Cardiology

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Cardiac electrophysiologists have reported using pulsed field ablation, a new power source for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, on fewer than 150 patients worldwide in initial clinical studies, but its performance so far and the promise it carries for substantially improving the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation has convinced many experts that it represents the future for this intervention.

“I’m very excited about PFA [pulsed field ablation]. It may make everything else obsolete,” Andrea Natale, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. “We need to see more efficacy data, but just for safety alone there is no reason to use anything else,” commented Dr. Natale, executive medical director of the Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center in Austin,Tex.

“The main issue is safety, and if PFA lives up to its promise, then [using it preferentially] is not a difficult decision,” commented Francis E. Marchlinski, MD, professor of medicine and director of electrophysiology at the University of Pennsylvania.

The pulsed field ablation studies have been sponsored by Farapulse, the company developing this device, which in May 2019 received breakthrough designation for priority review from the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Reddy and Dr. Jaïs are both consultants to and shareholders in Farapulse. Dr. Natale has received honoraria from or has been a consultant to Biotronik, Janssen, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Marchlinski has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from Abbott EP/St. Jude, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr. Mansour has been a consultant for Abbott and Medtronic, has an equity interest or stock options in NewPace and EPD Solutions, and has received research grants from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Sentre Heart. In addition, all sources have received consulting fees, honoraria, and/or research grants from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Cardiac electrophysiologists have reported using pulsed field ablation, a new power source for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, on fewer than 150 patients worldwide in initial clinical studies, but its performance so far and the promise it carries for substantially improving the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation has convinced many experts that it represents the future for this intervention.

“I’m very excited about PFA [pulsed field ablation]. It may make everything else obsolete,” Andrea Natale, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. “We need to see more efficacy data, but just for safety alone there is no reason to use anything else,” commented Dr. Natale, executive medical director of the Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center in Austin,Tex.

“The main issue is safety, and if PFA lives up to its promise, then [using it preferentially] is not a difficult decision,” commented Francis E. Marchlinski, MD, professor of medicine and director of electrophysiology at the University of Pennsylvania.

The pulsed field ablation studies have been sponsored by Farapulse, the company developing this device, which in May 2019 received breakthrough designation for priority review from the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Reddy and Dr. Jaïs are both consultants to and shareholders in Farapulse. Dr. Natale has received honoraria from or has been a consultant to Biotronik, Janssen, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Marchlinski has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from Abbott EP/St. Jude, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr. Mansour has been a consultant for Abbott and Medtronic, has an equity interest or stock options in NewPace and EPD Solutions, and has received research grants from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Sentre Heart. In addition, all sources have received consulting fees, honoraria, and/or research grants from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Cardiac electrophysiologists have reported using pulsed field ablation, a new power source for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, on fewer than 150 patients worldwide in initial clinical studies, but its performance so far and the promise it carries for substantially improving the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation has convinced many experts that it represents the future for this intervention.

“I’m very excited about PFA [pulsed field ablation]. It may make everything else obsolete,” Andrea Natale, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium. “We need to see more efficacy data, but just for safety alone there is no reason to use anything else,” commented Dr. Natale, executive medical director of the Texas Cardiac Arrhythmia Institute at St. David’s Medical Center in Austin,Tex.

“The main issue is safety, and if PFA lives up to its promise, then [using it preferentially] is not a difficult decision,” commented Francis E. Marchlinski, MD, professor of medicine and director of electrophysiology at the University of Pennsylvania.

The pulsed field ablation studies have been sponsored by Farapulse, the company developing this device, which in May 2019 received breakthrough designation for priority review from the Food and Drug Administration.

