower blood pressure in this clinical population, namely drugs and renal denervation, show limited success,” Fernando Ribeiro, PhD, University of Aveiro, Portugal, told this news organization. “Aerobic exercise was safe and associated with a significant and clinically relevant reduction in 24-hour, daytime ambulatory, and office blood pressure.”

The findings were published online August 4 in JAMA Cardiology.

The researchers enrolled 53 patients aged 40-75 years with a diagnosis of resistant hypertension in this prospective, single-blinded trial. Nearly half (24) were women.

Resistant hypertension was defined as having a “mean systolic BP of 130 mm Hg or greater on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and/or 135 mm Hg or greater during daytime hours while taking maximally tolerated doses of at least 3 antihypertensive agents, including a diuretic, or to have a controlled BP while taking 4 or more antihypertensive agents.”

From March 2017 to December 2019 at two sites in Portugal, 26 patients were randomly assigned to a 12-week aerobic exercise training program involving three 40-minute supervised sessions per week in addition to usual care. Another 27 patients in the control group were allocated to receive usual care only.

24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure was reduced by 7.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -12.8 to -1.4; P = .02) in patients in the exercise group compared with the control group. In the exercise group, there were additional reductions of:

• -5.1 mm Hg of 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -7.9 to -2.3; P = .001)
• -8.4 mm Hg of daytime systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -14.3 to -2.5, P = .006)
• -5.7 mm Hg of daytime diastolic blood pressure (95% CI, -9.0 to -2.4; P = .001)
• -10.0 mm Hg of office systolic blood pressure (95% CI, -17.6 to -2.5; P = .01)

Additionally, a significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (5.05 mL/kg per minute of oxygen consumption; 95% CI, 3.5-6.6; P < .001) was observed in the exercise group compared with the control group.

Although prior research has suggested that exercise may lower blood pressure, this study is particularly useful because it “outlines very specifically what types of exercise you can recommend,” said Daniel Lackland, DrPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

Although important, exercise is “one part of the overall management of high blood pressure. If people are being prescribed medication, they should continue taking it and work on lifestyle changes like reducing salt intake and drinking in moderation,” added Dr. Lackland, who was not involved in the research.

Also commenting on the findings, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, pointed out that there are many potential benefits from exercise training. “It might improve endothelial function, decrease vascular stiffness and nervous system reactivity to stress, and improve quality of life for patients,” she said.

The study has several limitations, including a small sample size and a patient population that mostly has “relatively mild hypertension,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said, adding, “We don’t know whether these findings will apply to patients with more severe hypertension.”

It would also have been helpful if investigators monitored patient adherence to prescribed medications through urine or blood samples rather than a questionnaire, and to measure nighttime blood pressure, which is a more important predictor of cardiovascular outcomes, said Dr. Vongpatanasin, who was not associated with the research.

Moving forward, it will be important to “investigate why some patients are nonresponders to the exercise intervention and why some are super-responders,” study author Dr. Ribeiro said.

Dr. Ribeiro, Dr. Lackland, and Dr. Vongpatanasin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. This study was funded by the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund Operational Competitiveness Factors Program (COMPETE) and by the Portuguese government through the Foundation for Science and Technology. The funders had no role in the study.

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

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

A retracted study on the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with COVID-19 continues to be cited nearly a year later, new research shows.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The study in question, published on May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no increased risk for in-hospital death with the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Concerns about the veracity of the Surgisphere database used for the study, however, led to a June 4 retraction and to the June 13 retraction of a second study, published in the Lancet, that focused on hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

Although the Surgisphere scandal caused a global reckoning of COVID-19 scientific studies, the new analysis identified 652 citations of the NEJM article as of May 31.

More than a third of the citations occurred in the first 2 months after the retraction, 54% were at least 3 months later, and 2.8% at least 6 months later. In May, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times, senior author Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues reported in a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In early May and June there were already more than 200 citations in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, so I do believe it was a highly influential article early on and had an impact on different types of studies or research taking place,” she said in an interview.

Dr. McDonald said she’s also “certain that it impacted patient care,” observing that when there are no guidelines available on how to manage patients, physicians will turn to the most recent evidence in the most reputable journals.

“In the case of ACE [inhibitors] and ARBs, although the study was based on fraudulent data, we were lucky that the overall message was in the end probably correct, but that might not have been the case for another study or dataset,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, concerns existed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be harmful, increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells. The first randomized trial to examine the issue, BRACE CORONA, showed no clinical benefit to interrupting use of the agents in hospitalized patients. An observational study suggested ACE inhibitors may even be protective.

Of two high-profile retractions, McDonald said they chose to bypass the hydroxychloroquine study, which had an eye-popping Altmetric attention score of 23,084, compared with 3,727 for the NEJM paper, because it may have been cited for “other” reasons. “We wanted to focus less on the politics and more on the problem of retracted work.”

The team found that researchers across the globe were citing the retracted ACE/ARB paper (18.7% in the United States, 8.1% in Italy, and 44% other countries). Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text of a study, but in nearly 3% of cases, the data were incorporated into new analyses.

Just 17.6% of the studies cited or noted the retraction. “For sure, that was surprising to us. We suspected it, but our study confirmed it,” Dr. McDonald said.

Although retracted articles can be identified by a watermark or line of text, in some cases that can be easily missed, she noted. What’s more, not all citation software points out when a study has been retracted, a fate shared by the copyediting process.

“There are a lot of mechanisms in place and, in general, what’s happening is rare but there isn’t a perfect automated system solution to absolutely prevent this from happening,” she said. “It’s still subject to human error.”

The findings also have to be taken in the context of a rapidly emerging pandemic and the unprecedented torrent of scientific papers released over the past year.

“That might have contributed to why this happened, but the takeaway message is that this can happen despite our best efforts, and we need to challenge ourselves to come up with a system solution to prevent this from happening in the future,” Dr. McDonald said. “Current mechanisms are probably capturing 95% of it, but we need to do better.”

Limitations of the present analysis are that it was limited to the single retracted study; used only a single search engine, Google Scholar, to identify the citing works; and that additional citations may have been missed, the authors noted.

McDonald and coauthor Todd C. Lee, MD, report being signatories on a public letter calling for the retraction of the Surgisphere papers. Dr. Lee also reported receiving research support from Fonds De Recherche du Quebec-Sante during the conduct of the study.

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

A retracted study on the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with COVID-19 continues to be cited nearly a year later, new research shows.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The study in question, published on May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no increased risk for in-hospital death with the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Concerns about the veracity of the Surgisphere database used for the study, however, led to a June 4 retraction and to the June 13 retraction of a second study, published in the Lancet, that focused on hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

Although the Surgisphere scandal caused a global reckoning of COVID-19 scientific studies, the new analysis identified 652 citations of the NEJM article as of May 31.

More than a third of the citations occurred in the first 2 months after the retraction, 54% were at least 3 months later, and 2.8% at least 6 months later. In May, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times, senior author Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues reported in a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In early May and June there were already more than 200 citations in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, so I do believe it was a highly influential article early on and had an impact on different types of studies or research taking place,” she said in an interview.

Dr. McDonald said she’s also “certain that it impacted patient care,” observing that when there are no guidelines available on how to manage patients, physicians will turn to the most recent evidence in the most reputable journals.

“In the case of ACE [inhibitors] and ARBs, although the study was based on fraudulent data, we were lucky that the overall message was in the end probably correct, but that might not have been the case for another study or dataset,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, concerns existed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be harmful, increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells. The first randomized trial to examine the issue, BRACE CORONA, showed no clinical benefit to interrupting use of the agents in hospitalized patients. An observational study suggested ACE inhibitors may even be protective.

Of two high-profile retractions, McDonald said they chose to bypass the hydroxychloroquine study, which had an eye-popping Altmetric attention score of 23,084, compared with 3,727 for the NEJM paper, because it may have been cited for “other” reasons. “We wanted to focus less on the politics and more on the problem of retracted work.”

The team found that researchers across the globe were citing the retracted ACE/ARB paper (18.7% in the United States, 8.1% in Italy, and 44% other countries). Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text of a study, but in nearly 3% of cases, the data were incorporated into new analyses.

Just 17.6% of the studies cited or noted the retraction. “For sure, that was surprising to us. We suspected it, but our study confirmed it,” Dr. McDonald said.

Although retracted articles can be identified by a watermark or line of text, in some cases that can be easily missed, she noted. What’s more, not all citation software points out when a study has been retracted, a fate shared by the copyediting process.

“There are a lot of mechanisms in place and, in general, what’s happening is rare but there isn’t a perfect automated system solution to absolutely prevent this from happening,” she said. “It’s still subject to human error.”

The findings also have to be taken in the context of a rapidly emerging pandemic and the unprecedented torrent of scientific papers released over the past year.

“That might have contributed to why this happened, but the takeaway message is that this can happen despite our best efforts, and we need to challenge ourselves to come up with a system solution to prevent this from happening in the future,” Dr. McDonald said. “Current mechanisms are probably capturing 95% of it, but we need to do better.”

Limitations of the present analysis are that it was limited to the single retracted study; used only a single search engine, Google Scholar, to identify the citing works; and that additional citations may have been missed, the authors noted.

McDonald and coauthor Todd C. Lee, MD, report being signatories on a public letter calling for the retraction of the Surgisphere papers. Dr. Lee also reported receiving research support from Fonds De Recherche du Quebec-Sante during the conduct of the study.

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

A retracted study on the safety of blood pressure medications in patients with COVID-19 continues to be cited nearly a year later, new research shows.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The study in question, published on May 1, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no increased risk for in-hospital death with the use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Concerns about the veracity of the Surgisphere database used for the study, however, led to a June 4 retraction and to the June 13 retraction of a second study, published in the Lancet, that focused on hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment.

Although the Surgisphere scandal caused a global reckoning of COVID-19 scientific studies, the new analysis identified 652 citations of the NEJM article as of May 31.

More than a third of the citations occurred in the first 2 months after the retraction, 54% were at least 3 months later, and 2.8% at least 6 months later. In May, 11 months after the article was retracted, it was cited 21 times, senior author Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues reported in a research letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“In early May and June there were already more than 200 citations in one of the world’s leading scientific journals, so I do believe it was a highly influential article early on and had an impact on different types of studies or research taking place,” she said in an interview.

Dr. McDonald said she’s also “certain that it impacted patient care,” observing that when there are no guidelines available on how to manage patients, physicians will turn to the most recent evidence in the most reputable journals.

“In the case of ACE [inhibitors] and ARBs, although the study was based on fraudulent data, we were lucky that the overall message was in the end probably correct, but that might not have been the case for another study or dataset,” she said.

Early in the pandemic, concerns existed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs could be harmful, increasing the expression of ACE2 receptors, which the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to gain entry into cells. The first randomized trial to examine the issue, BRACE CORONA, showed no clinical benefit to interrupting use of the agents in hospitalized patients. An observational study suggested ACE inhibitors may even be protective.

Of two high-profile retractions, McDonald said they chose to bypass the hydroxychloroquine study, which had an eye-popping Altmetric attention score of 23,084, compared with 3,727 for the NEJM paper, because it may have been cited for “other” reasons. “We wanted to focus less on the politics and more on the problem of retracted work.”

The team found that researchers across the globe were citing the retracted ACE/ARB paper (18.7% in the United States, 8.1% in Italy, and 44% other countries). Most citations were used to support a statement in the main text of a study, but in nearly 3% of cases, the data were incorporated into new analyses.

Just 17.6% of the studies cited or noted the retraction. “For sure, that was surprising to us. We suspected it, but our study confirmed it,” Dr. McDonald said.

Although retracted articles can be identified by a watermark or line of text, in some cases that can be easily missed, she noted. What’s more, not all citation software points out when a study has been retracted, a fate shared by the copyediting process.

“There are a lot of mechanisms in place and, in general, what’s happening is rare but there isn’t a perfect automated system solution to absolutely prevent this from happening,” she said. “It’s still subject to human error.”

The findings also have to be taken in the context of a rapidly emerging pandemic and the unprecedented torrent of scientific papers released over the past year.

“That might have contributed to why this happened, but the takeaway message is that this can happen despite our best efforts, and we need to challenge ourselves to come up with a system solution to prevent this from happening in the future,” Dr. McDonald said. “Current mechanisms are probably capturing 95% of it, but we need to do better.”

Limitations of the present analysis are that it was limited to the single retracted study; used only a single search engine, Google Scholar, to identify the citing works; and that additional citations may have been missed, the authors noted.

McDonald and coauthor Todd C. Lee, MD, report being signatories on a public letter calling for the retraction of the Surgisphere papers. Dr. Lee also reported receiving research support from Fonds De Recherche du Quebec-Sante during the conduct of the study.

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

While cases of pericarditis or myocarditis temporally linked to COVID-19 vaccination remain rare, they may happen more often than reported, according to a large review of electronic medical records (EMRs).

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

They also appear to represent two “distinct syndromes,” George Diaz, MD, Providence Regional Medical Center Everett (Washington), said in an interview.

Myocarditis typically occurs soon after vaccination in younger patients and mostly after the second dose, while pericarditis occurs later in older patients, after the first or second dose.

Dr. Diaz and colleagues reported their analysis in a research letter published online August 4 in JAMA.

They reviewed the records of 2,000,287 people who received at least one COVID-19 vaccination at 40 hospitals in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and California that are part of the Providence health care system and use the same EMRs.

The median age of the cohort was 57 years and 59% were women.

A little more than three quarters (77%) received more than one dose; most received the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer (53%) and Moderna (44%); 3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The records showed that 20 people had vaccine-related myocarditis (1.0 per 100,000) and 37 had pericarditis (1.8 per 100,000).

A recent report, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, suggested an incidence of myocarditis of about 4.8 cases per 1 million following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study shows a “similar pattern, although at higher incidence, suggesting vaccine adverse event underreporting. In addition, pericarditis may be more common than myocarditis among older patients,” the study team wrote.

“Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Dr. Diaz said in an interview.

Also, in the governments’ statistics, pericarditis and myocarditis were “lumped together,” he noted.
 

Myocarditis cases

The 20 myocarditis cases occurred a median of 3.5 days after vaccination (11 after the Moderna vaccine and 9 after the Pfizer vaccine), 15 of the patients (75%) were men, and the median age was 36 years.

Four individuals (20%) developed myocarditis symptoms after the first vaccination and 16 (80%) after the second dose. Nineteen of the patients (95%) were admitted to the hospital and all were discharged after a median of 2 days.

None of the 20 patients were readmitted or died. Two received a second vaccination after onset of myocarditis; neither had worsening of symptoms. At last available follow-up (median, 23.5 days after symptom onset), 13 patients (65%) had a resolution of their myocarditis symptoms and seven (35%) were improving.
 

Pericarditis cases

The 37 pericarditis cases occurred a median of 20 days after the most recent COVID-19 vaccination: 23 (62%) with Pfizer, 12 (32%) with Moderna, and 2 (5%) with the J&J vaccine. Fifteen developed pericarditis after the first vaccine dose (41%) and 22 (59%) after the second.

Twenty-seven (73%) of the cases occurred in men; the median age was 59 years.

Thirteen patients (35%) were admitted to the hospital, none to intensive care. The median hospital stay was 1 day. Seven patients with pericarditis received a second vaccination. No patient died.

At last available follow-up (median, 28 days), 7 patients (19%) had resolved symptoms and 23 (62%) were improving.

The researchers also calculate that the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or myopericarditis during the prevaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 (95% confidence interval, 15.3-18.6) compared with 27.3 (95% CI, 22.4-32.9) during the vaccine period of February through May 2021 (P < .001).

The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 (95% CI, 46.4-51.9) and 78.8 (95% CI, 70.3-87.9), respectively (P < .001).

The authors say limitations of their analysis include potential missed cases outside care settings and missed diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, which would underestimate the incidence, as well as inaccurate EMR vaccination information.

“Temporal association does not prove causation, although the short span between vaccination and myocarditis onset and the elevated incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in the study hospitals lend support to a possible relationship,” they wrote.

In late June, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the fact sheets accompanying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, flagging the rare risk of heart inflammation after their use.  

Dr. Diaz cautioned that myocarditis and pericarditis events remain “a rare occurrence” after COVID-19 vaccination.

“When discussing vaccination with patients, [health care providers] can advise them that patients generally recover in the rare event they get pericarditis or myocarditis and no deaths were found, and that the vaccines are safe and effective,” Dr. Diaz said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Diaz reported receipt of clinical trial research support from Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Edesa Biotech and scientific advisory board membership for Safeology.

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

While cases of pericarditis or myocarditis temporally linked to COVID-19 vaccination remain rare, they may happen more often than reported, according to a large review of electronic medical records (EMRs).

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

They also appear to represent two “distinct syndromes,” George Diaz, MD, Providence Regional Medical Center Everett (Washington), said in an interview.

Myocarditis typically occurs soon after vaccination in younger patients and mostly after the second dose, while pericarditis occurs later in older patients, after the first or second dose.

Dr. Diaz and colleagues reported their analysis in a research letter published online August 4 in JAMA.

They reviewed the records of 2,000,287 people who received at least one COVID-19 vaccination at 40 hospitals in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and California that are part of the Providence health care system and use the same EMRs.

The median age of the cohort was 57 years and 59% were women.

A little more than three quarters (77%) received more than one dose; most received the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer (53%) and Moderna (44%); 3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The records showed that 20 people had vaccine-related myocarditis (1.0 per 100,000) and 37 had pericarditis (1.8 per 100,000).

A recent report, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, suggested an incidence of myocarditis of about 4.8 cases per 1 million following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study shows a “similar pattern, although at higher incidence, suggesting vaccine adverse event underreporting. In addition, pericarditis may be more common than myocarditis among older patients,” the study team wrote.

“Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Dr. Diaz said in an interview.

Also, in the governments’ statistics, pericarditis and myocarditis were “lumped together,” he noted.
 

Myocarditis cases

The 20 myocarditis cases occurred a median of 3.5 days after vaccination (11 after the Moderna vaccine and 9 after the Pfizer vaccine), 15 of the patients (75%) were men, and the median age was 36 years.

Four individuals (20%) developed myocarditis symptoms after the first vaccination and 16 (80%) after the second dose. Nineteen of the patients (95%) were admitted to the hospital and all were discharged after a median of 2 days.

None of the 20 patients were readmitted or died. Two received a second vaccination after onset of myocarditis; neither had worsening of symptoms. At last available follow-up (median, 23.5 days after symptom onset), 13 patients (65%) had a resolution of their myocarditis symptoms and seven (35%) were improving.
 

Pericarditis cases

The 37 pericarditis cases occurred a median of 20 days after the most recent COVID-19 vaccination: 23 (62%) with Pfizer, 12 (32%) with Moderna, and 2 (5%) with the J&J vaccine. Fifteen developed pericarditis after the first vaccine dose (41%) and 22 (59%) after the second.

Twenty-seven (73%) of the cases occurred in men; the median age was 59 years.

Thirteen patients (35%) were admitted to the hospital, none to intensive care. The median hospital stay was 1 day. Seven patients with pericarditis received a second vaccination. No patient died.

At last available follow-up (median, 28 days), 7 patients (19%) had resolved symptoms and 23 (62%) were improving.

The researchers also calculate that the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or myopericarditis during the prevaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 (95% confidence interval, 15.3-18.6) compared with 27.3 (95% CI, 22.4-32.9) during the vaccine period of February through May 2021 (P < .001).

The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 (95% CI, 46.4-51.9) and 78.8 (95% CI, 70.3-87.9), respectively (P < .001).

The authors say limitations of their analysis include potential missed cases outside care settings and missed diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, which would underestimate the incidence, as well as inaccurate EMR vaccination information.

“Temporal association does not prove causation, although the short span between vaccination and myocarditis onset and the elevated incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in the study hospitals lend support to a possible relationship,” they wrote.

In late June, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the fact sheets accompanying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, flagging the rare risk of heart inflammation after their use.  

Dr. Diaz cautioned that myocarditis and pericarditis events remain “a rare occurrence” after COVID-19 vaccination.