Dr. Reddy and Dr. Jaïs are both consultants to and shareholders in Farapulse. Dr. Natale has received honoraria from or has been a consultant to Biotronik, Janssen, Medtronic, and St. Jude. Dr. Marchlinski has been a consultant to or has received honoraria from Abbott EP/St. Jude, Biotronik, and Medtronic. Dr. Mansour has been a consultant for Abbott and Medtronic, has an equity interest or stock options in NewPace and EPD Solutions, and has received research grants from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Sentre Heart. In addition, all sources have received consulting fees, honoraria, and/or research grants from Biosense Webster and Boston Scientific.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, stroke, major bleeding, or cardiac arrest, compared with rhythm and/or rate control drugs in a propensity score–weighted, retrospective, observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Findings of the investigation, which included more than 183,000 real-world patients in routine clinical practice, were reported by Peter S. Noseworthy, MD, during the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

The results breathe new life into the controversy created by the previously reported CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), a 10-country study in which 2,204 patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) were randomized to catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control medications and followed for a mean of about 4 years. CABANA yielded a negative result (JAMA. 2019 Apr 2;321[13]:1261-74), with the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis indicating no significant between-group difference in the primary composite endpoint – the very same one that was positive in the large observational study.

However, CABANA was marred by major problems arising from protocol deviations: Nearly 28% of patients assigned to medical therapy crossed over to catheter ablation, typically because their antiarrhythmic drugs failed, and 10% of patients randomized to catheter ablation never got it. This muddies the waters when trying to identify a true stroke/mortality benefit for catheter ablation, if indeed any such benefit was actually present.

Here’s where the controversy arose: While CABANA must be called a negative trial based upon the disappointing results of the intent-to-treat analysis, a prespecified post hoc analysis of patients as actually treated showed a statistically significant 27% relative risk reduction for the primary composite endpoint in the catheter ablation group. That’s strikingly similar to the 30% relative risk reduction for catheter ablation seen in the huge observational study, where the CABANA-type primary outcome occurred in 22.5% of the medically managed patients and 16.8% of those who underwent catheter ablation, noted Dr. Noseworthy, professor of medicine and director of heart rhythm and physiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

He ought to know: He was both an investigator in CABANA and first author of the published observational study (Eur Heart J. 2019 Apr 21;40[16]:1257-64).

In the observational study, Dr. Noseworthy and coinvestigators utilized a huge U.S. administrative health claims database in order to identify a nationally representative group of 183,760 AFib patients, 12,032 of whom were treated with catheter ablation and the rest with antiarrhythmic and/or rhythm control drugs during the same years the CABANA trial was enrolling patients. The two groups were balanced using propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline differences in 90 variables.

The investigators sought to learn if the CABANA study population was representative of real-world AFib patients, and whether the observational experience could help resolve the CABANA controversy. It turned out that most AFib patients seen in daily clinical practice were CABANA like; that is, 74% of them would have been eligible for the clinical trial because they were symptomatic, over age 65, or younger than 65 with at least one CHADS2 stroke risk factor. About 22% of the large real-world sample would have been excluded from CABANA because they’d failed on amiodarone and other antiarrhythmic agents or had previously undergone ablation. About 4% of patients failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria.

The risk reduction for the composite endpoint associated with catheter ablation in the large retrospective study was greatest in the CABANA-like patients, at 30%. It was less robust but still statistically significant at 15% in patients who met at least one of the exclusion criteria for the trial.

The sheer size of this study provides greater statistical power than in CABANA. Of course, a nonrandomized, propensity score–based comparison such as this is always susceptible to confounding, even after adjustment for 90 variables. But the observational study does offer “a glimmer of hope” that catheter ablation, done in the right patients, might confer a stroke risk reduction and mortality benefit, he said.

The 33% relative risk reduction in the small group of real-world patients who failed to meet the CABANA inclusion criteria, while numerically impressive, wasn’t close to statistical significance, probably because event rates in that population were so low.

“Even if you could reduce stroke risk with ablation in that low-risk group, it would be a very inefficient way to reduce the population burden of stroke,” Dr. Noseworthy observed.

Putting together the results of CABANA and the large observational study to sum up his view of where catheter ablation for AF[ib] stands today, Dr. Noseworthy commented, “Ablation is reasonable for symptom control in many patients, basically anyone who is either breaking through on drugs or doesn’t want to take the drugs and is highly symptomatic. And there may be a small stroke and/or mortality benefit for people who are in the sweet spot – and those are people who look a lot like the patients enrolled in CABANA.”

Patients who met the exclusion criteria for CABANA are too advanced in their AFib to be likely to derive a stroke or mortality benefit from catheter ablation. “It’s very hard to move the needle in these patients with either a drug or catheter ablation approach. I wouldn’t try to reduce the risk of stroke here with an expensive and invasive procedure,” the electrophysiologist concluded.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Hospitalists encounter troponin elevations daily, but we have to use clinical judgment to determine if the troponin elevation represents either a myocardial infarction (MI), or a non-MI troponin elevation (i.e. a , nonischemic myocardial injury).

©decade3d/Thinkstock.com

It is important to remember that an MI specifically refers to myocardial injury due to acute myocardial ischemia to the myocardium. This lack of blood supply can be due to an acute absolute or relative deficiency in coronary artery blood flow. However, there are also many mechanisms of myocardial injury unrelated to reduced coronary artery blood flow, and these should be more appropriately termed non-MI troponin elevations.

Historically, when an ischemic mechanism of myocardial injury was suspected, providers would categorize troponin elevations into ST-elevation MI (STEMI) versus non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) based on the electrocardiogram (ECG). We would further classify the NSTEMI into type 1 or type 2, depending on the mechanism of injury. The term “NSTEMI” served as a “catch-all” term to describe both type 1 NSTEMIs and type 2 MIs, but that classification system is no longer valid.

Classification of MI types

The Fourth Universal Definition of MI published in August 2018 further updated the definitions of MI (summarized in Figure 1).² This review focuses on type 1 and type 2 MIs, which are the most common types encountered by hospitalists. Types 3-5 MI (grouped under a common ICD-10 diagnosis code for “Other MI Types,” or I21.A9) would rarely be diagnosed by hospitalists.



Figure 1: Classification of MI
 

The diagnosis of a type 1 MIs (STEMI and NSTEMI) is supported by the presence of an acute coronary thrombus or plaque rupture/erosion on coronary angiography or a strong suspicion for these when angiography is unavailable or contraindicated. Type 1 MI (also referred to as spontaneous MI) is generally a primary reason (or “principal” diagnosis) for a patient’s presentation to a hospital.³ Please note that a very high or rising troponin level alone is not diagnostic for a type 1 or type 2 NSTEMI. The lab has to be taken in the context of the patient’s presentation and other supporting findings.

In contrast to a type 1 MI (STEMI and NSTEMI), at type 2 MI results from an imbalance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand unrelated to acute coronary artery thrombosis or plaque rupture. A type 2 MI is a relative (as opposed to an absolute) deficiency in coronary artery blood flow triggered by an abrupt increase in myocardial oxygen demand, drop in myocardial blood supply, or both. In type 2 MI, myocardial injury occurs secondary to an underlying process, and therefore requires correct documentation of the underlying cause as well. 

Common examples of underlying causes of type 2 MI include acute blood loss anemia (e.g. GI bleed), acute hypoxia (e.g. COPD exacerbation), shock states (cardiogenic, hypovolemic, hemorrhagic, or septic), coronary vasospasm (e.g. spontaneous), and bradyarrhythmias. Patients with type 2 MI often have a history of fixed obstructive coronary disease, which when coupled with the acute trigger facilitates the type 2 MI; however, underlying CAD is not always present. 

Diagnosing a type 2 MI requires evidence of acute myocardial ischemia (Figure 2) with an elevated troponin but must also have at least one of the following:²

• Symptoms of acute myocardial ischemia such as typical chest pain.
• New ischemic ECG changes.
• Development of pathological Q waves.
• Imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium, significant reversible perfusion defect on nuclear imaging, or new regional wall motion abnormality in a pattern consistent with an ischemic etiology.