“When discussing vaccination with patients, [health care providers] can advise them that patients generally recover in the rare event they get pericarditis or myocarditis and no deaths were found, and that the vaccines are safe and effective,” Dr. Diaz said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Diaz reported receipt of clinical trial research support from Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Edesa Biotech and scientific advisory board membership for Safeology.

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

While cases of pericarditis or myocarditis temporally linked to COVID-19 vaccination remain rare, they may happen more often than reported, according to a large review of electronic medical records (EMRs).

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

They also appear to represent two “distinct syndromes,” George Diaz, MD, Providence Regional Medical Center Everett (Washington), said in an interview.

Myocarditis typically occurs soon after vaccination in younger patients and mostly after the second dose, while pericarditis occurs later in older patients, after the first or second dose.

Dr. Diaz and colleagues reported their analysis in a research letter published online August 4 in JAMA.

They reviewed the records of 2,000,287 people who received at least one COVID-19 vaccination at 40 hospitals in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and California that are part of the Providence health care system and use the same EMRs.

The median age of the cohort was 57 years and 59% were women.

A little more than three quarters (77%) received more than one dose; most received the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer (53%) and Moderna (44%); 3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

The records showed that 20 people had vaccine-related myocarditis (1.0 per 100,000) and 37 had pericarditis (1.8 per 100,000).

A recent report, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, suggested an incidence of myocarditis of about 4.8 cases per 1 million following receipt of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The new study shows a “similar pattern, although at higher incidence, suggesting vaccine adverse event underreporting. In addition, pericarditis may be more common than myocarditis among older patients,” the study team wrote.

“Our study resulted in higher numbers of cases probably because we searched the EMR, and VAERS requires doctors to report suspected cases voluntarily,” Dr. Diaz said in an interview.

Also, in the governments’ statistics, pericarditis and myocarditis were “lumped together,” he noted.
 

Myocarditis cases

The 20 myocarditis cases occurred a median of 3.5 days after vaccination (11 after the Moderna vaccine and 9 after the Pfizer vaccine), 15 of the patients (75%) were men, and the median age was 36 years.

Four individuals (20%) developed myocarditis symptoms after the first vaccination and 16 (80%) after the second dose. Nineteen of the patients (95%) were admitted to the hospital and all were discharged after a median of 2 days.

None of the 20 patients were readmitted or died. Two received a second vaccination after onset of myocarditis; neither had worsening of symptoms. At last available follow-up (median, 23.5 days after symptom onset), 13 patients (65%) had a resolution of their myocarditis symptoms and seven (35%) were improving.
 

Pericarditis cases

The 37 pericarditis cases occurred a median of 20 days after the most recent COVID-19 vaccination: 23 (62%) with Pfizer, 12 (32%) with Moderna, and 2 (5%) with the J&J vaccine. Fifteen developed pericarditis after the first vaccine dose (41%) and 22 (59%) after the second.

Twenty-seven (73%) of the cases occurred in men; the median age was 59 years.

Thirteen patients (35%) were admitted to the hospital, none to intensive care. The median hospital stay was 1 day. Seven patients with pericarditis received a second vaccination. No patient died.

At last available follow-up (median, 28 days), 7 patients (19%) had resolved symptoms and 23 (62%) were improving.

The researchers also calculate that the average monthly number of cases of myocarditis or myopericarditis during the prevaccine period of January 2019 through January 2021 was 16.9 (95% confidence interval, 15.3-18.6) compared with 27.3 (95% CI, 22.4-32.9) during the vaccine period of February through May 2021 (P < .001).

The mean numbers of pericarditis cases during the same periods were 49.1 (95% CI, 46.4-51.9) and 78.8 (95% CI, 70.3-87.9), respectively (P < .001).

The authors say limitations of their analysis include potential missed cases outside care settings and missed diagnoses of myocarditis or pericarditis, which would underestimate the incidence, as well as inaccurate EMR vaccination information.

“Temporal association does not prove causation, although the short span between vaccination and myocarditis onset and the elevated incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis in the study hospitals lend support to a possible relationship,” they wrote.

In late June, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the fact sheets accompanying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, flagging the rare risk of heart inflammation after their use.  

Dr. Diaz cautioned that myocarditis and pericarditis events remain “a rare occurrence” after COVID-19 vaccination.

“When discussing vaccination with patients, [health care providers] can advise them that patients generally recover in the rare event they get pericarditis or myocarditis and no deaths were found, and that the vaccines are safe and effective,” Dr. Diaz said.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Diaz reported receipt of clinical trial research support from Gilead Sciences, Regeneron, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Edesa Biotech and scientific advisory board membership for Safeology.

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

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball–sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas of 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died 2 days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they rely mostly on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies, or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to health care providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make Geoffrey Martha, CEO, or Nnamdi Njoku, president of mechanical heart support, available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued: “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.
 

Warning signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.
 

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.
 

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.
 

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped Through The Cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”
 

“Run its course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

This article first appeared on Propublica.

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball–sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas of 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died 2 days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they rely mostly on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies, or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to health care providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make Geoffrey Martha, CEO, or Nnamdi Njoku, president of mechanical heart support, available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued: “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.
 

Warning signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.
 

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.
 

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.
 

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped Through The Cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”
 

“Run its course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

This article first appeared on Propublica.

John Winkler II was dying of heart failure when doctors came to his hospital bedside, offering a chance to prolong his life. The HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device, or HVAD, could be implanted in Winkler’s chest until a transplant was possible. The heart pump came with disclaimers of risk, but Winkler wanted to fight for time. He was only 46 and had a loving wife and four children, and his second grandchild was on the way.

So, in August 2014, Winkler had surgery to implant the device. A golf-ball–sized rotor was attached to his left ventricle to pump blood through a tube and into his aorta. A cable threading out of a small incision in his waist connected to a battery-powered controller strapped to his body. If something went wrong, an alarm as loud as a fire drill would sound.

Winkler returned home weeks later and, as he regained his strength, became hopeful about the future. He started making plans to visit colleges with his daughter, and was able to host his parents and new grandchild for Christmas. “He was doing so much better,” his wife, Tina Winkler, said. “We thought he was coasting until he got his transplant.”

What John Winkler didn’t know: Months before his implant, the Food and Drug Administration put HeartWare on notice for not properly monitoring or repairing HVAD defects, such as faulty batteries and short circuits caused by static electricity, that had killed patients. The agency issued a warning letter, one of its most serious citations. It demanded fixes within 15 days, but took no decisive action as problems persisted.

Ten days after Christmas of 2014, Winkler’s two teenage children heard the HVAD’s piercing alarm and ran upstairs. They found their father collapsed on his bedroom floor, completely unresponsive. Kelly, 17, dropped to his side and tried to copy how people on television did CPR. She told her brother to call 911, and over the device’s siren did her best to hear instructions from the operator.

When paramedics arrived and assessed her father, one made a passing comment that has haunted Kelly ever since: “Well, his toes are already cold.” He died 2 days later. Medtronic, the company that acquired HeartWare in 2016, settled a lawsuit by the family last year, admitting no fault. Tina Winkler believes her children blamed themselves for their father’s death. “Those two kids have never been the same,” she said. “I think they feel like they didn’t do things they needed to do.”

But it was the FDA that failed to protect Winkler and thousands of other patients whose survival depended on the HVAD, a ProPublica investigation found.

As HeartWare and Medtronic failed inspection after inspection and reports of device-related deaths piled up, the FDA relied on the device makers to fix the problems voluntarily rather than compelling them to do so.

The HVAD was implanted into more than 19,000 patients, the majority of whom got it after the FDA found in 2014 that the device didn’t meet federal standards. By the end of last year, the agency had received more than 3,000 reports of patient deaths that may have been caused or contributed to by the device.

Among them were reports of deaths the company linked to serious device problems: a patient who vomited blood as a family member struggled to restart a defective HVAD; a patient who bled out internally and died after implant surgery because a tube attached to the pump tore open; a patient whose heart tissue was left charred after an HVAD short-circuited and voltage surged through the pump.

The ineffective regulatory oversight of the HVAD is emblematic of larger, more systemic weaknesses.

For decades, the FDA and its Center for Devices and Radiological Health have been responsible for ensuring that high-risk medical devices are safe and effective. Yet they rely mostly on manufacturers to identify and correct problems. The agency says it can seize products, order injunctions against companies, or issue fines, but it rarely does so, preferring instead for companies to make fixes voluntarily.

When federal investigators found repeated manufacturing issues with the HVAD for years, the FDA didn’t penalize the company, even as the company issued 15 serious recalls of the device starting in 2014, the most of any single high-risk device in the FDA’s database. Thousands of patients with recalled models needed to have external HVAD parts replaced or take extra caution while handling their devices and monitor them for signs of malfunctions that could cause injury or death.

Meanwhile, the processes to inform the public through formal FDA notices and messages to health care providers repeatedly failed and left patients in the dark about known problems with the HVAD.

“Patients have no idea, and they rely on the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of high-risk devices,” said Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who studies medical device regulation. “How can you not take action on a warning letter with these serious issues with very sick patients?”

In response to ProPublica’s findings, the FDA said it had been closely monitoring issues with the HVAD. It said that after Medtronic acquired HeartWare in 2016, it met with the company more than 100 times to ensure problems were being fixed and to review safety concerns related to the heart pump. The agency also said it initiated formal reviews of new device modifications and continually tracked whether the HVAD had a “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.”

“Our decisions that we made along the way have always been patient focused,” said Dr. William Maisel, director of product evaluation and quality at the FDA’s device division. He added that more than 80% of companies fix their problems by the time the FDA reinspects.

That did not happen with the HVAD. In 2016 and 2018, inspectors found that issues detailed in the 2014 warning letter remained unresolved. Medtronic told the FDA last year that it had fixed the problems, but, before the agency could verify the claim, inspections were paused because of the coronavirus pandemic.

In June, Medtronic stopped HVAD sales and implants. The company conceded that a competing device was safer after a new study showed the HVAD had higher rates of death and neurological injury. Medtronic also cited a 12-year-old problem with its devices not restarting if they disconnect from power, leaving patients’ hearts without support.

Medtronic declined to make Geoffrey Martha, CEO, or Nnamdi Njoku, president of mechanical heart support, available for interviews. In an email, a spokesperson said, “There is nothing more important to Medtronic than the safety and well-being of patients.”

The email continued: “Medtronic takes this matter very seriously and, over the past five years, we have worked closely with FDA and engaged external experts to resolve the issues noted in the warning letter. FDA is aware of the steps Medtronic has taken to address the underlying concerns.”

The company said it will have a support system in place for the 4,000 patients worldwide and 2,000 in the United States who still rely on the HVAD. Medtronic will station 20 specialists across the globe to help with device maintenance and patient education. A centralized engineering team will provide technical support and troubleshooting for patients and medical staff. Medtronic said it will offer financial assistance if insurance doesn’t fully cover the surgery to replace a device with a competing product, but only if a doctor decides it’s medically necessary.

Patients with HVADs have little choice but to hope the devices keep working: The surgery to remove HVADs is so risky that both Medtronic and the FDA advise against it. The device is meant to be left in place until its wearer gets a heart transplant. Or dies.
 

Warning signs

In late 2012, HeartWare, then an independent company headquartered in Massachusetts, won FDA approval to sell a new device that could keep heart failure patients alive and mobile while awaiting a transplant.

A competing device, the HeartMate, was already gaining attention, with high-profile patients like former Vice President Dick Cheney, a heart attack survivor who eventually got a transplant after using the device for 20 months.

The HVAD offered a smaller option that could even be used in children, and it led to a string of publicized successes. A fitness model was able to return to the gym. A 13-year-old with heart defects could attend school again. Medtronic’s YouTube page features 16 interviews with grateful patients and families.

The patients who received HVADs had already been in grave peril. They had advanced heart failure, serious enough to need blood pumped out of their hearts artificially. Most patients were older than 50, but there were also younger patients with heart defects or other cardiac conditions. The device provided help but brought its own risks. Implanting it required invasive open-heart surgery, and clots could develop inside the pump, which, in the worst cases, led to deadly strokes.

The device also came with a steep price tag. Each HVAD cost about $80,000, and, even though HeartWare never made a profit as an independent company, in 2015 device sales brought in $276 million in revenue.

For many severe heart failure patients, the opportunity to survive longer and return to normal life made the device worth the risks and cost.

But patients were unaware the FDA started finding manufacturing issues at HeartWare’s Miami Lakes, Florida, plant as early as 2011, when the device was still seeking approval.

Among the findings, a federal inspector expressed concerns that engineering staff “were not completely reviewing documents before approving them” and found one employee assigned to monitoring device quality had missed several required monthly trainings. HeartWare leadership promised quick corrective action, according to FDA documents.

Then, in 2014, the FDA found more serious lapses, detailed in federal inspection reports.

For example, HeartWare knew of 119 instances in which batteries failed unexpectedly, which could leave the pump powerless, stopping support for the patient’s heart. But the company didn’t test the batteries in inventory for defects, or the batteries of current patients, even though one person’s death had already been linked to battery failure.

The company also received complaints that static electricity could short-circuit its devices. It learned of at least 27 such cases between 2010 and 2013, including four that resulted in serious injuries and two that led to death. HVAD patients would need to avoid contact with certain household objects like televisions or vacuum cleaners — anything that could create strong static electricity. HeartWare added warnings to the patient manual and redesigned its shield to protect the device controller, but the FDA found that the company didn’t replace shields for devices already being used by current patients or produced and sitting in inventory.

Continuing quality control concerns led to the FDA warning letter in June 2014. The document labeled the HVAD as “adulterated,” meaning the device did not meet federal manufacturing standards. The agency gave HeartWare 15 days to correct the problems or face regulatory action.

Still, investment analysts who followed HeartWare believed the warning posed little risk to the company’s business prospects. One described it as being “as benign as possible.”

The 15-day deadline passed, and the FDA never penalized the company.

The agency told ProPublica it had provided additional time because HeartWare was a relatively new manufacturer and the HVAD was a complicated device. It also said it avoided punitive action to make sure patients with severe heart failure had access to this treatment option. “We’re talking about the sickest of the sick patients who really have very few alternatives,” Maisel, the head of device quality, said.

But the HeartMate, the competing device, was available and already being used by the majority of patients. When Medtronic stopped HVAD sales, both companies said the HeartMate could fill the gap.

Inspectors continued to find problems at HeartWare facilities in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. In the most recent report in 2018, inspectors identified seven separate violations at the HVAD plant, including three previously cited in the 2014 warning letter. The company was still mishandling newly discovered defects like pins connecting the controller to a power source that could bend and become unusable, and controllers built with incompatible parts that could chemically react and “attack” the plastic exterior.

Again, the inspection report said the company “promised to correct” the issues.

“What penalty is there for noncompliance? There isn’t one,” said Madris Kinard, a former public health analyst with the FDA and the CEO of Device Events, a software company that analyzes FDA device data. “There’s nothing the FDA is doing that penalizes, in any true sense of the matter, the manufacturer.”

By the time sales were halted last month, the HVAD had become the subject of 15 company-initiated “Class I” recalls for dangerous device problems that could cause injury or death.

One recall came with a warning sent to health care providers in December that said pumps were failing to start up properly. The pattern of malfunctions was almost as old as the device itself, the company later admitted when it halted device sales in June. But even recent patients were completely unaware of the problem.
 

“A no-brainer”

When children asked Latoya Johnson Keelen about the cable that came out of her side and connected to a controller on her hip, she told them she was Iron Woman.

For a while, she felt invulnerable with the HVAD on her heart.

Johnson Keelen, who lives in the Atlanta suburbs, learned she needed the device after delivering her fourth child, Isaiah, in early 2018. Doctors diagnosed her with postpartum cardiomyopathy, a rare and mysterious form of heart failure that afflicts mothers during pregnancy or after birth. Black mothers in the South have among the highest rates of the illness. Some mothers quickly regain heart function, some only partially recuperate and others never recover.

Tests showed that Johnson Keelen, then 42, was suddenly in end-stage heart failure.

Her body’s immune response at the time was too strong for her to receive a heart transplant. Doctors gave her two choices: an HVAD or end-of-life hospice care.

“It became a no-brainer,” she said. “I just had a baby. I just gave birth. I’m not ready to plan for a funeral.”

Johnson Keelen, a woman of faith, believed God would heal her, either through a medical advancement or a miracle. She thought the HVAD was the answer.

Living with a life-sustaining medical device was difficult at first for the fiercely independent mother. She had to leave her job as a public health communications specialist, ask her older sons to change her bandages and lean heavily on her new husband, only a year into their marriage.

But, for about three years, she found comfort in the soft humming of the HVAD’s spinning rotor at night. It served as a lullaby for her new baby when he lay on her chest.

She said she was never told about the manufacturing problems the FDA repeatedly found at HeartWare’s facilities or about device recalls, including one sent to patients in December 2020. The notice said the device sometimes wouldn’t restart properly, which had led to two patient deaths at that point. It warned that current patients should always keep at least one power source, a battery or an AC or DC adapter, connected at all times to avoid the need for a restart.

Two months after that notice, Johnson Keelen was getting her kids ready for school when the HVAD’s low-battery alarm blared. She had unplugged the battery to replace it without realizing her wall adapter was disconnected.

Once before, Johnson Keelen had simply plugged the charger back into the outlet and her device restarted. But this time it wouldn’t.

As an emergency alarm sounded, she called the ventricular-assist team assigned to her case, and a specialist directed her to switch out the device controller.

Nothing changed, and panic crept into the voice on the phone.

An ambulance took Johnson Keelen to a hospital where medical staff used several backup controllers to try to start the pump.

Still nothing.

Doctors and nurses tried to keep calm, but Johnson Keelen could see fear and shock on their faces. Without the HVAD, her only options were a transplant or a completely new pump.

Doctors scurried to locate a donor heart and airlifted her for an emergency transplant. But while running tests, the medical team was stunned to find that Johnson Keelen’s miracle had occurred: Her heart was once again pumping blood on its own.

She had a new choice. She could avoid the risks of transplant rejection and open heart surgery during the pandemic by leaving the device on her functioning heart, while cutting the wires, removing the external components and sealing the pump.

She chose to trust her newly functioning heart, and leave the decommissioned HVAD inside her.

Three months later, when Medtronic said it was stopping HeartWare sales and implants, its announcement cited the problem with pumps not restarting among the reasons.
 

Company-led oversight

If evidence suggests a medical device may be linked to a serious patient injury or death, hospitals and other health care facilities must submit a report to the manufacturer and the FDA. Device companies must also submit reports if they learn independently of any incidents.

By the end of 2020, roughly 3,000 death reports and 20,000 injury reports related to the HVAD had been filed with the FDA.

Any details that could identify patients, like their age or gender, are removed from the publicly available reports. Most only have limited details about circumstances surrounding deaths or injuries. But it’s clear from the reports on the HVAD that some of these outcomes could be linked to problems previously identified by FDA inspectors.

Doctors attempted CPR for two hours after an electrostatic shock short-circuited one patient’s device in 2014, a few months after the FDA inspection that year. An autopsy revealed voltage had caused “deep charring” of the tissue inside the patient’s chest.

Friends found another patient dead in the kitchen, with groceries still on the counter, in 2018 after their device, which did not have the recommended static shield, short-circuited.

Last year, paramedics found a patient with the device disconnected from power. They struggled to restart the device, but it wouldn’t plug back into the power source because the connector pins were bent. The patient would die at the hospital.

In most cases, the FDA turned to the company to investigate whether a malfunction caused or contributed to the incidents.

But the FDA has long known HeartWare and Medtronic could not be relied on to properly submit HVAD incident reports.

In 2014, the FDA cited HeartWare because in at least 10 cases, there were no documents showing the company attempted to investigate.

In 2016, the agency wrote another citation when the company was late in reporting more than 200 cases, some more than a year past their 30-day reporting deadlines, and failed to report malfunctions that occurred during clinical trials.