Distinguishing a type 1 NSTEMI from a type 2 MI depends mainly on the clinical context and clinical judgment. A patient whose presenting symptoms include acute chest discomfort, acute ST-T wave changes, and a rise in troponin would be suspected of having a type 1 NSTEMI. However, in a patient presenting with other or vague complaints where an elevated troponin was found amongst a battery of tests, a type 2 MI may be favored, particularly if there is evidence of an underlying trigger for a supply-demand mismatch. In challenging cases, cardiology consultation can help determine the MI type and/or the next diagnostic and treatment considerations.

When there is only elevated troponin levels (or even a rise and fall in troponin) without new symptoms or ECG/imaging evidence of myocardial ischemia, it is most appropriate to document a non-MI troponin elevation due to a nonischemic mechanism of myocardial injury.
 

Non-MI troponin elevation (nonischemic myocardial injury)

The number of conditions known to cause myocardial injury through mechanisms other than myocardial ischemia (see Figure 2) is growing, especially in the current era of high-sensitivity troponin assays.⁴

Common examples of underlying causes of non-MI troponin elevation include:

• Acute (on chronic) systolic or diastolic heart failure: Usually due to acute ventricular wall stretch/strain. Troponin elevations tend to be mild, with more indolent (or even flat) troponin trajectories.
• Pericarditis and myocarditis: Due to direct injury from myocardial inflammation.
• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): Due to physical injury to the heart from mechanical chest compressions and from electrical shocks of external defibrillation.
• Stress-induced (takotsubo) cardiomyopathy: Stress-induced release of neurohormonal factors and catecholamines that cause direct myocyte injury and transient dilatation of the ventricle.
• Acute pulmonary embolism: Result of acute right ventricular wall stretch/strain, not from myocardial ischemia.
• Sepsis without shock: Direct toxicity of circulating cytokines to cardiac myocytes. In the absence of evidence of shock and symptoms/signs of myocardial ischemia, do not document type 2 MI.
• Renal failure (acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease): Multiple etiologies, but at least partially related to reduced renal clearance of troponin. In general, renal failure in the absence of symptoms/signs of ischemia is best classified as a non-MI troponin elevation. ESRD patients who present with volume overload due to missed dialysis also typically have a non-MI troponin elevation.
• Stroke/intracranial hemorrhage: Mechanisms of myocardial injury and troponin elevation are incompletely understood, but may include catecholamine surges that injure the heart.

Some underlying conditions can cause a type 2 MI or a non-MI troponin elevation depending on the clinical context. For example, hypertensive emergency, severe aortic valve stenosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and tachyarrhythmias (including atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response) may cause increased myocardial oxygen demand, and in patients with underlying CAD, could precipitate a type 2 MI.

However, these same conditions could cause a non-MI troponin elevation in patients without CAD and could also cause myocardial injury and troponin release by causing acute left ventricular stretch/strain. Distinguishing the diagnose of type 2 MI vs. non-MI troponin elevation depends on documenting whether there are ancillary ischemic symptoms, ECG findings, imaging, and/or cath findings of acute myocardial ischemia.
 

Case examples 

1. A 60-year-old male presents with fever, cough, shortness of breath, and an infiltrate on CXR and is diagnosed with sepsis secondary to pneumonia. His initial troponin of 0.07 (normal < 0.05) rises to 0.11, peaks at 0.23, then subsequently trends down.

While some may be tempted to diagnose a type 2 MI, remember that sepsis can cause direct myocardial cell injury via direct cell toxicity. Unless this patient had at least one additional criteria (anginal chest pain, new ischemic ECG changes, or imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium, which does not recover with treatment of sepsis), this was most likely myocardial injury via direct cell toxicity, and should be documented as a non-MI troponin elevation due to sepsis without shock.

If there were ischemic ECG changes and the patient had chest pain, one would have to use clinical suspicion to differentiate between a type 1 NSTEMI and a type 2 MI. If there is a high clinical suspicion for an acute plaque rupture/thrombus, one would call it an NSTEMI and would have to document treatment as such (e.g. start heparin drip). Again, cardiology consultation can be helpful in cases where it may be hard to decide how to manage. Many times, the true mechanism is not determined until the patient is taken to the cath lab and if no acute plaque rupture is seen, then it was likely a type 2 MI.