The FDA told ProPublica the agency increased its monitoring of HVAD reports, and Medtronic hired new employees to submit timely reports. But by 2018, its backlog had only grown, with 677 late case filings. Again, the FDA did nothing beyond telling the company to fix the problem and further increasing its monitoring.

In an email, Medtronic said it “has robust systems in place to monitor the safety of all of our products, including the HVAD device.”

The email said, “When any potential safety issues are identified, those issues are thoroughly investigated and relevant information is shared with regulators and healthcare providers.” The company didn’t respond to the pattern of late reports and incomplete investigations identified in FDA inspections.

Maisel, the director of FDA device evaluation and quality, once criticized asking companies to investigate their own devices. In 2008, as a practicing cardiologist, he testified to the U.S. House oversight committee about his concerns.

“In the majority of cases, FDA relies on industry to identify, correct and report the problems,” he said. “But there is obviously an inherent financial conflict of interest for the manufacturers, sometimes measured in billions of dollars.”

Maisel has since had a change of heart. When asked about his 2008 testimony, he told ProPublica that he now believes the regulatory system “generally serves patients well” and “most companies are well intentioned.”

HeartWare’s track record of questionable investigations was glaring in John Winkler II’s case.

A report submitted by HeartWare that matches the dates and details of Winkler’s case shows the company decided there was “no indication of any device malfunctions.” It told the FDA that the device couldn’t be removed from the body because the hospital said his family declined an autopsy. HeartWare added that the evidence of the device’s role in Winkler’s death was inconclusive.

Yet little of this appears to be true. Documents reviewed by ProPublica show an autopsy of the heart and lungs was performed a day after the death. Tina Winkler said she was told the pump was removed from her husband’s body and was available for inspection.

A year after John Winkler’s death, HeartWare recalled 18,000 potentially faulty batteries produced between 2013 and 2015. Tina Winkler came across the notice online and found her husband’s battery serial numbers on the list. The company never contacted her about it or any further investigation, she said.
 

Rewards, not penalties

As deaths and recalls mounted, HeartWare and Medtronic touted additional FDA approval to treat more patients and their attempts to develop new cutting-edge devices.

With the company on notice under the 2014 warning letter, HeartWare geared up to begin human trials on a smaller heart pump, called the MVAD or Miniaturized Ventricular Assist Device. It would be powered by a new algorithm to more efficiently pump blood. Industry analysts predicted robust sales.

In July 2015, implantations were set to begin on a select group of 60 patients in Europe and Australia. But they were abruptly stopped less than two months later after only 11 implants. Patients experienced numerous adverse events, including major bleeding, infection and device malfunction, according to published data.

HeartWare’s stock price plummeted from about $85 to $35 by October 2015. The next year, Medtronic bought HeartWare for $1.1 billion, replacing much of the company’s leadership shortly after.

Some former HeartWare investors filed a class action lawsuit in January 2016 alleging deception in the development of the MVAD.

According to the accounts of six anonymous former employees in the lawsuit, the details mirror the scandal surrounding Theranos, the former blood test company charged with fraud for raising more than $700 million by allegedly lying about its technology.

Where Theranos made empty promises of a test that only needed a few drops of blood, the suit alleges HeartWare promoted a life-sustaining medical device that former employees said had many problems and actually worsened blood flow, increasing clotting risks.

“Nothing really worked right,” one former HeartWare manager said in the lawsuit, citing “improper alarms, improper touch screen performance, gibberish on display screens — just so many alerts and problems.”

Leadership proceeded with human testing anyway, the suit alleges.

Months later, at an investor conference, HeartWare leadership acknowledged the pump and algorithm led to multiple adverse events. For two patients in particular, the algorithm would direct the pump to speed up so fast that it would try to suck up more blood than was available inside the heart for prolonged periods of time.

HeartWare and Medtronic settled the investor suit for $54.5 million in 2018, admitting no fault.

None of the allegations slowed the FDA as it gave Medtronic additional approval and support for its heart pump technologies.

In September 2017, the agency approved the HVAD as “destination therapy” for patients who were not heart transplant candidates and would rely on the device for the rest of their lives.

“We’re really excited about our HVAD destination therapy approval,” a Medtronic executive said on an investor earnings call. “That’s a real game changer for us in that market.”

Two years later, Medtronic announced it was developing a fully implantable version of the HVAD that would no longer need a cable coming through the waist to connect to power.

Even though issues with the HeartWare device had been unresolved for five years at that point, the FDA accepted the pitch into its new fast-track approval process for high-risk devices.

“Slipped Through The Cracks”

After Johnson Keelen’s pump failed in February, she found a news story about the recall notice sent to medical providers two months prior.

It said the company had identified a problem with pump restarts that could cause heart attacks or serious patient harm. Nineteen patients had been seriously injured so far, and two people had died. The recall warned that patients should be careful to avoid disconnecting the device’s power sources.

“I kept seeing Medtronic on record saying they notified patients,” Johnson Keelen said. “Who did they contact? No one told me.”

Her doctor later told her she must have “slipped through the cracks,” she said.

The current system for informing patients of new safety concerns with high-risk devices relies on a communication chain that can easily break. The device company contacts the FDA and health care providers that work with device patients. The FDA typically issues a public notice, while health professionals contact their patients.

But the agency admits most patients don’t know to look for formal FDA postings. And, experts say, the medical system can lose track of who needs to be notified, especially if a patient moves or switches primary care physicians.

Tina Winkler still wonders why she was never told about FDA-known safety issues with the HVAD. She said her husband’s medical team “had to teach me how to clean his wound, how to change his batteries and what to do if alarms go off. And they never mentioned any of this.”

She said, “If we had all the facts, there’s no way he would have gotten that device implanted in his heart.”

When FDA inspectors find serious safety issues with a medical device, inspection reports are not posted online or sent to patients. The public can obtain reports through a Freedom of Information Act request, but the agency’s records department has said new requests can be stuck behind a year-long backlog.

Patients can find warning letters online in a searchable database of thousands of letters from different FDA divisions, including the center for devices. But HeartWare’s 2014 letter is no longer available for public review because the website purges letters older than five years.

There are also few documents available in state courts about faulty products, because of restrictions on lawsuits related to medical devices. The restrictions date back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in a case against Medtronic. The court found that U.S. law bars patients and their survivors from suing device makers in state court, essentially because their products go through such a rigorous FDA approval process.

Two recent patient lawsuits against HeartWare and Medtronic, including one filed by Tina Winkler, were moved from state court to federal court. In both cases, Medtronic filed to dismiss the cases because of the U.S. law that protects device companies. Medtronic and the families reached private settlements soon after.

Winkler and an attorney for the other family said they could not comment on their settlements.

Johnson Keelen, with a decommissioned HVAD still attached to her heart, wonders what that means for her and other patients’ chances of recourse.

“Why isn’t anyone now stepping up for the patient?” she asked. “They are now liable for taking care of us because we relied on them.”
 

“Run its course”

Deserae Cain, 33, is one of the 4,000 patients still relying on a HeartWare device.

She was implanted with the heart pump in late 2017, after suddenly being diagnosed with heart failure. Scans showed her heart was three times normal size. It took time for her to come to terms with needing a life-sustaining device — not long before her diagnosis, she had been going on five-mile runs. In the four years since, though, Cain has built a life around the HVAD with her fiance in their Dayton, Ohio, home.

They know the device can malfunction. In 2019, the pump failed for almost an hour as doctors at a nearby hospital struggled to restart it. Cain just tried to stay calm, knowing anxiety could threaten her unsupported weak heart. Months later, she needed an emergency experimental procedure to clear out blood clots developed within her HVAD.

Then, in 2020, Cain developed a widespread infection. Doctors told her she needed surgery to clean out and replace the pump.

Cain asked her medical team if she could switch to the alternative HeartMate device, which other patients told her presented fewer problems, she said. Doctors said the HVAD was better suited for her smaller frame.

But her new pump had problems soon after the surgery.

The device’s suction alarms, which alert when the pump is trying to pull in more blood than is available within the heart, sounded multiple times a day, for hours at a time, she said. Baffled by the issue for months, her medical team eventually turned off that specific alarm.

Soon after, her ventricular-assist specialist called her about a patient’s death linked to the belt that holds the device controller, she said. The belt had ripped and the equipment had fallen, yanking on the cable that connected the controller to the pump. Cain replaced her belt but it quickly frayed and had to be replaced again within six weeks.

Then, in June, she found out about Medtronic’s decision to stop sales and implants. Cain received a letter from her hospital mentioning a Medtronic support program, but it provided few specifics.

Cain wondered if things would be any different than before. Anxious about her future, she asked: “Are they just going to let it run its course until there is none of us left?”

This article first appeared on Propublica.

Millions of Americans have been languishing for weeks in the oppressive heat and humidity of a merciless summer. Deadly heat has already taken the lives of hundreds in the Pacific Northwest alone, with numbers likely to grow as the full impact of heat-related deaths eventually comes to light.

In the final week of July, the National Weather Service issued excessive heat warnings for 17 states, stretching from the West Coast, across the Midwest, down south into Louisiana and Georgia. Temperatures 10° to 15° F above average threaten the lives and livelihoods of people all across the country.

After a scorching heat wave in late June, residents of the Pacific Northwest are once again likely to see triple-digit temperatures in the coming days. With the heat, hospitals may face another surge of people with heat-related illnesses.

Erika Moseson, MD, a lung and intensive care specialist, witnessed firsthand the life-threatening impacts of soaring temperatures. She happened to be running her 10-bed intensive care unit in a suburban hospital in Gresham, Ore., about 15 miles east of Portland, the weekend of June 26. Within 12 hours, almost half her ICU beds were filled with people found unconscious on the street, in the bushes, or in their own beds, all because their body’s defenses had become overwhelmed by heat.

“It was unidentified person after unidentified person, coming in, same story, temperatures through the roof, comatose,” Dr. Moseson recalled. Young people in their 20s with muscle breakdown markers through the roof, a sign of rhabdomyolysis; people with no other medical problems that would have put them in a high-risk category.

As a lifelong Oregonian, she’d never seen anything like this before. “We’re all trained for it. I know what happens to you if you have heatstroke, I know how to treat it,” she trailed off, still finding it hard to believe. Still reeling from the number of cases in just a few hours. Still shocked that this happened on what’s supposed to be the cooler, rainforest side of Oregon.

Among those she treated and resuscitated, the memory of a patient that she lost continues to gnaw at her.

“I’ve gone back to it day after day since it happened,” she reflected.

Adults, in their 50s, living at home with their children. Just 1 hour prior, they’d all said goodnight. Then 1 hour later, when a child came to check in, both parents were unconscious.

Dr. Moseson shared how her team tried everything in their power for 18 hours to save the parent that was brought to her ICU. But like hundreds of others who went through the heat wave that weekend, her patient didn’t survive.

It was too late. From Dr. Moseson’s experience, it’s what happens “if you’re cooking a human.”
 

How heat kills

Regardless of where we live on the planet, humans maintain a consistent internal temperature around 98° F for our systems to function properly. 

Our bodies have an entire temperature-regulating system to balance heat gain with heat loss so we don’t stray too far from our ideal range. The hypothalamus functions as the thermostat, communicating with heat sensors in our skin, muscles, and spinal cord. Based on signals about our core body temperature, our nervous system makes many decisions for us – opening up blood vessels in the peripheral parts of our body, pushing more blood toward the skin, and activating sweat glands to produce more sweat.  

Sweat is one of the most powerful tools we have to maintain a safe internal temperature. Of course, there are some things under our control, such as removing clothing, drinking more water, and finding shade (or preferably air conditioning). But beyond that, it’s our ability to sweat that keeps us cool. When sweat evaporates into the air, heat from our skin goes with it, cooling us off.

Over time, our sweat response can work better as we get used to warmer environments, a process that’s known as acclimatization. Over the period of a few days to weeks, the sweat glands of acclimated people can start making sweat at lower temperatures, produce more sweat, and absorb more salt back into our system, all to make us more efficient “sweaters.”

While someone who’s not used to the heat may only produce 1 liter of sweat per hour, people who have become acclimated can produce 2-3 liters every hour, allowing evaporation to eliminate more than two times the amount of heat.   

Because the process of acclimatization can take some time, typically it’s the first throes of summer, or heat waves in places where people don’t typically see high temperatures, that are the most deadly. And of course, the right infrastructure, like access to air conditioning, also plays a large role in limiting heat-related death and hospitalization.

A 2019 study showed that heat-related hospitalizations peak at different temperatures in different places. For example, hospitalizations typically peak in Texas when the temperature hits 105° F. But they might be highest in the Pacific Northwest at just 81° F.

Even with acclimatization, there are limits to how much our bodies can adapt to heat. When the humidity goes up past 75%, there’s already so much moisture in the air that heat loss through evaporation no longer occurs.

It’s this connection between heat and humidity that can be deadly. This is why the heat index (a measure that takes into account temperature and relative humidity) and wet bulb globe temperature (a measure commonly used by the military and competitive athletes that takes into account temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover) are both better at showing how dangerous the heat may be for our health, compared to temperature alone.

Kristie L. Ebi, PhD, a professor in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington, Seattle, has been studying the effects of heat and other climate-sensitive conditions on health for over 20 years. She stresses that it’s not just the recorded temperatures, but the prolonged exposure that kills.

If you never get a chance to bring down that core body temperature, if your internal temperatures stay above the range where your cells and your organs can work well for a long time, that’s when you can have the most dangerous effects of heat.

“It depends then on your age, your fitness, your individual physiology, underlying medical conditions, to how quickly that could affect the functioning of those organs. There’s lots of variability in there,” Dr. Ebi said.

Our hearts take on the brunt of the early response, working harder to pump blood toward the skin. Water and salt loss through our skin can start to cause electrolyte changes that can cause heat cramps and heat exhaustion. We feel tired, nauseated, dizzy. With enough water loss, we may become dehydrated, limiting the blood flow to our brains, causing us to pass out.

These early signs are like a car’s check engine light – systems are already being damaged, but resting, refueling, and, most importantly, turning off the heat are critical steps to prevent fatal injury.

If hazardous heat exposure continues and our internal temperatures continue to rise, nerves stop talking to each other, the proteins in our body unfold and lose their shape, and the cells of our organs disintegrate. This in turn sets off a fire alarm in our blood vessels, where a variety of chemical messengers, including “heat-shock proteins,” are released. The release of these inflammatory proteins, coupled with the loss of blood flow, eventually leads to the death of cells throughout the body, from the brain, to the heart, the muscles, and the kidneys.

This process is referred to as heatstroke. In essence, we melt from the inside.

At a certain point, this cascade can’t be reversed. Just like when you cool a melting block of ice, the parts that have melted will not go back to their original shape. It’s a similar process in our bodies, so delays in cooling and treatment can lead to death rates as high as 80%.

On the outside, we see people who look confused and disoriented, with hot skin and rapid breathing, and they may eventually become unconscious. Core body temperatures over 105° F clinch the diagnosis, but at the first sign of feeling unwell, cooling should be started.

There is no fancier or more effective treatment than that: Cool right away. In emergency rooms in Washington State, doctors used body bags filled with ice and water to cool victims of the heat wave in late June.

“It was all from heat ... that’s the thing, you feel so idiotic ... you’re like, ‘I’ve given you ice’ ... you bring their temperature down. But it’s already set off this cascade that you can’t stop,” Dr. Moseson said.

By the time Dr. Moseson’s patient made it to her, cooling with ice was just the beginning of the attempts to resuscitate and revive. The patient was already showing evidence of a process causing widespread bleeding and clotting, known as disseminated intravascular coagulation, along with damage to the heart and failing kidneys. Over 18 hours, her team cooled the patient, flooded the blood vessels with fluids and blood products, attempted to start dialysis, and inserted a breathing tube – all of the technology that is used to save people from serious cardiovascular collapse from other conditions. But nothing could reverse the melting that had already occurred.

Deaths from heat are 100% preventable. Until they’re not.
 

No respite

As Dr. Ebi says, the key to preventing heat-related death is to cool down enough to stabilize our internal cells and proteins before the irreversible cascade begins.

But for close to 80% of Americans who live in urban areas, temperatures can be even higher and more intolerable compared to surrounding areas because of the way we’ve designed our cities. In effect, we have unintentionally created hot zones called “urban heat islands.”

Jeremy Hoffman, PhD, chief scientist for the Science Museum of Virginia, explains that things like bricks, asphalt, and parking lots absorb more of the sun’s energy throughout the day and then emit that back into the air as heat throughout the afternoon and into the evening. This raises the air and surface temperatures in cities, relative to rural areas. When temperatures don’t cool enough at night, there’s no way to recover from the day’s heat. You start the next day still depleted, with less reserve to face the heat of a new day.

When you dig even deeper, it turns out that even within the same city, there are huge “thermal inequities,” as Dr. Hoffman calls them. In a 2019 study, he found that wealthier parts of cities had more natural spaces such as parks and tree-lined streets, compared to areas that had been intentionally “redlined,” or systematically deprived of investment. This pattern repeats itself in over 100 urban areas across the country and translates to huge temperature differences on the order of 10-20 degrees Fahrenheit within the same city, at the exact same time during a heat wave.

“In some ways, the way that we’ve decided to plan and build our cities physically turns up the thermostat by several tens of degrees during heat waves in particular neighborhoods,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Hoffman’s work showed that the city of Portland (where the death toll from the heat wave in late June was the highest) had some of the most intense differences between formerly redlined vs. tree-lined areas out of the more than 100 cities that he studied.  

“Watching it play out, I was really concerned, not only as a climate scientist, but as a human. Understanding the urban heat island effect and the extreme nature of the inequity in our cities, thermally and otherwise, once you start to really recognize it, you can’t forget it.”
 

The most vulnerable

When it comes to identifying and protecting the people most vulnerable to heat stress and heat-related death, there is an ever-growing list of those most at risk. Unfortunately, very few recognize when they themselves are at risk, often until it’s too late.

According to Linda McCauley, PhD, dean of the Emory University School of Nursing in Atlanta, “the scope of who is vulnerable is quickly increasing.”

For example, we’re used to recognizing that pregnant women and young children are at risk. Public health campaigns have long advised us not to leave young children and pets in hot cars. We know that adolescents who play sports during hot summer months are at high risk for heat-related events and even death.

In Georgia, a 15-year-old boy collapsed and died after his first day back at football practice when the heat index was 105° F on July 26, even as it appears that all protocols for heat safety were being followed.

We recognize that outdoor workers face devastating consequences from prolonged exertion in the heat and must have safer working conditions.

The elderly and those with long-term medical and mental health conditions are also more vulnerable to heat. The elderly may not have the same warning signs and may not recognize that they are dehydrated until it is too late. In addition, their sweating mechanism weakens, and they may be taking medicines that interfere with their ability to regulate their temperature.

Poverty and inadequate housing are risk factors, especially for those in urban heat islands. For many people, their housing does not have enough cooling to protect them, and they can’t safely get themselves to cooling shelters.

These patterns for the most vulnerable fit for the majority of deaths in Oregon during the late June heat wave. Most victims were older, lived alone, and didn’t have air conditioning. But with climate change, the predictions are that temperatures will go higher and heat waves will last longer.

“There’s probably very few people today that are ‘immune’ to the effects of heat-related stress with climate change. All of us can be put in situations where we are susceptible,” Dr. McCauley said.

Dr. Moseson agreed. Many of her patients fit none of these risk categories – she treated people with no health problems in their 20s in her ICU, and the patient she lost would not traditionally have been thought of as high risk. That 50-something patient had no long-standing medical problems, and lived with family in a newly renovated suburban home that had air conditioning. The only problem was that the air conditioner had broken and there had been no rush to fix it based on past experience with Oregon summers.
 

Preventing heat deaths

Protecting ourselves and our families means monitoring the “simple things.” The first three rules are to make sure we’re drinking plenty of water – this means drinking whether we feel thirsty or not. If we’re not in an air-conditioned place, we’ve got to look for shade. And we need to take regular rest breaks.

Inside a home without air conditioning, placing ice in front of a fan to cool the air can work, but realistically, if you are in a place without air conditioning and the temperatures are approaching 90° F, it’s safest to find another place to stay, if possible.

For those playing sports, there are usually 1-week to 2-week protocols that allow for acclimatization when the season begins – this means starting slowly, without gear, and ramping up activity. Still, parents and coaches should watch advanced weather reports to make sure it’s safe to practice outside.

How we dress can also help us, so light clothing is key. And if we’re able to schedule activities for times when it is cooler, that can also protect us from overheating.

If anyone shows early signs of heat stress, removing clothing, cooling their bodies with cold water, and getting them out of the heat is critical. Any evidence of heatstroke is an emergency, and 911 should be called without delay. The faster the core temperature can be dropped, the better the chances for recovery.

On the level of communities, access to natural air conditioning in the form of healthy tree canopies, and trees at bus stops to provide shade can help a lot. According to Dr. Hoffman, these investments help almost right away. Reimagining our cities to remove the “hot zones” that we have created is another key to protecting ourselves as our climate changes.
 

Reaching our limits in a changing climate

Already, we are seeing more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves throughout the country and across the globe.

Dr. Ebi, a coauthor of a recently released scientific analysis that found that the late June Pacific Northwest heat wave would have been virtually impossible without climate change, herself lived through the scorching temperatures in Seattle. Her work shows that the changing climate is killing us right now.

We are approaching a time where extreme temperatures and humidity will make it almost impossible for people to be outside in many parts of the world. Researchers have found that periods of extreme humid heat have more than doubled since 1979, and some places have already had wet-bulb temperatures at the limits of what scientists think humans can tolerate under ideal conditions, meaning for people in perfect health, completely unclothed, in gale-force winds, performing no activity. Obviously that’s less than ideal for most of us and helps explain why thousands of people die at temperatures much lower than our upper limit.

Dr. Ebi pointed out that the good news is that many local communities with a long history of managing high temperatures have a lot of knowledge to share with regions that are newly dealing with these conditions. This includes how local areas develop early warning and response systems with specific action plans.

But, she cautions, it’s going to take a lot of coordination and a lot of behavior change to stabilize the earth’s climate, understand our weak points, and protect our health.

For Dr. Moseson, this reality has hit home.

“I already spent the year being terrified that I as an ICU doctor was going to be the one who gave my mom COVID. Finally I’m vaccinated, she’s vaccinated. Now I’ve watched someone die because they don’t have AC. And my parents, they’re old-school Oregonians, they don’t have AC.”

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

Millions of Americans have been languishing for weeks in the oppressive heat and humidity of a merciless summer. Deadly heat has already taken the lives of hundreds in the Pacific Northwest alone, with numbers likely to grow as the full impact of heat-related deaths eventually comes to light.

In the final week of July, the National Weather Service issued excessive heat warnings for 17 states, stretching from the West Coast, across the Midwest, down south into Louisiana and Georgia. Temperatures 10° to 15° F above average threaten the lives and livelihoods of people all across the country.

After a scorching heat wave in late June, residents of the Pacific Northwest are once again likely to see triple-digit temperatures in the coming days. With the heat, hospitals may face another surge of people with heat-related illnesses.

Erika Moseson, MD, a lung and intensive care specialist, witnessed firsthand the life-threatening impacts of soaring temperatures. She happened to be running her 10-bed intensive care unit in a suburban hospital in Gresham, Ore., about 15 miles east of Portland, the weekend of June 26. Within 12 hours, almost half her ICU beds were filled with people found unconscious on the street, in the bushes, or in their own beds, all because their body’s defenses had become overwhelmed by heat.

“It was unidentified person after unidentified person, coming in, same story, temperatures through the roof, comatose,” Dr. Moseson recalled. Young people in their 20s with muscle breakdown markers through the roof, a sign of rhabdomyolysis; people with no other medical problems that would have put them in a high-risk category.

As a lifelong Oregonian, she’d never seen anything like this before. “We’re all trained for it. I know what happens to you if you have heatstroke, I know how to treat it,” she trailed off, still finding it hard to believe. Still reeling from the number of cases in just a few hours. Still shocked that this happened on what’s supposed to be the cooler, rainforest side of Oregon.

Among those she treated and resuscitated, the memory of a patient that she lost continues to gnaw at her.

“I’ve gone back to it day after day since it happened,” she reflected.

Adults, in their 50s, living at home with their children. Just 1 hour prior, they’d all said goodnight. Then 1 hour later, when a child came to check in, both parents were unconscious.

Dr. Moseson shared how her team tried everything in their power for 18 hours to save the parent that was brought to her ICU. But like hundreds of others who went through the heat wave that weekend, her patient didn’t survive.

It was too late. From Dr. Moseson’s experience, it’s what happens “if you’re cooking a human.”
 

How heat kills

Regardless of where we live on the planet, humans maintain a consistent internal temperature around 98° F for our systems to function properly. 

Our bodies have an entire temperature-regulating system to balance heat gain with heat loss so we don’t stray too far from our ideal range. The hypothalamus functions as the thermostat, communicating with heat sensors in our skin, muscles, and spinal cord. Based on signals about our core body temperature, our nervous system makes many decisions for us – opening up blood vessels in the peripheral parts of our body, pushing more blood toward the skin, and activating sweat glands to produce more sweat.  

Sweat is one of the most powerful tools we have to maintain a safe internal temperature. Of course, there are some things under our control, such as removing clothing, drinking more water, and finding shade (or preferably air conditioning). But beyond that, it’s our ability to sweat that keeps us cool. When sweat evaporates into the air, heat from our skin goes with it, cooling us off.

Over time, our sweat response can work better as we get used to warmer environments, a process that’s known as acclimatization. Over the period of a few days to weeks, the sweat glands of acclimated people can start making sweat at lower temperatures, produce more sweat, and absorb more salt back into our system, all to make us more efficient “sweaters.”

While someone who’s not used to the heat may only produce 1 liter of sweat per hour, people who have become acclimated can produce 2-3 liters every hour, allowing evaporation to eliminate more than two times the amount of heat.   

Because the process of acclimatization can take some time, typically it’s the first throes of summer, or heat waves in places where people don’t typically see high temperatures, that are the most deadly. And of course, the right infrastructure, like access to air conditioning, also plays a large role in limiting heat-related death and hospitalization.

A 2019 study showed that heat-related hospitalizations peak at different temperatures in different places. For example, hospitalizations typically peak in Texas when the temperature hits 105° F. But they might be highest in the Pacific Northwest at just 81° F.

Even with acclimatization, there are limits to how much our bodies can adapt to heat. When the humidity goes up past 75%, there’s already so much moisture in the air that heat loss through evaporation no longer occurs.

It’s this connection between heat and humidity that can be deadly. This is why the heat index (a measure that takes into account temperature and relative humidity) and wet bulb globe temperature (a measure commonly used by the military and competitive athletes that takes into account temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover) are both better at showing how dangerous the heat may be for our health, compared to temperature alone.

Kristie L. Ebi, PhD, a professor in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington, Seattle, has been studying the effects of heat and other climate-sensitive conditions on health for over 20 years. She stresses that it’s not just the recorded temperatures, but the prolonged exposure that kills.

If you never get a chance to bring down that core body temperature, if your internal temperatures stay above the range where your cells and your organs can work well for a long time, that’s when you can have the most dangerous effects of heat.

“It depends then on your age, your fitness, your individual physiology, underlying medical conditions, to how quickly that could affect the functioning of those organs. There’s lots of variability in there,” Dr. Ebi said.

Our hearts take on the brunt of the early response, working harder to pump blood toward the skin. Water and salt loss through our skin can start to cause electrolyte changes that can cause heat cramps and heat exhaustion. We feel tired, nauseated, dizzy. With enough water loss, we may become dehydrated, limiting the blood flow to our brains, causing us to pass out.

These early signs are like a car’s check engine light – systems are already being damaged, but resting, refueling, and, most importantly, turning off the heat are critical steps to prevent fatal injury.

If hazardous heat exposure continues and our internal temperatures continue to rise, nerves stop talking to each other, the proteins in our body unfold and lose their shape, and the cells of our organs disintegrate. This in turn sets off a fire alarm in our blood vessels, where a variety of chemical messengers, including “heat-shock proteins,” are released. The release of these inflammatory proteins, coupled with the loss of blood flow, eventually leads to the death of cells throughout the body, from the brain, to the heart, the muscles, and the kidneys.

This process is referred to as heatstroke. In essence, we melt from the inside.

At a certain point, this cascade can’t be reversed. Just like when you cool a melting block of ice, the parts that have melted will not go back to their original shape. It’s a similar process in our bodies, so delays in cooling and treatment can lead to death rates as high as 80%.

On the outside, we see people who look confused and disoriented, with hot skin and rapid breathing, and they may eventually become unconscious. Core body temperatures over 105° F clinch the diagnosis, but at the first sign of feeling unwell, cooling should be started.

There is no fancier or more effective treatment than that: Cool right away. In emergency rooms in Washington State, doctors used body bags filled with ice and water to cool victims of the heat wave in late June.

“It was all from heat ... that’s the thing, you feel so idiotic ... you’re like, ‘I’ve given you ice’ ... you bring their temperature down. But it’s already set off this cascade that you can’t stop,” Dr. Moseson said.

By the time Dr. Moseson’s patient made it to her, cooling with ice was just the beginning of the attempts to resuscitate and revive. The patient was already showing evidence of a process causing widespread bleeding and clotting, known as disseminated intravascular coagulation, along with damage to the heart and failing kidneys. Over 18 hours, her team cooled the patient, flooded the blood vessels with fluids and blood products, attempted to start dialysis, and inserted a breathing tube – all of the technology that is used to save people from serious cardiovascular collapse from other conditions. But nothing could reverse the melting that had already occurred.

Deaths from heat are 100% preventable. Until they’re not.
 

No respite

As Dr. Ebi says, the key to preventing heat-related death is to cool down enough to stabilize our internal cells and proteins before the irreversible cascade begins.

But for close to 80% of Americans who live in urban areas, temperatures can be even higher and more intolerable compared to surrounding areas because of the way we’ve designed our cities. In effect, we have unintentionally created hot zones called “urban heat islands.”

Jeremy Hoffman, PhD, chief scientist for the Science Museum of Virginia, explains that things like bricks, asphalt, and parking lots absorb more of the sun’s energy throughout the day and then emit that back into the air as heat throughout the afternoon and into the evening. This raises the air and surface temperatures in cities, relative to rural areas. When temperatures don’t cool enough at night, there’s no way to recover from the day’s heat. You start the next day still depleted, with less reserve to face the heat of a new day.

When you dig even deeper, it turns out that even within the same city, there are huge “thermal inequities,” as Dr. Hoffman calls them. In a 2019 study, he found that wealthier parts of cities had more natural spaces such as parks and tree-lined streets, compared to areas that had been intentionally “redlined,” or systematically deprived of investment. This pattern repeats itself in over 100 urban areas across the country and translates to huge temperature differences on the order of 10-20 degrees Fahrenheit within the same city, at the exact same time during a heat wave.

“In some ways, the way that we’ve decided to plan and build our cities physically turns up the thermostat by several tens of degrees during heat waves in particular neighborhoods,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Hoffman’s work showed that the city of Portland (where the death toll from the heat wave in late June was the highest) had some of the most intense differences between formerly redlined vs. tree-lined areas out of the more than 100 cities that he studied.  

“Watching it play out, I was really concerned, not only as a climate scientist, but as a human. Understanding the urban heat island effect and the extreme nature of the inequity in our cities, thermally and otherwise, once you start to really recognize it, you can’t forget it.”
 

The most vulnerable

When it comes to identifying and protecting the people most vulnerable to heat stress and heat-related death, there is an ever-growing list of those most at risk. Unfortunately, very few recognize when they themselves are at risk, often until it’s too late.

According to Linda McCauley, PhD, dean of the Emory University School of Nursing in Atlanta, “the scope of who is vulnerable is quickly increasing.”

For example, we’re used to recognizing that pregnant women and young children are at risk. Public health campaigns have long advised us not to leave young children and pets in hot cars. We know that adolescents who play sports during hot summer months are at high risk for heat-related events and even death.

In Georgia, a 15-year-old boy collapsed and died after his first day back at football practice when the heat index was 105° F on July 26, even as it appears that all protocols for heat safety were being followed.

We recognize that outdoor workers face devastating consequences from prolonged exertion in the heat and must have safer working conditions.

The elderly and those with long-term medical and mental health conditions are also more vulnerable to heat. The elderly may not have the same warning signs and may not recognize that they are dehydrated until it is too late. In addition, their sweating mechanism weakens, and they may be taking medicines that interfere with their ability to regulate their temperature.

Poverty and inadequate housing are risk factors, especially for those in urban heat islands. For many people, their housing does not have enough cooling to protect them, and they can’t safely get themselves to cooling shelters.

These patterns for the most vulnerable fit for the majority of deaths in Oregon during the late June heat wave. Most victims were older, lived alone, and didn’t have air conditioning. But with climate change, the predictions are that temperatures will go higher and heat waves will last longer.

“There’s probably very few people today that are ‘immune’ to the effects of heat-related stress with climate change. All of us can be put in situations where we are susceptible,” Dr. McCauley said.

Dr. Moseson agreed. Many of her patients fit none of these risk categories – she treated people with no health problems in their 20s in her ICU, and the patient she lost would not traditionally have been thought of as high risk. That 50-something patient had no long-standing medical problems, and lived with family in a newly renovated suburban home that had air conditioning. The only problem was that the air conditioner had broken and there had been no rush to fix it based on past experience with Oregon summers.
 

Preventing heat deaths

Protecting ourselves and our families means monitoring the “simple things.” The first three rules are to make sure we’re drinking plenty of water – this means drinking whether we feel thirsty or not. If we’re not in an air-conditioned place, we’ve got to look for shade. And we need to take regular rest breaks.

Inside a home without air conditioning, placing ice in front of a fan to cool the air can work, but realistically, if you are in a place without air conditioning and the temperatures are approaching 90° F, it’s safest to find another place to stay, if possible.

For those playing sports, there are usually 1-week to 2-week protocols that allow for acclimatization when the season begins – this means starting slowly, without gear, and ramping up activity. Still, parents and coaches should watch advanced weather reports to make sure it’s safe to practice outside.

How we dress can also help us, so light clothing is key. And if we’re able to schedule activities for times when it is cooler, that can also protect us from overheating.

If anyone shows early signs of heat stress, removing clothing, cooling their bodies with cold water, and getting them out of the heat is critical. Any evidence of heatstroke is an emergency, and 911 should be called without delay. The faster the core temperature can be dropped, the better the chances for recovery.

On the level of communities, access to natural air conditioning in the form of healthy tree canopies, and trees at bus stops to provide shade can help a lot. According to Dr. Hoffman, these investments help almost right away. Reimagining our cities to remove the “hot zones” that we have created is another key to protecting ourselves as our climate changes.
 

Reaching our limits in a changing climate

Already, we are seeing more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves throughout the country and across the globe.

Dr. Ebi, a coauthor of a recently released scientific analysis that found that the late June Pacific Northwest heat wave would have been virtually impossible without climate change, herself lived through the scorching temperatures in Seattle. Her work shows that the changing climate is killing us right now.

We are approaching a time where extreme temperatures and humidity will make it almost impossible for people to be outside in many parts of the world. Researchers have found that periods of extreme humid heat have more than doubled since 1979, and some places have already had wet-bulb temperatures at the limits of what scientists think humans can tolerate under ideal conditions, meaning for people in perfect health, completely unclothed, in gale-force winds, performing no activity. Obviously that’s less than ideal for most of us and helps explain why thousands of people die at temperatures much lower than our upper limit.

Dr. Ebi pointed out that the good news is that many local communities with a long history of managing high temperatures have a lot of knowledge to share with regions that are newly dealing with these conditions. This includes how local areas develop early warning and response systems with specific action plans.

But, she cautions, it’s going to take a lot of coordination and a lot of behavior change to stabilize the earth’s climate, understand our weak points, and protect our health.

For Dr. Moseson, this reality has hit home.

“I already spent the year being terrified that I as an ICU doctor was going to be the one who gave my mom COVID. Finally I’m vaccinated, she’s vaccinated. Now I’ve watched someone die because they don’t have AC. And my parents, they’re old-school Oregonians, they don’t have AC.”

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

Millions of Americans have been languishing for weeks in the oppressive heat and humidity of a merciless summer. Deadly heat has already taken the lives of hundreds in the Pacific Northwest alone, with numbers likely to grow as the full impact of heat-related deaths eventually comes to light.

In the final week of July, the National Weather Service issued excessive heat warnings for 17 states, stretching from the West Coast, across the Midwest, down south into Louisiana and Georgia. Temperatures 10° to 15° F above average threaten the lives and livelihoods of people all across the country.

After a scorching heat wave in late June, residents of the Pacific Northwest are once again likely to see triple-digit temperatures in the coming days. With the heat, hospitals may face another surge of people with heat-related illnesses.

Erika Moseson, MD, a lung and intensive care specialist, witnessed firsthand the life-threatening impacts of soaring temperatures. She happened to be running her 10-bed intensive care unit in a suburban hospital in Gresham, Ore., about 15 miles east of Portland, the weekend of June 26. Within 12 hours, almost half her ICU beds were filled with people found unconscious on the street, in the bushes, or in their own beds, all because their body’s defenses had become overwhelmed by heat.

“It was unidentified person after unidentified person, coming in, same story, temperatures through the roof, comatose,” Dr. Moseson recalled. Young people in their 20s with muscle breakdown markers through the roof, a sign of rhabdomyolysis; people with no other medical problems that would have put them in a high-risk category.

As a lifelong Oregonian, she’d never seen anything like this before. “We’re all trained for it. I know what happens to you if you have heatstroke, I know how to treat it,” she trailed off, still finding it hard to believe. Still reeling from the number of cases in just a few hours. Still shocked that this happened on what’s supposed to be the cooler, rainforest side of Oregon.

Among those she treated and resuscitated, the memory of a patient that she lost continues to gnaw at her.

“I’ve gone back to it day after day since it happened,” she reflected.

Adults, in their 50s, living at home with their children. Just 1 hour prior, they’d all said goodnight. Then 1 hour later, when a child came to check in, both parents were unconscious.

Dr. Moseson shared how her team tried everything in their power for 18 hours to save the parent that was brought to her ICU. But like hundreds of others who went through the heat wave that weekend, her patient didn’t survive.

It was too late. From Dr. Moseson’s experience, it’s what happens “if you’re cooking a human.”
 

How heat kills

Regardless of where we live on the planet, humans maintain a consistent internal temperature around 98° F for our systems to function properly. 

Our bodies have an entire temperature-regulating system to balance heat gain with heat loss so we don’t stray too far from our ideal range. The hypothalamus functions as the thermostat, communicating with heat sensors in our skin, muscles, and spinal cord. Based on signals about our core body temperature, our nervous system makes many decisions for us – opening up blood vessels in the peripheral parts of our body, pushing more blood toward the skin, and activating sweat glands to produce more sweat.  

Sweat is one of the most powerful tools we have to maintain a safe internal temperature. Of course, there are some things under our control, such as removing clothing, drinking more water, and finding shade (or preferably air conditioning). But beyond that, it’s our ability to sweat that keeps us cool. When sweat evaporates into the air, heat from our skin goes with it, cooling us off.

Over time, our sweat response can work better as we get used to warmer environments, a process that’s known as acclimatization. Over the period of a few days to weeks, the sweat glands of acclimated people can start making sweat at lower temperatures, produce more sweat, and absorb more salt back into our system, all to make us more efficient “sweaters.”

While someone who’s not used to the heat may only produce 1 liter of sweat per hour, people who have become acclimated can produce 2-3 liters every hour, allowing evaporation to eliminate more than two times the amount of heat.   