2. A 70-year-old male with chronic systolic heart failure, noncompliant with medications, presents with 3 days of dyspnea on exertion and lower extremity edema. He had no chest discomfort. Exam shows bibasilar crackles and hepatojugular reflux. ECG shows no ischemic changes. Serial troponin values over 48 hours were: 0.48, 0.58, 0.51. A transthoracic echocardiogram reveals an LVEF of 40% with poor movement in the apex, similar to his prior echo.

This patient had no overt evidence of ischemia (no chest pain, ischemic ECG, or imaging changes) so the troponin elevation was most likely a non-MI troponin elevation secondary to acute on chronic systolic heart failure (in which the mechanism of troponin elevation is left ventricular chamber stretch from volume overload, and not demand ischemia). Generally, it is uncommon for a heart failure exacerbation to cause a type 2 MI.
 

Why is it so important to get this diagnosis right?

Misdiagnosing an MI when the patient does not have one can have multiple downstream repercussions. Because it stays on their medical record, it impacts their ability to get insurance and their premium costs. We expose patients to additional medications (e.g. dual antiplatelet therapy, statins), which can have adverse effects. As a result, it is very important to classify the etiology of the troponin elevation and treat accordingly.

Finally, when we incorrectly label a patient as having an MI, this can impact billing and reimbursement, DRG denials, insurance premiums, and quality metrics for both the hospital and the physicians. Hospitals’ 30-day readmission rates for AMI will suffer and quality metrics can be significantly impacted. We must be diligent and as precise as possible with our diagnoses and documentation to ensure the maximum benefit for our patients and our health care system.
 

Dr. Nave is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Goyal is associate professor of medicine (cardiology), at Emory University, and chief quality officer, Emory Heart and Vascular Center, Emory Healthcare. He is also codirector of nuclear cardiology at Emory University Hospital.

Key points

• A diagnosis of a type 1 MI is supported by evidence or strong suspicion of acute coronary artery thrombus or plaque rupture/erosion.
• A very high troponin level alone is not diagnostic for a type 1 or type 2 MI. It has to be contextualized with the patient’s presentation and other supporting findings.
• Type 2 MI is a mismatch between myocardial oxygen supply and demand unrelated to acute coronary thrombosis or plaque rupture triggered by an abrupt increase in myocardial oxygen demand, drop in myocardial blood supply, or both. Type 2 MI should be documented along with its underlying cause.
• To diagnose an MI (either type 1 or type 2 MI), in addition to the troponin elevation, the patient must have symptoms of acute ischemia, ischemic ECG findings, and/or imaging suggestive of new ischemia.
• An elevated troponin level without new symptoms or ECG/imaging evidence of myocardial ischemia should be documented as a non-MI troponin elevation secondary to an underlying cause.

References

1. Goyal A, Gluckman TJ, Tcheng JE. What’s in a name? The new ICD-10 (10th revision of the international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems) codes and type 2 myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2017;136:1180-2.

2. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;Aug 25:[Epub ahead of print].

3. Goyal, et al. Translating the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction into Clinical Documentation: Ten Pearls For Frontline Clinicians. Cardiology Magazine. Nov 2018.

4. Roongsritong C, Warraich I, Bradley C. Common causes of troponin elevations in the absence of acute myocardial infarction: incidence and clinical significance. Chest. 2004;125:1877-84.

Hospitalists encounter troponin elevations daily, but we have to use clinical judgment to determine if the troponin elevation represents either a myocardial infarction (MI), or a non-MI troponin elevation (i.e. a , nonischemic myocardial injury).