Because the process of acclimatization can take some time, typically it’s the first throes of summer, or heat waves in places where people don’t typically see high temperatures, that are the most deadly. And of course, the right infrastructure, like access to air conditioning, also plays a large role in limiting heat-related death and hospitalization.

A 2019 study showed that heat-related hospitalizations peak at different temperatures in different places. For example, hospitalizations typically peak in Texas when the temperature hits 105° F. But they might be highest in the Pacific Northwest at just 81° F.

Even with acclimatization, there are limits to how much our bodies can adapt to heat. When the humidity goes up past 75%, there’s already so much moisture in the air that heat loss through evaporation no longer occurs.

It’s this connection between heat and humidity that can be deadly. This is why the heat index (a measure that takes into account temperature and relative humidity) and wet bulb globe temperature (a measure commonly used by the military and competitive athletes that takes into account temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover) are both better at showing how dangerous the heat may be for our health, compared to temperature alone.

Kristie L. Ebi, PhD, a professor in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington, Seattle, has been studying the effects of heat and other climate-sensitive conditions on health for over 20 years. She stresses that it’s not just the recorded temperatures, but the prolonged exposure that kills.

If you never get a chance to bring down that core body temperature, if your internal temperatures stay above the range where your cells and your organs can work well for a long time, that’s when you can have the most dangerous effects of heat.

“It depends then on your age, your fitness, your individual physiology, underlying medical conditions, to how quickly that could affect the functioning of those organs. There’s lots of variability in there,” Dr. Ebi said.

Our hearts take on the brunt of the early response, working harder to pump blood toward the skin. Water and salt loss through our skin can start to cause electrolyte changes that can cause heat cramps and heat exhaustion. We feel tired, nauseated, dizzy. With enough water loss, we may become dehydrated, limiting the blood flow to our brains, causing us to pass out.

These early signs are like a car’s check engine light – systems are already being damaged, but resting, refueling, and, most importantly, turning off the heat are critical steps to prevent fatal injury.

If hazardous heat exposure continues and our internal temperatures continue to rise, nerves stop talking to each other, the proteins in our body unfold and lose their shape, and the cells of our organs disintegrate. This in turn sets off a fire alarm in our blood vessels, where a variety of chemical messengers, including “heat-shock proteins,” are released. The release of these inflammatory proteins, coupled with the loss of blood flow, eventually leads to the death of cells throughout the body, from the brain, to the heart, the muscles, and the kidneys.

This process is referred to as heatstroke. In essence, we melt from the inside.

At a certain point, this cascade can’t be reversed. Just like when you cool a melting block of ice, the parts that have melted will not go back to their original shape. It’s a similar process in our bodies, so delays in cooling and treatment can lead to death rates as high as 80%.

On the outside, we see people who look confused and disoriented, with hot skin and rapid breathing, and they may eventually become unconscious. Core body temperatures over 105° F clinch the diagnosis, but at the first sign of feeling unwell, cooling should be started.

There is no fancier or more effective treatment than that: Cool right away. In emergency rooms in Washington State, doctors used body bags filled with ice and water to cool victims of the heat wave in late June.

“It was all from heat ... that’s the thing, you feel so idiotic ... you’re like, ‘I’ve given you ice’ ... you bring their temperature down. But it’s already set off this cascade that you can’t stop,” Dr. Moseson said.

By the time Dr. Moseson’s patient made it to her, cooling with ice was just the beginning of the attempts to resuscitate and revive. The patient was already showing evidence of a process causing widespread bleeding and clotting, known as disseminated intravascular coagulation, along with damage to the heart and failing kidneys. Over 18 hours, her team cooled the patient, flooded the blood vessels with fluids and blood products, attempted to start dialysis, and inserted a breathing tube – all of the technology that is used to save people from serious cardiovascular collapse from other conditions. But nothing could reverse the melting that had already occurred.

Deaths from heat are 100% preventable. Until they’re not.
 

No respite

As Dr. Ebi says, the key to preventing heat-related death is to cool down enough to stabilize our internal cells and proteins before the irreversible cascade begins.

But for close to 80% of Americans who live in urban areas, temperatures can be even higher and more intolerable compared to surrounding areas because of the way we’ve designed our cities. In effect, we have unintentionally created hot zones called “urban heat islands.”

Jeremy Hoffman, PhD, chief scientist for the Science Museum of Virginia, explains that things like bricks, asphalt, and parking lots absorb more of the sun’s energy throughout the day and then emit that back into the air as heat throughout the afternoon and into the evening. This raises the air and surface temperatures in cities, relative to rural areas. When temperatures don’t cool enough at night, there’s no way to recover from the day’s heat. You start the next day still depleted, with less reserve to face the heat of a new day.

When you dig even deeper, it turns out that even within the same city, there are huge “thermal inequities,” as Dr. Hoffman calls them. In a 2019 study, he found that wealthier parts of cities had more natural spaces such as parks and tree-lined streets, compared to areas that had been intentionally “redlined,” or systematically deprived of investment. This pattern repeats itself in over 100 urban areas across the country and translates to huge temperature differences on the order of 10-20 degrees Fahrenheit within the same city, at the exact same time during a heat wave.

“In some ways, the way that we’ve decided to plan and build our cities physically turns up the thermostat by several tens of degrees during heat waves in particular neighborhoods,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Hoffman’s work showed that the city of Portland (where the death toll from the heat wave in late June was the highest) had some of the most intense differences between formerly redlined vs. tree-lined areas out of the more than 100 cities that he studied.  

“Watching it play out, I was really concerned, not only as a climate scientist, but as a human. Understanding the urban heat island effect and the extreme nature of the inequity in our cities, thermally and otherwise, once you start to really recognize it, you can’t forget it.”
 

The most vulnerable

When it comes to identifying and protecting the people most vulnerable to heat stress and heat-related death, there is an ever-growing list of those most at risk. Unfortunately, very few recognize when they themselves are at risk, often until it’s too late.

According to Linda McCauley, PhD, dean of the Emory University School of Nursing in Atlanta, “the scope of who is vulnerable is quickly increasing.”

For example, we’re used to recognizing that pregnant women and young children are at risk. Public health campaigns have long advised us not to leave young children and pets in hot cars. We know that adolescents who play sports during hot summer months are at high risk for heat-related events and even death.

In Georgia, a 15-year-old boy collapsed and died after his first day back at football practice when the heat index was 105° F on July 26, even as it appears that all protocols for heat safety were being followed.

We recognize that outdoor workers face devastating consequences from prolonged exertion in the heat and must have safer working conditions.

The elderly and those with long-term medical and mental health conditions are also more vulnerable to heat. The elderly may not have the same warning signs and may not recognize that they are dehydrated until it is too late. In addition, their sweating mechanism weakens, and they may be taking medicines that interfere with their ability to regulate their temperature.

Poverty and inadequate housing are risk factors, especially for those in urban heat islands. For many people, their housing does not have enough cooling to protect them, and they can’t safely get themselves to cooling shelters.

These patterns for the most vulnerable fit for the majority of deaths in Oregon during the late June heat wave. Most victims were older, lived alone, and didn’t have air conditioning. But with climate change, the predictions are that temperatures will go higher and heat waves will last longer.

“There’s probably very few people today that are ‘immune’ to the effects of heat-related stress with climate change. All of us can be put in situations where we are susceptible,” Dr. McCauley said.

Dr. Moseson agreed. Many of her patients fit none of these risk categories – she treated people with no health problems in their 20s in her ICU, and the patient she lost would not traditionally have been thought of as high risk. That 50-something patient had no long-standing medical problems, and lived with family in a newly renovated suburban home that had air conditioning. The only problem was that the air conditioner had broken and there had been no rush to fix it based on past experience with Oregon summers.
 

Preventing heat deaths

Protecting ourselves and our families means monitoring the “simple things.” The first three rules are to make sure we’re drinking plenty of water – this means drinking whether we feel thirsty or not. If we’re not in an air-conditioned place, we’ve got to look for shade. And we need to take regular rest breaks.

Inside a home without air conditioning, placing ice in front of a fan to cool the air can work, but realistically, if you are in a place without air conditioning and the temperatures are approaching 90° F, it’s safest to find another place to stay, if possible.

For those playing sports, there are usually 1-week to 2-week protocols that allow for acclimatization when the season begins – this means starting slowly, without gear, and ramping up activity. Still, parents and coaches should watch advanced weather reports to make sure it’s safe to practice outside.

How we dress can also help us, so light clothing is key. And if we’re able to schedule activities for times when it is cooler, that can also protect us from overheating.

If anyone shows early signs of heat stress, removing clothing, cooling their bodies with cold water, and getting them out of the heat is critical. Any evidence of heatstroke is an emergency, and 911 should be called without delay. The faster the core temperature can be dropped, the better the chances for recovery.

On the level of communities, access to natural air conditioning in the form of healthy tree canopies, and trees at bus stops to provide shade can help a lot. According to Dr. Hoffman, these investments help almost right away. Reimagining our cities to remove the “hot zones” that we have created is another key to protecting ourselves as our climate changes.
 

Reaching our limits in a changing climate

Already, we are seeing more intense, more frequent, and longer-lasting heat waves throughout the country and across the globe.

Dr. Ebi, a coauthor of a recently released scientific analysis that found that the late June Pacific Northwest heat wave would have been virtually impossible without climate change, herself lived through the scorching temperatures in Seattle. Her work shows that the changing climate is killing us right now.

We are approaching a time where extreme temperatures and humidity will make it almost impossible for people to be outside in many parts of the world. Researchers have found that periods of extreme humid heat have more than doubled since 1979, and some places have already had wet-bulb temperatures at the limits of what scientists think humans can tolerate under ideal conditions, meaning for people in perfect health, completely unclothed, in gale-force winds, performing no activity. Obviously that’s less than ideal for most of us and helps explain why thousands of people die at temperatures much lower than our upper limit.

Dr. Ebi pointed out that the good news is that many local communities with a long history of managing high temperatures have a lot of knowledge to share with regions that are newly dealing with these conditions. This includes how local areas develop early warning and response systems with specific action plans.

But, she cautions, it’s going to take a lot of coordination and a lot of behavior change to stabilize the earth’s climate, understand our weak points, and protect our health.

For Dr. Moseson, this reality has hit home.

“I already spent the year being terrified that I as an ICU doctor was going to be the one who gave my mom COVID. Finally I’m vaccinated, she’s vaccinated. Now I’ve watched someone die because they don’t have AC. And my parents, they’re old-school Oregonians, they don’t have AC.”

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

Taking midodrine can reduce vasovagal syncope in younger healthy patients, according to a new study.

Vasovagal syncope is the most common cause of fainting and is often triggered by dehydration and upright posture, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. But it can also be caused by stimuli like the sight of blood or sudden emotional distress. The stimulus causes the heart rate and blood pressure to drop rapidly, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial included 133 patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Those that received midodrine were less likely to have one syncope episode (28 of 66 [42%]), compared with those that took the placebo (41 of 67 [61%]). The absolute risk reduction for vasovagal syncope was 19 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 2-36 percentage points).

The study included patients from 25 university hospitals in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, who were followed for 12 months. The trial participants were highly symptomatic for vasovagal syncope, having experienced a median of 23 episodes in their lifetime and 5 syncope episodes in the last year, and they had no comorbid conditions.

“We don’t have many arrows in our quiver,” said Robert Sheldon, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at University of Calgary (Alta.) and lead author of the study, referring to the lack of evidence-based treatments for syncope.

For 20 years Dr. Sheldon’s lab has been testing drugs that showed some potential. While a previous study of fludrocortisone (Florinef ) showed some benefit, “[midodrine] was the first to be unequivocally, slam-dunk positive,” he said in an interview.

Earlier trials of midodrine

Other studies have shown midodrine to prevent syncope on tilt tests. There have been two randomized trials where midodrine significantly reduced vasovagal syncope, but one of these was short and in children, and the other one was open label with no placebo control.

“Risk reduction was very high in previous studies,” Dr. Sheldon said in an interview. But, because they were open label, there was a huge placebo effect, he noted.

“There were no adequately done, adequately powered [studies] that have been positive,” Dr. Sheldon added.

New study methods and outcomes

The study published in Annals of Internal Medicine this week included patients over 18 years of age with a Calgary Syncope Symptom Score of at least 2. All were educated on lifestyle measures that can prevent syncopes before beginning to take 5 mg of study drug or placebo three times daily, 4 hours apart.

In these cases, the study authors wrote, “taking medication three times a day seems worth the effort.” But in patients with a lower frequency of episodes, midodrine might not have an adequate payoff.

These results are “impressive,” said Roopinder K. Sandhu, MD, MPH, clinical electrophysiologist at Cedar-Sinai in Los Angeles. “This study demonstrated that midodrine is the first medical therapy, in addition to education and lifestyle measures, to unequivocally pass the scrutiny of an international, placebo-controlled, RCT to show a significant reduction in syncope recurrence in a younger population with frequent syncope events.”

“[Taking midodrine] doesn’t carry the long-term consequence of pacemakers,” she added.

Study limitations

Limitations of the new study include its small size and short observation period, the authors wrote. Additionally, a large proportion of patients enrolled were also from a single center in Calgary that specializes in syncope care. Twenty-seven patients in the trial stopped taking their assigned medication during the year observation period, but the authors concluded these participants “likely would bias the results against midodrine.”

For doctors considering midodrine for their patients, it’s critical to confirm the diagnosis and to try patient education first, Dr. Sheldon advised.

Lifestyle factors like hydration, adequate sodium intake, and squatting or lying down when the syncope is coming on can sufficiently suppress syncopes in two-thirds of patients, he noted.

This is a treatment for young people, Dr. Sandhu said. The median age in the trial was 35, so patients taking midodrine should be younger than 50. Midodrine is also not effective in patients with high blood pressure or heart failure, she said.

“[Midodrine] is easy to use but kind of a pain at first,” Dr. Sheldon noted. Every patient should start out taking 5 mg doses, three times a day – during waking hours. But then you have to adjust the dosage, “and it’s tricky,” he said.

If a patient experiences goosebumps or the sensation of worms crawling in the hair, the dose might be too much, Dr. Sheldon noted.

If the patient is still fainting, first consider when they are fainting, he said. If it’s around the time they should take another dose, it might be trough effect.

Dr. Sandhu was not involved in the study, but Cedar Sinai was a participating center, and she considers Dr. Sheldon to be a mentor. Dr. Sandhu also noted that she has published papers with Dr. Sheldon, who reported no conflicts.

Taking midodrine can reduce vasovagal syncope in younger healthy patients, according to a new study.

Vasovagal syncope is the most common cause of fainting and is often triggered by dehydration and upright posture, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. But it can also be caused by stimuli like the sight of blood or sudden emotional distress. The stimulus causes the heart rate and blood pressure to drop rapidly, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial included 133 patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Those that received midodrine were less likely to have one syncope episode (28 of 66 [42%]), compared with those that took the placebo (41 of 67 [61%]). The absolute risk reduction for vasovagal syncope was 19 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 2-36 percentage points).

The study included patients from 25 university hospitals in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, who were followed for 12 months. The trial participants were highly symptomatic for vasovagal syncope, having experienced a median of 23 episodes in their lifetime and 5 syncope episodes in the last year, and they had no comorbid conditions.

“We don’t have many arrows in our quiver,” said Robert Sheldon, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at University of Calgary (Alta.) and lead author of the study, referring to the lack of evidence-based treatments for syncope.

For 20 years Dr. Sheldon’s lab has been testing drugs that showed some potential. While a previous study of fludrocortisone (Florinef ) showed some benefit, “[midodrine] was the first to be unequivocally, slam-dunk positive,” he said in an interview.

Earlier trials of midodrine

Other studies have shown midodrine to prevent syncope on tilt tests. There have been two randomized trials where midodrine significantly reduced vasovagal syncope, but one of these was short and in children, and the other one was open label with no placebo control.

“Risk reduction was very high in previous studies,” Dr. Sheldon said in an interview. But, because they were open label, there was a huge placebo effect, he noted.

“There were no adequately done, adequately powered [studies] that have been positive,” Dr. Sheldon added.

New study methods and outcomes

The study published in Annals of Internal Medicine this week included patients over 18 years of age with a Calgary Syncope Symptom Score of at least 2. All were educated on lifestyle measures that can prevent syncopes before beginning to take 5 mg of study drug or placebo three times daily, 4 hours apart.

In these cases, the study authors wrote, “taking medication three times a day seems worth the effort.” But in patients with a lower frequency of episodes, midodrine might not have an adequate payoff.

These results are “impressive,” said Roopinder K. Sandhu, MD, MPH, clinical electrophysiologist at Cedar-Sinai in Los Angeles. “This study demonstrated that midodrine is the first medical therapy, in addition to education and lifestyle measures, to unequivocally pass the scrutiny of an international, placebo-controlled, RCT to show a significant reduction in syncope recurrence in a younger population with frequent syncope events.”

“[Taking midodrine] doesn’t carry the long-term consequence of pacemakers,” she added.

Study limitations

Limitations of the new study include its small size and short observation period, the authors wrote. Additionally, a large proportion of patients enrolled were also from a single center in Calgary that specializes in syncope care. Twenty-seven patients in the trial stopped taking their assigned medication during the year observation period, but the authors concluded these participants “likely would bias the results against midodrine.”

For doctors considering midodrine for their patients, it’s critical to confirm the diagnosis and to try patient education first, Dr. Sheldon advised.

Lifestyle factors like hydration, adequate sodium intake, and squatting or lying down when the syncope is coming on can sufficiently suppress syncopes in two-thirds of patients, he noted.

This is a treatment for young people, Dr. Sandhu said. The median age in the trial was 35, so patients taking midodrine should be younger than 50. Midodrine is also not effective in patients with high blood pressure or heart failure, she said.

“[Midodrine] is easy to use but kind of a pain at first,” Dr. Sheldon noted. Every patient should start out taking 5 mg doses, three times a day – during waking hours. But then you have to adjust the dosage, “and it’s tricky,” he said.

If a patient experiences goosebumps or the sensation of worms crawling in the hair, the dose might be too much, Dr. Sheldon noted.

If the patient is still fainting, first consider when they are fainting, he said. If it’s around the time they should take another dose, it might be trough effect.

Dr. Sandhu was not involved in the study, but Cedar Sinai was a participating center, and she considers Dr. Sheldon to be a mentor. Dr. Sandhu also noted that she has published papers with Dr. Sheldon, who reported no conflicts.

Taking midodrine can reduce vasovagal syncope in younger healthy patients, according to a new study.

Vasovagal syncope is the most common cause of fainting and is often triggered by dehydration and upright posture, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine. But it can also be caused by stimuli like the sight of blood or sudden emotional distress. The stimulus causes the heart rate and blood pressure to drop rapidly, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial included 133 patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and was published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Those that received midodrine were less likely to have one syncope episode (28 of 66 [42%]), compared with those that took the placebo (41 of 67 [61%]). The absolute risk reduction for vasovagal syncope was 19 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 2-36 percentage points).

The study included patients from 25 university hospitals in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the United Kingdom, who were followed for 12 months. The trial participants were highly symptomatic for vasovagal syncope, having experienced a median of 23 episodes in their lifetime and 5 syncope episodes in the last year, and they had no comorbid conditions.

“We don’t have many arrows in our quiver,” said Robert Sheldon, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at University of Calgary (Alta.) and lead author of the study, referring to the lack of evidence-based treatments for syncope.

For 20 years Dr. Sheldon’s lab has been testing drugs that showed some potential. While a previous study of fludrocortisone (Florinef ) showed some benefit, “[midodrine] was the first to be unequivocally, slam-dunk positive,” he said in an interview.

Earlier trials of midodrine

Other studies have shown midodrine to prevent syncope on tilt tests. There have been two randomized trials where midodrine significantly reduced vasovagal syncope, but one of these was short and in children, and the other one was open label with no placebo control.

“Risk reduction was very high in previous studies,” Dr. Sheldon said in an interview. But, because they were open label, there was a huge placebo effect, he noted.

“There were no adequately done, adequately powered [studies] that have been positive,” Dr. Sheldon added.

New study methods and outcomes

The study published in Annals of Internal Medicine this week included patients over 18 years of age with a Calgary Syncope Symptom Score of at least 2. All were educated on lifestyle measures that can prevent syncopes before beginning to take 5 mg of study drug or placebo three times daily, 4 hours apart.

In these cases, the study authors wrote, “taking medication three times a day seems worth the effort.” But in patients with a lower frequency of episodes, midodrine might not have an adequate payoff.

These results are “impressive,” said Roopinder K. Sandhu, MD, MPH, clinical electrophysiologist at Cedar-Sinai in Los Angeles. “This study demonstrated that midodrine is the first medical therapy, in addition to education and lifestyle measures, to unequivocally pass the scrutiny of an international, placebo-controlled, RCT to show a significant reduction in syncope recurrence in a younger population with frequent syncope events.”

“[Taking midodrine] doesn’t carry the long-term consequence of pacemakers,” she added.

Study limitations

Limitations of the new study include its small size and short observation period, the authors wrote. Additionally, a large proportion of patients enrolled were also from a single center in Calgary that specializes in syncope care. Twenty-seven patients in the trial stopped taking their assigned medication during the year observation period, but the authors concluded these participants “likely would bias the results against midodrine.”

For doctors considering midodrine for their patients, it’s critical to confirm the diagnosis and to try patient education first, Dr. Sheldon advised.

Lifestyle factors like hydration, adequate sodium intake, and squatting or lying down when the syncope is coming on can sufficiently suppress syncopes in two-thirds of patients, he noted.

This is a treatment for young people, Dr. Sandhu said. The median age in the trial was 35, so patients taking midodrine should be younger than 50. Midodrine is also not effective in patients with high blood pressure or heart failure, she said.

“[Midodrine] is easy to use but kind of a pain at first,” Dr. Sheldon noted. Every patient should start out taking 5 mg doses, three times a day – during waking hours. But then you have to adjust the dosage, “and it’s tricky,” he said.

If a patient experiences goosebumps or the sensation of worms crawling in the hair, the dose might be too much, Dr. Sheldon noted.

If the patient is still fainting, first consider when they are fainting, he said. If it’s around the time they should take another dose, it might be trough effect.

Dr. Sandhu was not involved in the study, but Cedar Sinai was a participating center, and she considers Dr. Sheldon to be a mentor. Dr. Sandhu also noted that she has published papers with Dr. Sheldon, who reported no conflicts.

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Dr. Gandhi), and the School of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India (Drs. Gandhi and Tiwari).

Objective: Calculation of HEART score to (1) stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and to predict the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and (2) demonstrate feasibility of HEART score in our local settings.

Design: A prospective cohort study of patients with a chief complaint of chest pain concerning for acute coronary syndrome.

Setting: Participants were recruited from the emergency department (ED) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center and a resource-limited setting in Mumbai, India.

Participants: We evaluated 141 patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED and stratified them using the HEART score. To assess patients’ progress, a follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED.

Measurements: The primary outcomes were a risk stratification, 6-week occurrence of MACE, and performance of unscheduled revascularization or stress testing. The secondary outcomes were discharge or death.

Results: The 141 participants were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups: 67 (47.52%), 44 (31.21%), and 30 (21.28%), respectively. The 6-week incidence of MACE in each category was 1.49%, 18.18%, and 90%, respectively. An acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Overall, 98.5% of low-risk patients and 93.33% of high-risk patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge; therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrated reduced health care utilization. All the survey respondents found the HEART score to be feasible. The patient characteristics and risk profile of the patients with and without MACE demonstrated that: patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke.

Conclusion: The HEART score seems to be a useful tool for risk stratification and a reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and can therefore be used for triage.

Keywords: chest pain; emergency department; HEART score; acute coronary syndrome; major adverse cardiac events; myocardial infarction; revascularization.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have epidemic proportions worldwide. Globally, in 2012, CVD led to 17.5 million deaths,^1,2 with more than 75% of them occurring in developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, where mortality from CHD is rapidly declining, it is increasing in developing countries.^1,3 Current estimates from epidemiologic studies from various parts of India indicate the prevalence of CHD in India to be between 7% and 13% in urban populations and 2% and 7% in rural populations.⁴

Premature mortality in terms of years of life lost because of CVD in India increased by 59% over a 20-year span, from 23.2 million in 1990 to 37 million in 2010.⁵ Studies conducted in Mumbai (Mumbai Cohort Study) reported very high CVD mortality rates, approaching 500 per 100 000 for men and 250 per 100 000 for women.^6,7 However, to the best of our knowledge, in the Indian population, there are minimal data on utilization of a triage score, such as the HEART score, in chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED) in a resource-limited setting.

The most common reason for admitting patients to the ED is chest pain.⁸ There are various cardiac and noncardiac etiologies of chest pain presentation. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be ruled out first in every patient presenting with chest pain. However, 80% of patients with ACS have no clear diagnostic features on presentation.⁹ The timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with ACS improves their prognosis. Therefore, clinicians tend to start each patient on ACS treatment to reduce the risk, which often leads to increased costs due to unnecessary, time-consuming diagnostic procedures that may place burdens on both the health care system and the patient.¹⁰

Several risk-stratifying tools have been developed in the last few years. Both the GRACE and TIMI risk scores have been designed for risk stratification of patients with proven ACS and not for the chest pain population at the ED.¹¹ Some of these tools are applicable to patients with all types of chest pain presenting to the ED, such as the Manchester Triage System. Other, more selective systems are devoted to the risk stratification of suspected ACS in the ED. One is the HEART score.¹²

The first study on the HEART score—an acronym that stands for History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin—was done by Backus et al, who proved that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which allows clinicians to stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk and to guide their clinical decision-making accordingly. It was developed to provide clinicians with a simple, reliable predictor of cardiac risk on the basis of the lowest score of 0 (very low-risk) up to a score of 10 (very high-risk).

We studied the clinical performance of the HEART score in patients with chest pain, focusing on the efficacy and safety of rapidly identifying patients at risk of MACE. We aimed to determine (1) whether the HEART score is a reliable predictor of outcomes of chest pain patients presenting to the ED; (2) whether the score is feasible in our local settings; and (3) whether it describes the risk profile of patients with and without MACE.

Methods

Setting

Participants were recruited from the ED of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a municipal teaching hospital in Mumbai. The study institute is a tertiary care academic medical center located in Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is a resource-limited setting serving urban, suburban, and rural populations. Participants requiring urgent attention are first seen by a casualty officer and then referred to the emergency ward. Here, the physician on duty evaluates them and decides on admission to the various wards, like the general ward, medical intensive care unit (ICU), coronary care unit (CCU), etc. The specialist’s opinion may also be obtained before admission. Critically ill patients are initially admitted to the emergency ward and stabilized before being shifted to other areas of the hospital.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years and older presenting with symptoms of acute chest pain or suspected ACS were stratified by priority using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score. Only patients presenting to the ED were eligible for the study. Informed consent from the patient or next of kin was mandatory for participation in the study.

Patients were determined ineligible for the following reasons: a clear cause for chest pain other than ACS (eg, trauma, diagnosed aortic dissection), persisting or recurrent chest pain caused by rheumatic diseases or cancer (a terminal illness), pregnancy, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, or incomplete data.

Study design

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients arriving at the tertiary care hospital with a chief complaint of “chest pain” concerning for ACS. All participants provided witnessed written informed consent. Patients were screened over approximately a 3-month period, from July 2019 to October 2019, after acquiring approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Any patient who was admitted to the ED due to chest pain, prehospital referrals based on a physician’s suspicions of a heart condition, and previous medical treatment due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) was eligible. All patients were stratified by priority in our ED using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score—and were followed up by phone within 6 weeks after presenting to the ED, to assess their progress.

We conducted our study to determine the importance of calculating the HEART score in each patient, which will help to correctly place them into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for clinically important, irreversible adverse cardiac events and guide the clinical decision-making. Patients with low risk will avoid costly tests and hospital admissions, thus decreasing the cost of treatment and ensuring timely discharge from the ED. Patients with high risk will be treated immediately, to possibly prevent a life-threatening, ACS-related incident. Thus, the HEART score will serve as a quick and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and help clinicians to make accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices in uncertain situations.

HEART score

The total number of points for History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, and Troponin was noted as the HEART score (Table 1).

For this study, the patient’s history and ECGs were interpreted by internal medicine attending physicians in the ED. The ECG taken in the emergency room was reviewed and classified, and a copy of the admission ECG was added to the file. The recommendation for patients with a HEART score in a particular range was evaluated. Notably, those with a score of 3 or lower led to a recommendation of reassurance and early discharge. Those with a HEART score in the intermediate range (4-6) were admitted to the hospital for further clinical observation and testing, whereas a high HEART score (7-10) led to admission for intensive monitoring and early intervention. In the analysis of HEART score data, we only used those patients having records for all 5 parameters, excluding patients without an ECG or troponin test.

Results

Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined based on Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.¹³ Coronary revascularization was defined as angioplasty with or without stent placement or coronary artery bypass surgery.¹⁴ Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was defined as any therapeutic catheter intervention in the coronary arteries. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was defined as any cardiac surgery in which coronary arteries were operated on.

The primary outcomes in this study were the (1) risk stratification of chest pain patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk categories; (2) incidence of a MACE within 6 weeks of initial presentation. MACE consists of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), PCI, CABG, coronary angiography revealing procedurally correctable stenosis managed conservatively, and death due to any cause.

Our secondary outcomes were discharge or death due to any cause within 6 weeks after presentation.

Follow-up

Within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED, a follow-up phone call was placed to assess the patient’s progress. The follow-up focused on the endpoint of MACE, comprising all-cause death, MI, and revascularization. No patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

We aimed to find a difference in the 6-week MACE between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the HEART score. The prevalence of CHD in India is 10%,⁴ and assuming an α of 0.05, we needed a sample of 141 patients from the ED patient population. Continuous variables were presented by mean (SD), and categorical variables as percentages. We used t test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison of means for continuous variables, χ² for categorical variables, and Fisher’s exact test for comparison of the categorical variables. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

We evaluated 141 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain concerning for ACS during the study period, from July 2019 to October 2019. Patients were 57.54 (13.13) years of age. The male to female distribution was 85 to 56. Other patient characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Primary outcomes

The risk stratification of the HEART score in chest pain patients and the incidence of 6-week MACE are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

The distribution of the HEART score’s 5 elements in the groups with or without MACE endpoints is shown in Table 5. Notice the significant differences between the groups. A follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after the presentation to the ED to assess the patient’s progress. The 6-week follow-up call data are included in Table 6.

Of 141 patients, 36 patients (25.53%) were diagnosed with MACE within 6 weeks of presentation. An AMI was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%). Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent PCI, and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent CABG. The rest of the patients were treated with medications only.

Myocardial infarction—An AMI was diagnosed in 24 of the 141 patients (17.02%). Twenty-one of those already had positive markers on admission (apparently, these AMI had started before their arrival to the emergency room). One AMI occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male, and another occurred 10 days after discharge. A further AMI occurred 2 weeks after discharge. All 3 patients belonged to the intermediate-risk group.

Revascularization—Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%). Revascularization was performed in 19 patients (13.48%), of which 15 were PCIs (10.64%) and 4 were CABGs (2.84%).

Mortality—One patient died from the study population. He was a 72-year-old male who died 14 days after admission. He had a HEART score of 8.

Among the 67 low-risk patients:

• MACE: Coronary angiography was performed in 1 patient (1.49%). Among the 67 patients in the low-risk category, there was no cases of AMI or deaths. The remaining 66 patients (98.51%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• General practitioner (GP) visits/readmissions following discharge: Two of 67 patients (2.99%) had GP visits following discharge, of which 1 was uneventful. The other patient, a 64-year-old male, was readmitted due to a recurrent history of chest pain and underwent coronary angiography.

Among the 44 intermediate-risk patients:

• MACE: Of the 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) who had coronary angiography, 3 patients (6.82%) had AMI, of which 1 occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male. Two patients had AMI following discharge. There were no deaths. Overall, 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Three of 44 patients (6.82%) had repeated visits following discharge. One was a GP visit that was uneventful. The remaining 2 patients were diagnosed with AMI and readmitted following discharge. One AMI occurred 10 days after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 6; another occurred 2 weeks after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 5.

Among the 30 high-risk patients:

• MACE: Twenty-three of 30 patients (76.67%) underwent coronary angiography. One patient died 5 days after discharge. The patient had a HEART score of 8. Most patients however, had an uneventful recovery following discharge (28, 93.33%).
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Five of 30 patients (16.67%) had repeated visits following discharge. Two were uneventful. Two patients had a history of recurrent chest pain that resolved on Sorbitrate. One patient was readmitted 2 weeks following discharge due to a complication: a left ventricular clot was found. The patient had a HEART score of 10.

Secondary outcome—Overall, 140 of 141 patients were discharged. One patient died: a 72-year-old male with a HEART score of 8.

Feasibility—To determine the ease and feasibility of performing a HEART score in chest pain patients presenting to the ED, a survey was distributed to the internal medicine physicians in the ED. In the survey, the Likert scale was used to rate the ease of utilizing the HEART score and whether the physicians found it feasible to use it for risk stratification of their chest pain patients. A total of 12 of 15 respondents (80%) found it “easy” to use. Of the remaining 3 respondents, 2 (13.33%) rated the HEART score “very easy” to use, while 1 (6.66%) considered it “difficult” to work with. None of the respondents said that it was not feasible to perform a HEART score in the ED.

Risk factors for reaching an endpoint:

We compared risk profiles between the patient groups with and without an endpoint. The group of patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males than the group of patients without MACE. Moreover, they also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke. These also showed a significant association with MACE. Obesity was not included in our risk factors as we did not have data collected to measure body mass index. Results are represented in Table 7.

Discussion

Our study described a patient population presenting to an ED with chest pain as their primary complaint. The results of this prospective study confirm that the HEART score is an excellent system to triage chest pain patients. It provides the clinician with a reliable predictor of the outcome (MACE) after the patient’s arrival, based on available clinical data and in a resource-limited setting like ours.

Cardiovascular epidemiology studies indicate that this has become a significant public health problem in India.¹ Several risk scores for ACS have been published in European and American guidelines. However, in the Indian population, minimal data are available on utilization of such a triage score (HEART score) in chest pain patients in the ED in a resource-limited setting, to the best of our knowledge. In India, only 1 such study is reported,¹⁵ at the Sundaram Medical Foundation, a 170-bed community hospital in Chennai. In this study, 13 of 14 patients (92.86%) with a high HEART score had MACE, indicating a sensitivity of 92.86%; in the 44 patients with a low HEART score, 1 patient (2.22%) had MACE, indicating a specificity of 97.78%; and in the 28 patients with a moderate HEART score, 12 patients (42.86%) had MACE.  

In looking for the optimal risk-stratifying system for chest pain patients, we analyzed the HEART score. The first study on the HEART score was done Backus et al, proving that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score had good discriminatory power, too. The C statistic for the HEART score for ACS occurrence shows a value of 0.83. This signifies a good-to-excellent ability to stratify all-cause chest pain patients in the ED for their risk of MACE. The application of the HEART score to our patient population demonstrated that the majority of the patients belonged to the low-risk category, as reported in the first cohort study that applied the HEART score.⁸ The relationship between the HEART score category and occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks showed a curve with 3 different patterns, corresponding to the 3 risk categories defined in the literature.^11,12 The risk stratification of chest pain patients using the 3 categories (0-3, 4-6, 7-10) identified MACE with an incidence similar to the multicenter study of Backus et al,^10,11 but with a greater risk of MACE in the high-risk category (Figure).

Thus, our study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the established cut-off scores of 4 and 7 are shown in Table 8. The patients in the low-risk category, corresponding to a score < 4, had a very high negative predictive value, thus identifying a small-risk population. The patients in the high-risk category (score ≥ 7) showed a high positive predictive value, allowing the identification of a high-risk population, even in patients with more atypical presentations. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians to make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events.^11,12

Our study tested the efficacy of the HEART score pathway in helping clinicians make smart diagnostic and therapeutic choices. It confirmed that the HEART score was accurate in predicting the short-term incidence of MACE, thus stratifying patients according to their risk severity. In our study, 67 of 141 patients (47.52%) had low-risk HEART scores, and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 1.49%. We omitted the diagnostic and treatment evaluation for patients in the low-risk category and moved onto discharge. Overall, 66 of 67 patients (98.51%) in the low-risk category had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Only 2 of 67 these patients (2.99%) of patients had health care utilization following discharge. Therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrates reduced health care utilization. Previous studies have shown similar results.^9,12,14,16 For instance, in a prospective study conducted in the Netherlands, low-risk patients representing 36.4% of the total were found to have a low MACE rate (1.7%).⁹ These low-risk patients were categorized as appropriate and safe for ED discharge without additional cardiac evaluation or inpatient admission.⁹ Another retrospective study in Portugal,¹² and one in Chennai, India,¹⁵ found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 2.00% and 2.22%, respectively. The results of the first HEART Pathway Randomized Control Trial¹⁴ showed that the HEART score pathway reduces health care utilization (cardiac testing, hospitalization, and hospital length of stay). The study also showed that these gains occurred without any of the patients that were identified for early discharge, suffering from MACE at 30 days, or secondary increase in cardiac-related hospitalizations. Similar results were obtained by a randomized trial conducted in North Carolina¹⁷ that also demonstrated a reduction in objective cardiac testing, a doubling of the rate of early discharge from the ED, and a reduced length of stay by half a day. Another study using a modified HEART score also demonstrated that when low-risk patients are evaluated with cardiac testing, the likelihood for false positives is high.¹⁶ Hoffman et al also reported that patients randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) received > 2.5 times more radiation exposure.¹⁶ Thus, low-risk patients may be safely discharged without the need for stress testing or CCTA.

In our study, 30 out of 141 patients (21.28%) had high-risk HEART scores (7-10), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 90%. Based on the pathway leading to inpatient admission and intensive treatment, 23 of 30 patients (76.67%) patients in our study underwent coronary angiography and further therapeutic treatment. In the high-risk category, 28 of 30 patients (93.33%) patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Previous studies have shown similar results. A retrospective study in Portugal showed that 76.9% of the high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE.¹² In a study in the Netherlands,⁹ 72.7% of high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE. Therefore, a HEART score of ≥ 7 in patients implies early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary, without noninvasive treatment preceding it.⁸

In terms of intermediate risk, in our study 44 of 141 patients (31.21%) patients had an intermediate-risk HEART score (4-6), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 18.18%. Based on the pathway, they were kept in the observation ward on admission. In our study, 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) underwent coronary angiography and further treatment; 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge. In a prospective study in the Netherlands, 46.1% of patients with an intermediate score had a 6-week MACE incidence of 16.6%.¹⁰ Similarly, in another retrospective study in Portugal, the incidence of 6-week MACE in intermediate-risk patients (36.7%) was found to be 15.6%.¹² Therefore, in patients with a HEART score of 4-6 points, immediate discharge is not an option, as this figure indicates a risk of 18.18% for an adverse outcome. These patients should be admitted for clinical observation, treated as an ACS awaiting final diagnosis, and subjected to noninvasive investigations, such as repeated troponin. Using the HEART score as guidance in the treatment of chest pain patients will benefit patients on both sides of the spectrum.^11,12

Our sample presented a male predominance, a wide range of age, and a mean age similar to that of previous studies.^12.16 Some risk factors, we found, can increase significantly the odds of chest pain being of cardiovascular origin, such as male gender, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia. Other studies also reported similar findings.^8,12,16 Risk factors for premature CHD have been quantified in the case-control INTERHEART study.¹ In the INTERHEART study, 8 common risk factors explained > 90% of AMIs in South Asian and Indian patients. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, smoking or tobacco use, known hypertension, known diabetes, abdominal obesity, physical inactivity, low fruit and vegetable intake, and psychosocial stress.¹ Regarding the feasibility of treating physicians using the HEART score in the ED, we observed that, based on the Likert scale, 80% of survey respondents found it easy to use, and 100% found it feasible in the ED.

However, there were certain limitations to our study. It involved a single academic medical center and a small sample size, which limit generalizability of the findings. In addition, troponin levels are not calculated at our institution, as it is a resource-limited setting; therefore, we used a positive and negative as +2 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion

The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome of patients with chest pain after arrival to the ED and can be used for triage. For patients with low HEART scores (0-3), short-term MACE can be excluded with greater than 98% certainty. In these patients, one may consider reserved treatment and discharge policies that may also reduce health care utilization. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10), the high risk of MACE (90%) may indicate early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events. Age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors may also be considered in the assessment of patients. This study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE.

Corresponding author: Smrati Bajpai Tiwari, MD, DNB, FAIMER, Department of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Acharya Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India; smrati.bajpai@gmail.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Dr. Gandhi), and the School of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India (Drs. Gandhi and Tiwari).

Objective: Calculation of HEART score to (1) stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and to predict the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and (2) demonstrate feasibility of HEART score in our local settings.

Design: A prospective cohort study of patients with a chief complaint of chest pain concerning for acute coronary syndrome.

Setting: Participants were recruited from the emergency department (ED) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center and a resource-limited setting in Mumbai, India.

Participants: We evaluated 141 patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED and stratified them using the HEART score. To assess patients’ progress, a follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED.

Measurements: The primary outcomes were a risk stratification, 6-week occurrence of MACE, and performance of unscheduled revascularization or stress testing. The secondary outcomes were discharge or death.

Results: The 141 participants were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups: 67 (47.52%), 44 (31.21%), and 30 (21.28%), respectively. The 6-week incidence of MACE in each category was 1.49%, 18.18%, and 90%, respectively. An acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Overall, 98.5% of low-risk patients and 93.33% of high-risk patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge; therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrated reduced health care utilization. All the survey respondents found the HEART score to be feasible. The patient characteristics and risk profile of the patients with and without MACE demonstrated that: patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke.

Conclusion: The HEART score seems to be a useful tool for risk stratification and a reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and can therefore be used for triage.

Keywords: chest pain; emergency department; HEART score; acute coronary syndrome; major adverse cardiac events; myocardial infarction; revascularization.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have epidemic proportions worldwide. Globally, in 2012, CVD led to 17.5 million deaths,^1,2 with more than 75% of them occurring in developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, where mortality from CHD is rapidly declining, it is increasing in developing countries.^1,3 Current estimates from epidemiologic studies from various parts of India indicate the prevalence of CHD in India to be between 7% and 13% in urban populations and 2% and 7% in rural populations.⁴

Premature mortality in terms of years of life lost because of CVD in India increased by 59% over a 20-year span, from 23.2 million in 1990 to 37 million in 2010.⁵ Studies conducted in Mumbai (Mumbai Cohort Study) reported very high CVD mortality rates, approaching 500 per 100 000 for men and 250 per 100 000 for women.^6,7 However, to the best of our knowledge, in the Indian population, there are minimal data on utilization of a triage score, such as the HEART score, in chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED) in a resource-limited setting.

The most common reason for admitting patients to the ED is chest pain.⁸ There are various cardiac and noncardiac etiologies of chest pain presentation. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be ruled out first in every patient presenting with chest pain. However, 80% of patients with ACS have no clear diagnostic features on presentation.⁹ The timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with ACS improves their prognosis. Therefore, clinicians tend to start each patient on ACS treatment to reduce the risk, which often leads to increased costs due to unnecessary, time-consuming diagnostic procedures that may place burdens on both the health care system and the patient.¹⁰

Several risk-stratifying tools have been developed in the last few years. Both the GRACE and TIMI risk scores have been designed for risk stratification of patients with proven ACS and not for the chest pain population at the ED.¹¹ Some of these tools are applicable to patients with all types of chest pain presenting to the ED, such as the Manchester Triage System. Other, more selective systems are devoted to the risk stratification of suspected ACS in the ED. One is the HEART score.¹²

The first study on the HEART score—an acronym that stands for History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin—was done by Backus et al, who proved that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which allows clinicians to stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk and to guide their clinical decision-making accordingly. It was developed to provide clinicians with a simple, reliable predictor of cardiac risk on the basis of the lowest score of 0 (very low-risk) up to a score of 10 (very high-risk).

We studied the clinical performance of the HEART score in patients with chest pain, focusing on the efficacy and safety of rapidly identifying patients at risk of MACE. We aimed to determine (1) whether the HEART score is a reliable predictor of outcomes of chest pain patients presenting to the ED; (2) whether the score is feasible in our local settings; and (3) whether it describes the risk profile of patients with and without MACE.

Methods

Setting

Participants were recruited from the ED of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a municipal teaching hospital in Mumbai. The study institute is a tertiary care academic medical center located in Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is a resource-limited setting serving urban, suburban, and rural populations. Participants requiring urgent attention are first seen by a casualty officer and then referred to the emergency ward. Here, the physician on duty evaluates them and decides on admission to the various wards, like the general ward, medical intensive care unit (ICU), coronary care unit (CCU), etc. The specialist’s opinion may also be obtained before admission. Critically ill patients are initially admitted to the emergency ward and stabilized before being shifted to other areas of the hospital.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years and older presenting with symptoms of acute chest pain or suspected ACS were stratified by priority using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score. Only patients presenting to the ED were eligible for the study. Informed consent from the patient or next of kin was mandatory for participation in the study.

Patients were determined ineligible for the following reasons: a clear cause for chest pain other than ACS (eg, trauma, diagnosed aortic dissection), persisting or recurrent chest pain caused by rheumatic diseases or cancer (a terminal illness), pregnancy, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, or incomplete data.

Study design

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients arriving at the tertiary care hospital with a chief complaint of “chest pain” concerning for ACS. All participants provided witnessed written informed consent. Patients were screened over approximately a 3-month period, from July 2019 to October 2019, after acquiring approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Any patient who was admitted to the ED due to chest pain, prehospital referrals based on a physician’s suspicions of a heart condition, and previous medical treatment due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) was eligible. All patients were stratified by priority in our ED using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score—and were followed up by phone within 6 weeks after presenting to the ED, to assess their progress.

We conducted our study to determine the importance of calculating the HEART score in each patient, which will help to correctly place them into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for clinically important, irreversible adverse cardiac events and guide the clinical decision-making. Patients with low risk will avoid costly tests and hospital admissions, thus decreasing the cost of treatment and ensuring timely discharge from the ED. Patients with high risk will be treated immediately, to possibly prevent a life-threatening, ACS-related incident. Thus, the HEART score will serve as a quick and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and help clinicians to make accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices in uncertain situations.

HEART score

The total number of points for History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, and Troponin was noted as the HEART score (Table 1).

For this study, the patient’s history and ECGs were interpreted by internal medicine attending physicians in the ED. The ECG taken in the emergency room was reviewed and classified, and a copy of the admission ECG was added to the file. The recommendation for patients with a HEART score in a particular range was evaluated. Notably, those with a score of 3 or lower led to a recommendation of reassurance and early discharge. Those with a HEART score in the intermediate range (4-6) were admitted to the hospital for further clinical observation and testing, whereas a high HEART score (7-10) led to admission for intensive monitoring and early intervention. In the analysis of HEART score data, we only used those patients having records for all 5 parameters, excluding patients without an ECG or troponin test.

Results

Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined based on Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.¹³ Coronary revascularization was defined as angioplasty with or without stent placement or coronary artery bypass surgery.¹⁴ Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was defined as any therapeutic catheter intervention in the coronary arteries. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was defined as any cardiac surgery in which coronary arteries were operated on.

The primary outcomes in this study were the (1) risk stratification of chest pain patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk categories; (2) incidence of a MACE within 6 weeks of initial presentation. MACE consists of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), PCI, CABG, coronary angiography revealing procedurally correctable stenosis managed conservatively, and death due to any cause.

Our secondary outcomes were discharge or death due to any cause within 6 weeks after presentation.

Follow-up

Within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED, a follow-up phone call was placed to assess the patient’s progress. The follow-up focused on the endpoint of MACE, comprising all-cause death, MI, and revascularization. No patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

We aimed to find a difference in the 6-week MACE between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the HEART score. The prevalence of CHD in India is 10%,⁴ and assuming an α of 0.05, we needed a sample of 141 patients from the ED patient population. Continuous variables were presented by mean (SD), and categorical variables as percentages. We used t test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison of means for continuous variables, χ² for categorical variables, and Fisher’s exact test for comparison of the categorical variables. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

We evaluated 141 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain concerning for ACS during the study period, from July 2019 to October 2019. Patients were 57.54 (13.13) years of age. The male to female distribution was 85 to 56. Other patient characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Primary outcomes

The risk stratification of the HEART score in chest pain patients and the incidence of 6-week MACE are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

The distribution of the HEART score’s 5 elements in the groups with or without MACE endpoints is shown in Table 5. Notice the significant differences between the groups. A follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after the presentation to the ED to assess the patient’s progress. The 6-week follow-up call data are included in Table 6.

Of 141 patients, 36 patients (25.53%) were diagnosed with MACE within 6 weeks of presentation. An AMI was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%). Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent PCI, and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent CABG. The rest of the patients were treated with medications only.

Myocardial infarction—An AMI was diagnosed in 24 of the 141 patients (17.02%). Twenty-one of those already had positive markers on admission (apparently, these AMI had started before their arrival to the emergency room). One AMI occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male, and another occurred 10 days after discharge. A further AMI occurred 2 weeks after discharge. All 3 patients belonged to the intermediate-risk group.

Revascularization—Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%). Revascularization was performed in 19 patients (13.48%), of which 15 were PCIs (10.64%) and 4 were CABGs (2.84%).

Mortality—One patient died from the study population. He was a 72-year-old male who died 14 days after admission. He had a HEART score of 8.

Among the 67 low-risk patients:

• MACE: Coronary angiography was performed in 1 patient (1.49%). Among the 67 patients in the low-risk category, there was no cases of AMI or deaths. The remaining 66 patients (98.51%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• General practitioner (GP) visits/readmissions following discharge: Two of 67 patients (2.99%) had GP visits following discharge, of which 1 was uneventful. The other patient, a 64-year-old male, was readmitted due to a recurrent history of chest pain and underwent coronary angiography.

Among the 44 intermediate-risk patients:

• MACE: Of the 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) who had coronary angiography, 3 patients (6.82%) had AMI, of which 1 occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male. Two patients had AMI following discharge. There were no deaths. Overall, 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Three of 44 patients (6.82%) had repeated visits following discharge. One was a GP visit that was uneventful. The remaining 2 patients were diagnosed with AMI and readmitted following discharge. One AMI occurred 10 days after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 6; another occurred 2 weeks after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 5.

Among the 30 high-risk patients:

• MACE: Twenty-three of 30 patients (76.67%) underwent coronary angiography. One patient died 5 days after discharge. The patient had a HEART score of 8. Most patients however, had an uneventful recovery following discharge (28, 93.33%).
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Five of 30 patients (16.67%) had repeated visits following discharge. Two were uneventful. Two patients had a history of recurrent chest pain that resolved on Sorbitrate. One patient was readmitted 2 weeks following discharge due to a complication: a left ventricular clot was found. The patient had a HEART score of 10.

Secondary outcome—Overall, 140 of 141 patients were discharged. One patient died: a 72-year-old male with a HEART score of 8.

Feasibility—To determine the ease and feasibility of performing a HEART score in chest pain patients presenting to the ED, a survey was distributed to the internal medicine physicians in the ED. In the survey, the Likert scale was used to rate the ease of utilizing the HEART score and whether the physicians found it feasible to use it for risk stratification of their chest pain patients. A total of 12 of 15 respondents (80%) found it “easy” to use. Of the remaining 3 respondents, 2 (13.33%) rated the HEART score “very easy” to use, while 1 (6.66%) considered it “difficult” to work with. None of the respondents said that it was not feasible to perform a HEART score in the ED.

Risk factors for reaching an endpoint:

We compared risk profiles between the patient groups with and without an endpoint. The group of patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males than the group of patients without MACE. Moreover, they also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke. These also showed a significant association with MACE. Obesity was not included in our risk factors as we did not have data collected to measure body mass index. Results are represented in Table 7.

Discussion

Our study described a patient population presenting to an ED with chest pain as their primary complaint. The results of this prospective study confirm that the HEART score is an excellent system to triage chest pain patients. It provides the clinician with a reliable predictor of the outcome (MACE) after the patient’s arrival, based on available clinical data and in a resource-limited setting like ours.

Cardiovascular epidemiology studies indicate that this has become a significant public health problem in India.¹ Several risk scores for ACS have been published in European and American guidelines. However, in the Indian population, minimal data are available on utilization of such a triage score (HEART score) in chest pain patients in the ED in a resource-limited setting, to the best of our knowledge. In India, only 1 such study is reported,¹⁵ at the Sundaram Medical Foundation, a 170-bed community hospital in Chennai. In this study, 13 of 14 patients (92.86%) with a high HEART score had MACE, indicating a sensitivity of 92.86%; in the 44 patients with a low HEART score, 1 patient (2.22%) had MACE, indicating a specificity of 97.78%; and in the 28 patients with a moderate HEART score, 12 patients (42.86%) had MACE.  

In looking for the optimal risk-stratifying system for chest pain patients, we analyzed the HEART score. The first study on the HEART score was done Backus et al, proving that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score had good discriminatory power, too. The C statistic for the HEART score for ACS occurrence shows a value of 0.83. This signifies a good-to-excellent ability to stratify all-cause chest pain patients in the ED for their risk of MACE. The application of the HEART score to our patient population demonstrated that the majority of the patients belonged to the low-risk category, as reported in the first cohort study that applied the HEART score.⁸ The relationship between the HEART score category and occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks showed a curve with 3 different patterns, corresponding to the 3 risk categories defined in the literature.^11,12 The risk stratification of chest pain patients using the 3 categories (0-3, 4-6, 7-10) identified MACE with an incidence similar to the multicenter study of Backus et al,^10,11 but with a greater risk of MACE in the high-risk category (Figure).

Thus, our study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the established cut-off scores of 4 and 7 are shown in Table 8. The patients in the low-risk category, corresponding to a score < 4, had a very high negative predictive value, thus identifying a small-risk population. The patients in the high-risk category (score ≥ 7) showed a high positive predictive value, allowing the identification of a high-risk population, even in patients with more atypical presentations. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians to make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events.^11,12

Our study tested the efficacy of the HEART score pathway in helping clinicians make smart diagnostic and therapeutic choices. It confirmed that the HEART score was accurate in predicting the short-term incidence of MACE, thus stratifying patients according to their risk severity. In our study, 67 of 141 patients (47.52%) had low-risk HEART scores, and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 1.49%. We omitted the diagnostic and treatment evaluation for patients in the low-risk category and moved onto discharge. Overall, 66 of 67 patients (98.51%) in the low-risk category had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Only 2 of 67 these patients (2.99%) of patients had health care utilization following discharge. Therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrates reduced health care utilization. Previous studies have shown similar results.^9,12,14,16 For instance, in a prospective study conducted in the Netherlands, low-risk patients representing 36.4% of the total were found to have a low MACE rate (1.7%).⁹ These low-risk patients were categorized as appropriate and safe for ED discharge without additional cardiac evaluation or inpatient admission.⁹ Another retrospective study in Portugal,¹² and one in Chennai, India,¹⁵ found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 2.00% and 2.22%, respectively. The results of the first HEART Pathway Randomized Control Trial¹⁴ showed that the HEART score pathway reduces health care utilization (cardiac testing, hospitalization, and hospital length of stay). The study also showed that these gains occurred without any of the patients that were identified for early discharge, suffering from MACE at 30 days, or secondary increase in cardiac-related hospitalizations. Similar results were obtained by a randomized trial conducted in North Carolina¹⁷ that also demonstrated a reduction in objective cardiac testing, a doubling of the rate of early discharge from the ED, and a reduced length of stay by half a day. Another study using a modified HEART score also demonstrated that when low-risk patients are evaluated with cardiac testing, the likelihood for false positives is high.¹⁶ Hoffman et al also reported that patients randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) received > 2.5 times more radiation exposure.¹⁶ Thus, low-risk patients may be safely discharged without the need for stress testing or CCTA.

In our study, 30 out of 141 patients (21.28%) had high-risk HEART scores (7-10), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 90%. Based on the pathway leading to inpatient admission and intensive treatment, 23 of 30 patients (76.67%) patients in our study underwent coronary angiography and further therapeutic treatment. In the high-risk category, 28 of 30 patients (93.33%) patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Previous studies have shown similar results. A retrospective study in Portugal showed that 76.9% of the high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE.¹² In a study in the Netherlands,⁹ 72.7% of high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE. Therefore, a HEART score of ≥ 7 in patients implies early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary, without noninvasive treatment preceding it.⁸

In terms of intermediate risk, in our study 44 of 141 patients (31.21%) patients had an intermediate-risk HEART score (4-6), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 18.18%. Based on the pathway, they were kept in the observation ward on admission. In our study, 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) underwent coronary angiography and further treatment; 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge. In a prospective study in the Netherlands, 46.1% of patients with an intermediate score had a 6-week MACE incidence of 16.6%.¹⁰ Similarly, in another retrospective study in Portugal, the incidence of 6-week MACE in intermediate-risk patients (36.7%) was found to be 15.6%.¹² Therefore, in patients with a HEART score of 4-6 points, immediate discharge is not an option, as this figure indicates a risk of 18.18% for an adverse outcome. These patients should be admitted for clinical observation, treated as an ACS awaiting final diagnosis, and subjected to noninvasive investigations, such as repeated troponin. Using the HEART score as guidance in the treatment of chest pain patients will benefit patients on both sides of the spectrum.^11,12

Our sample presented a male predominance, a wide range of age, and a mean age similar to that of previous studies.^12.16 Some risk factors, we found, can increase significantly the odds of chest pain being of cardiovascular origin, such as male gender, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia. Other studies also reported similar findings.^8,12,16 Risk factors for premature CHD have been quantified in the case-control INTERHEART study.¹ In the INTERHEART study, 8 common risk factors explained > 90% of AMIs in South Asian and Indian patients. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, smoking or tobacco use, known hypertension, known diabetes, abdominal obesity, physical inactivity, low fruit and vegetable intake, and psychosocial stress.¹ Regarding the feasibility of treating physicians using the HEART score in the ED, we observed that, based on the Likert scale, 80% of survey respondents found it easy to use, and 100% found it feasible in the ED.

However, there were certain limitations to our study. It involved a single academic medical center and a small sample size, which limit generalizability of the findings. In addition, troponin levels are not calculated at our institution, as it is a resource-limited setting; therefore, we used a positive and negative as +2 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion

The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome of patients with chest pain after arrival to the ED and can be used for triage. For patients with low HEART scores (0-3), short-term MACE can be excluded with greater than 98% certainty. In these patients, one may consider reserved treatment and discharge policies that may also reduce health care utilization. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10), the high risk of MACE (90%) may indicate early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events. Age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors may also be considered in the assessment of patients. This study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE.

Corresponding author: Smrati Bajpai Tiwari, MD, DNB, FAIMER, Department of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Acharya Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India; smrati.bajpai@gmail.com.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai Health System, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY (Dr. Gandhi), and the School of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College, and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India (Drs. Gandhi and Tiwari).

Objective: Calculation of HEART score to (1) stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, high-risk, and to predict the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and (2) demonstrate feasibility of HEART score in our local settings.

Design: A prospective cohort study of patients with a chief complaint of chest pain concerning for acute coronary syndrome.

Setting: Participants were recruited from the emergency department (ED) of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a tertiary care academic medical center and a resource-limited setting in Mumbai, India.

Participants: We evaluated 141 patients aged 18 years and older presenting to the ED and stratified them using the HEART score. To assess patients’ progress, a follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED.

Measurements: The primary outcomes were a risk stratification, 6-week occurrence of MACE, and performance of unscheduled revascularization or stress testing. The secondary outcomes were discharge or death.

Results: The 141 participants were stratified into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups: 67 (47.52%), 44 (31.21%), and 30 (21.28%), respectively. The 6-week incidence of MACE in each category was 1.49%, 18.18%, and 90%, respectively. An acute myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Overall, 98.5% of low-risk patients and 93.33% of high-risk patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge; therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrated reduced health care utilization. All the survey respondents found the HEART score to be feasible. The patient characteristics and risk profile of the patients with and without MACE demonstrated that: patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke.

Conclusion: The HEART score seems to be a useful tool for risk stratification and a reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and can therefore be used for triage.

Keywords: chest pain; emergency department; HEART score; acute coronary syndrome; major adverse cardiac events; myocardial infarction; revascularization.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially coronary heart disease (CHD), have epidemic proportions worldwide. Globally, in 2012, CVD led to 17.5 million deaths,^1,2 with more than 75% of them occurring in developing countries. In contrast to developed countries, where mortality from CHD is rapidly declining, it is increasing in developing countries.^1,3 Current estimates from epidemiologic studies from various parts of India indicate the prevalence of CHD in India to be between 7% and 13% in urban populations and 2% and 7% in rural populations.⁴

Premature mortality in terms of years of life lost because of CVD in India increased by 59% over a 20-year span, from 23.2 million in 1990 to 37 million in 2010.⁵ Studies conducted in Mumbai (Mumbai Cohort Study) reported very high CVD mortality rates, approaching 500 per 100 000 for men and 250 per 100 000 for women.^6,7 However, to the best of our knowledge, in the Indian population, there are minimal data on utilization of a triage score, such as the HEART score, in chest pain patients in the emergency department (ED) in a resource-limited setting.

The most common reason for admitting patients to the ED is chest pain.⁸ There are various cardiac and noncardiac etiologies of chest pain presentation. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) needs to be ruled out first in every patient presenting with chest pain. However, 80% of patients with ACS have no clear diagnostic features on presentation.⁹ The timely diagnosis and treatment of patients with ACS improves their prognosis. Therefore, clinicians tend to start each patient on ACS treatment to reduce the risk, which often leads to increased costs due to unnecessary, time-consuming diagnostic procedures that may place burdens on both the health care system and the patient.¹⁰

Several risk-stratifying tools have been developed in the last few years. Both the GRACE and TIMI risk scores have been designed for risk stratification of patients with proven ACS and not for the chest pain population at the ED.¹¹ Some of these tools are applicable to patients with all types of chest pain presenting to the ED, such as the Manchester Triage System. Other, more selective systems are devoted to the risk stratification of suspected ACS in the ED. One is the HEART score.¹²

The first study on the HEART score—an acronym that stands for History, Electrocardiogram, Age, Risk factors, and Troponin—was done by Backus et al, who proved that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score predicts the short-term incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which allows clinicians to stratify patients as low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk and to guide their clinical decision-making accordingly. It was developed to provide clinicians with a simple, reliable predictor of cardiac risk on the basis of the lowest score of 0 (very low-risk) up to a score of 10 (very high-risk).

We studied the clinical performance of the HEART score in patients with chest pain, focusing on the efficacy and safety of rapidly identifying patients at risk of MACE. We aimed to determine (1) whether the HEART score is a reliable predictor of outcomes of chest pain patients presenting to the ED; (2) whether the score is feasible in our local settings; and (3) whether it describes the risk profile of patients with and without MACE.

Methods

Setting

Participants were recruited from the ED of King Edward Memorial Hospital, a municipal teaching hospital in Mumbai. The study institute is a tertiary care academic medical center located in Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, and is a resource-limited setting serving urban, suburban, and rural populations. Participants requiring urgent attention are first seen by a casualty officer and then referred to the emergency ward. Here, the physician on duty evaluates them and decides on admission to the various wards, like the general ward, medical intensive care unit (ICU), coronary care unit (CCU), etc. The specialist’s opinion may also be obtained before admission. Critically ill patients are initially admitted to the emergency ward and stabilized before being shifted to other areas of the hospital.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years and older presenting with symptoms of acute chest pain or suspected ACS were stratified by priority using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score. Only patients presenting to the ED were eligible for the study. Informed consent from the patient or next of kin was mandatory for participation in the study.

Patients were determined ineligible for the following reasons: a clear cause for chest pain other than ACS (eg, trauma, diagnosed aortic dissection), persisting or recurrent chest pain caused by rheumatic diseases or cancer (a terminal illness), pregnancy, unable or unwilling to provide informed consent, or incomplete data.

Study design

We conducted a prospective observational study of patients arriving at the tertiary care hospital with a chief complaint of “chest pain” concerning for ACS. All participants provided witnessed written informed consent. Patients were screened over approximately a 3-month period, from July 2019 to October 2019, after acquiring approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Any patient who was admitted to the ED due to chest pain, prehospital referrals based on a physician’s suspicions of a heart condition, and previous medical treatment due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) was eligible. All patients were stratified by priority in our ED using the chest pain scoring system—the HEART score—and were followed up by phone within 6 weeks after presenting to the ED, to assess their progress.

We conducted our study to determine the importance of calculating the HEART score in each patient, which will help to correctly place them into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for clinically important, irreversible adverse cardiac events and guide the clinical decision-making. Patients with low risk will avoid costly tests and hospital admissions, thus decreasing the cost of treatment and ensuring timely discharge from the ED. Patients with high risk will be treated immediately, to possibly prevent a life-threatening, ACS-related incident. Thus, the HEART score will serve as a quick and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients and help clinicians to make accurate diagnostic and therapeutic choices in uncertain situations.

HEART score

The total number of points for History, Electrocardiogram (ECG), Age, Risk factors, and Troponin was noted as the HEART score (Table 1).

For this study, the patient’s history and ECGs were interpreted by internal medicine attending physicians in the ED. The ECG taken in the emergency room was reviewed and classified, and a copy of the admission ECG was added to the file. The recommendation for patients with a HEART score in a particular range was evaluated. Notably, those with a score of 3 or lower led to a recommendation of reassurance and early discharge. Those with a HEART score in the intermediate range (4-6) were admitted to the hospital for further clinical observation and testing, whereas a high HEART score (7-10) led to admission for intensive monitoring and early intervention. In the analysis of HEART score data, we only used those patients having records for all 5 parameters, excluding patients without an ECG or troponin test.

Results

Myocardial infarction (MI) was defined based on Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.¹³ Coronary revascularization was defined as angioplasty with or without stent placement or coronary artery bypass surgery.¹⁴ Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was defined as any therapeutic catheter intervention in the coronary arteries. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was defined as any cardiac surgery in which coronary arteries were operated on.

The primary outcomes in this study were the (1) risk stratification of chest pain patients into low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk categories; (2) incidence of a MACE within 6 weeks of initial presentation. MACE consists of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), PCI, CABG, coronary angiography revealing procedurally correctable stenosis managed conservatively, and death due to any cause.

Our secondary outcomes were discharge or death due to any cause within 6 weeks after presentation.

Follow-up

Within 6 weeks after presentation to the ED, a follow-up phone call was placed to assess the patient’s progress. The follow-up focused on the endpoint of MACE, comprising all-cause death, MI, and revascularization. No patient was lost to follow-up.

Statistical analysis

We aimed to find a difference in the 6-week MACE between low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the HEART score. The prevalence of CHD in India is 10%,⁴ and assuming an α of 0.05, we needed a sample of 141 patients from the ED patient population. Continuous variables were presented by mean (SD), and categorical variables as percentages. We used t test and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison of means for continuous variables, χ² for categorical variables, and Fisher’s exact test for comparison of the categorical variables. Results with P < .05 were considered statistically significant.

We evaluated 141 patients presenting to the ED with chest pain concerning for ACS during the study period, from July 2019 to October 2019. Patients were 57.54 (13.13) years of age. The male to female distribution was 85 to 56. Other patient characteristics are shown in Table 2.

Primary outcomes

The risk stratification of the HEART score in chest pain patients and the incidence of 6-week MACE are outlined in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

The distribution of the HEART score’s 5 elements in the groups with or without MACE endpoints is shown in Table 5. Notice the significant differences between the groups. A follow-up phone call was made within 6 weeks after the presentation to the ED to assess the patient’s progress. The 6-week follow-up call data are included in Table 6.

Of 141 patients, 36 patients (25.53%) were diagnosed with MACE within 6 weeks of presentation. An AMI was diagnosed in 24 patients (17.02%). Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%), 15 patients (10.64%) underwent PCI, and 4 patients (2.84%) underwent CABG. The rest of the patients were treated with medications only.

Myocardial infarction—An AMI was diagnosed in 24 of the 141 patients (17.02%). Twenty-one of those already had positive markers on admission (apparently, these AMI had started before their arrival to the emergency room). One AMI occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male, and another occurred 10 days after discharge. A further AMI occurred 2 weeks after discharge. All 3 patients belonged to the intermediate-risk group.

Revascularization—Coronary angiography was performed in 31 of 141 patients (21.99%). Revascularization was performed in 19 patients (13.48%), of which 15 were PCIs (10.64%) and 4 were CABGs (2.84%).

Mortality—One patient died from the study population. He was a 72-year-old male who died 14 days after admission. He had a HEART score of 8.

Among the 67 low-risk patients:

• MACE: Coronary angiography was performed in 1 patient (1.49%). Among the 67 patients in the low-risk category, there was no cases of AMI or deaths. The remaining 66 patients (98.51%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• General practitioner (GP) visits/readmissions following discharge: Two of 67 patients (2.99%) had GP visits following discharge, of which 1 was uneventful. The other patient, a 64-year-old male, was readmitted due to a recurrent history of chest pain and underwent coronary angiography.

Among the 44 intermediate-risk patients:

• MACE: Of the 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) who had coronary angiography, 3 patients (6.82%) had AMI, of which 1 occurred 2 days after admission in a 66-year-old male. Two patients had AMI following discharge. There were no deaths. Overall, 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge.
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Three of 44 patients (6.82%) had repeated visits following discharge. One was a GP visit that was uneventful. The remaining 2 patients were diagnosed with AMI and readmitted following discharge. One AMI occurred 10 days after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 6; another occurred 2 weeks after discharge in a patient with a HEART score of 5.

Among the 30 high-risk patients:

• MACE: Twenty-three of 30 patients (76.67%) underwent coronary angiography. One patient died 5 days after discharge. The patient had a HEART score of 8. Most patients however, had an uneventful recovery following discharge (28, 93.33%).
• GP visits/readmissions following discharge: Five of 30 patients (16.67%) had repeated visits following discharge. Two were uneventful. Two patients had a history of recurrent chest pain that resolved on Sorbitrate. One patient was readmitted 2 weeks following discharge due to a complication: a left ventricular clot was found. The patient had a HEART score of 10.

Secondary outcome—Overall, 140 of 141 patients were discharged. One patient died: a 72-year-old male with a HEART score of 8.

Feasibility—To determine the ease and feasibility of performing a HEART score in chest pain patients presenting to the ED, a survey was distributed to the internal medicine physicians in the ED. In the survey, the Likert scale was used to rate the ease of utilizing the HEART score and whether the physicians found it feasible to use it for risk stratification of their chest pain patients. A total of 12 of 15 respondents (80%) found it “easy” to use. Of the remaining 3 respondents, 2 (13.33%) rated the HEART score “very easy” to use, while 1 (6.66%) considered it “difficult” to work with. None of the respondents said that it was not feasible to perform a HEART score in the ED.

Risk factors for reaching an endpoint:

We compared risk profiles between the patient groups with and without an endpoint. The group of patients with MACE were older and had a higher proportion of males than the group of patients without MACE. Moreover, they also had a higher prevalence of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, smoking, hypercholesterolemia, prior history of PCI/CABG, and history of stroke. These also showed a significant association with MACE. Obesity was not included in our risk factors as we did not have data collected to measure body mass index. Results are represented in Table 7.

Discussion

Our study described a patient population presenting to an ED with chest pain as their primary complaint. The results of this prospective study confirm that the HEART score is an excellent system to triage chest pain patients. It provides the clinician with a reliable predictor of the outcome (MACE) after the patient’s arrival, based on available clinical data and in a resource-limited setting like ours.

Cardiovascular epidemiology studies indicate that this has become a significant public health problem in India.¹ Several risk scores for ACS have been published in European and American guidelines. However, in the Indian population, minimal data are available on utilization of such a triage score (HEART score) in chest pain patients in the ED in a resource-limited setting, to the best of our knowledge. In India, only 1 such study is reported,¹⁵ at the Sundaram Medical Foundation, a 170-bed community hospital in Chennai. In this study, 13 of 14 patients (92.86%) with a high HEART score had MACE, indicating a sensitivity of 92.86%; in the 44 patients with a low HEART score, 1 patient (2.22%) had MACE, indicating a specificity of 97.78%; and in the 28 patients with a moderate HEART score, 12 patients (42.86%) had MACE.  

In looking for the optimal risk-stratifying system for chest pain patients, we analyzed the HEART score. The first study on the HEART score was done Backus et al, proving that the HEART score is an easy, quick, and reliable predictor of outcomes in chest pain patients.¹⁰ The HEART score had good discriminatory power, too. The C statistic for the HEART score for ACS occurrence shows a value of 0.83. This signifies a good-to-excellent ability to stratify all-cause chest pain patients in the ED for their risk of MACE. The application of the HEART score to our patient population demonstrated that the majority of the patients belonged to the low-risk category, as reported in the first cohort study that applied the HEART score.⁸ The relationship between the HEART score category and occurrence of MACE within 6 weeks showed a curve with 3 different patterns, corresponding to the 3 risk categories defined in the literature.^11,12 The risk stratification of chest pain patients using the 3 categories (0-3, 4-6, 7-10) identified MACE with an incidence similar to the multicenter study of Backus et al,^10,11 but with a greater risk of MACE in the high-risk category (Figure).

Thus, our study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the established cut-off scores of 4 and 7 are shown in Table 8. The patients in the low-risk category, corresponding to a score < 4, had a very high negative predictive value, thus identifying a small-risk population. The patients in the high-risk category (score ≥ 7) showed a high positive predictive value, allowing the identification of a high-risk population, even in patients with more atypical presentations. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians to make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events.^11,12

Our study tested the efficacy of the HEART score pathway in helping clinicians make smart diagnostic and therapeutic choices. It confirmed that the HEART score was accurate in predicting the short-term incidence of MACE, thus stratifying patients according to their risk severity. In our study, 67 of 141 patients (47.52%) had low-risk HEART scores, and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 1.49%. We omitted the diagnostic and treatment evaluation for patients in the low-risk category and moved onto discharge. Overall, 66 of 67 patients (98.51%) in the low-risk category had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Only 2 of 67 these patients (2.99%) of patients had health care utilization following discharge. Therefore, extrapolation based on results demonstrates reduced health care utilization. Previous studies have shown similar results.^9,12,14,16 For instance, in a prospective study conducted in the Netherlands, low-risk patients representing 36.4% of the total were found to have a low MACE rate (1.7%).⁹ These low-risk patients were categorized as appropriate and safe for ED discharge without additional cardiac evaluation or inpatient admission.⁹ Another retrospective study in Portugal,¹² and one in Chennai, India,¹⁵ found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 2.00% and 2.22%, respectively. The results of the first HEART Pathway Randomized Control Trial¹⁴ showed that the HEART score pathway reduces health care utilization (cardiac testing, hospitalization, and hospital length of stay). The study also showed that these gains occurred without any of the patients that were identified for early discharge, suffering from MACE at 30 days, or secondary increase in cardiac-related hospitalizations. Similar results were obtained by a randomized trial conducted in North Carolina¹⁷ that also demonstrated a reduction in objective cardiac testing, a doubling of the rate of early discharge from the ED, and a reduced length of stay by half a day. Another study using a modified HEART score also demonstrated that when low-risk patients are evaluated with cardiac testing, the likelihood for false positives is high.¹⁶ Hoffman et al also reported that patients randomized to coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) received > 2.5 times more radiation exposure.¹⁶ Thus, low-risk patients may be safely discharged without the need for stress testing or CCTA.

In our study, 30 out of 141 patients (21.28%) had high-risk HEART scores (7-10), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 90%. Based on the pathway leading to inpatient admission and intensive treatment, 23 of 30 patients (76.67%) patients in our study underwent coronary angiography and further therapeutic treatment. In the high-risk category, 28 of 30 patients (93.33%) patients had an uneventful recovery following discharge. Previous studies have shown similar results. A retrospective study in Portugal showed that 76.9% of the high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE.¹² In a study in the Netherlands,⁹ 72.7% of high-risk patients had a 6-week incidence of MACE. Therefore, a HEART score of ≥ 7 in patients implies early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary, without noninvasive treatment preceding it.⁸

In terms of intermediate risk, in our study 44 of 141 patients (31.21%) patients had an intermediate-risk HEART score (4-6), and we found the 6-week incidence of MACE to be 18.18%. Based on the pathway, they were kept in the observation ward on admission. In our study, 7 of 44 patients (15.91%) underwent coronary angiography and further treatment; 42 of 44 patients (95.55%) had an uneventful recovery following discharge. In a prospective study in the Netherlands, 46.1% of patients with an intermediate score had a 6-week MACE incidence of 16.6%.¹⁰ Similarly, in another retrospective study in Portugal, the incidence of 6-week MACE in intermediate-risk patients (36.7%) was found to be 15.6%.¹² Therefore, in patients with a HEART score of 4-6 points, immediate discharge is not an option, as this figure indicates a risk of 18.18% for an adverse outcome. These patients should be admitted for clinical observation, treated as an ACS awaiting final diagnosis, and subjected to noninvasive investigations, such as repeated troponin. Using the HEART score as guidance in the treatment of chest pain patients will benefit patients on both sides of the spectrum.^11,12

Our sample presented a male predominance, a wide range of age, and a mean age similar to that of previous studies.^12.16 Some risk factors, we found, can increase significantly the odds of chest pain being of cardiovascular origin, such as male gender, smoking, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypercholesterolemia. Other studies also reported similar findings.^8,12,16 Risk factors for premature CHD have been quantified in the case-control INTERHEART study.¹ In the INTERHEART study, 8 common risk factors explained > 90% of AMIs in South Asian and Indian patients. The risk factors include dyslipidemia, smoking or tobacco use, known hypertension, known diabetes, abdominal obesity, physical inactivity, low fruit and vegetable intake, and psychosocial stress.¹ Regarding the feasibility of treating physicians using the HEART score in the ED, we observed that, based on the Likert scale, 80% of survey respondents found it easy to use, and 100% found it feasible in the ED.

However, there were certain limitations to our study. It involved a single academic medical center and a small sample size, which limit generalizability of the findings. In addition, troponin levels are not calculated at our institution, as it is a resource-limited setting; therefore, we used a positive and negative as +2 and 0, respectively.

Conclusion

The HEART score provides the clinician with a quick and reliable predictor of outcome of patients with chest pain after arrival to the ED and can be used for triage. For patients with low HEART scores (0-3), short-term MACE can be excluded with greater than 98% certainty. In these patients, one may consider reserved treatment and discharge policies that may also reduce health care utilization. In patients with high HEART scores (7-10), the high risk of MACE (90%) may indicate early aggressive treatment, including invasive strategies, when necessary. Therefore, the HEART score may help clinicians make accurate management choices by being a strong predictor of both event-free survival and potentially life-threatening cardiac events. Age, gender, and cardiovascular risk factors may also be considered in the assessment of patients. This study confirmed the utility of the HEART score categories to predict the 6-week incidence of MACE.

Corresponding author: Smrati Bajpai Tiwari, MD, DNB, FAIMER, Department of Medicine, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Acharya Donde Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012, Maharashtra, India; smrati.bajpai@gmail.com.

Financial disclosures: None.