©decade3d/Thinkstock.com

It is important to remember that an MI specifically refers to myocardial injury due to acute myocardial ischemia to the myocardium. This lack of blood supply can be due to an acute absolute or relative deficiency in coronary artery blood flow. However, there are also many mechanisms of myocardial injury unrelated to reduced coronary artery blood flow, and these should be more appropriately termed non-MI troponin elevations.

Historically, when an ischemic mechanism of myocardial injury was suspected, providers would categorize troponin elevations into ST-elevation MI (STEMI) versus non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) based on the electrocardiogram (ECG). We would further classify the NSTEMI into type 1 or type 2, depending on the mechanism of injury. The term “NSTEMI” served as a “catch-all” term to describe both type 1 NSTEMIs and type 2 MIs, but that classification system is no longer valid.

Classification of MI types

The Fourth Universal Definition of MI published in August 2018 further updated the definitions of MI (summarized in Figure 1).² This review focuses on type 1 and type 2 MIs, which are the most common types encountered by hospitalists. Types 3-5 MI (grouped under a common ICD-10 diagnosis code for “Other MI Types,” or I21.A9) would rarely be diagnosed by hospitalists.



Figure 1: Classification of MI
 

The diagnosis of a type 1 MIs (STEMI and NSTEMI) is supported by the presence of an acute coronary thrombus or plaque rupture/erosion on coronary angiography or a strong suspicion for these when angiography is unavailable or contraindicated. Type 1 MI (also referred to as spontaneous MI) is generally a primary reason (or “principal” diagnosis) for a patient’s presentation to a hospital.³ Please note that a very high or rising troponin level alone is not diagnostic for a type 1 or type 2 NSTEMI. The lab has to be taken in the context of the patient’s presentation and other supporting findings.

In contrast to a type 1 MI (STEMI and NSTEMI), at type 2 MI results from an imbalance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand unrelated to acute coronary artery thrombosis or plaque rupture. A type 2 MI is a relative (as opposed to an absolute) deficiency in coronary artery blood flow triggered by an abrupt increase in myocardial oxygen demand, drop in myocardial blood supply, or both. In type 2 MI, myocardial injury occurs secondary to an underlying process, and therefore requires correct documentation of the underlying cause as well. 

Common examples of underlying causes of type 2 MI include acute blood loss anemia (e.g. GI bleed), acute hypoxia (e.g. COPD exacerbation), shock states (cardiogenic, hypovolemic, hemorrhagic, or septic), coronary vasospasm (e.g. spontaneous), and bradyarrhythmias. Patients with type 2 MI often have a history of fixed obstructive coronary disease, which when coupled with the acute trigger facilitates the type 2 MI; however, underlying CAD is not always present. 

Diagnosing a type 2 MI requires evidence of acute myocardial ischemia (Figure 2) with an elevated troponin but must also have at least one of the following:²

• Symptoms of acute myocardial ischemia such as typical chest pain.
• New ischemic ECG changes.
• Development of pathological Q waves.
• Imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium, significant reversible perfusion defect on nuclear imaging, or new regional wall motion abnormality in a pattern consistent with an ischemic etiology.

Distinguishing a type 1 NSTEMI from a type 2 MI depends mainly on the clinical context and clinical judgment. A patient whose presenting symptoms include acute chest discomfort, acute ST-T wave changes, and a rise in troponin would be suspected of having a type 1 NSTEMI. However, in a patient presenting with other or vague complaints where an elevated troponin was found amongst a battery of tests, a type 2 MI may be favored, particularly if there is evidence of an underlying trigger for a supply-demand mismatch. In challenging cases, cardiology consultation can help determine the MI type and/or the next diagnostic and treatment considerations.

When there is only elevated troponin levels (or even a rise and fall in troponin) without new symptoms or ECG/imaging evidence of myocardial ischemia, it is most appropriate to document a non-MI troponin elevation due to a nonischemic mechanism of myocardial injury.
 

Non-MI troponin elevation (nonischemic myocardial injury)

The number of conditions known to cause myocardial injury through mechanisms other than myocardial ischemia (see Figure 2) is growing, especially in the current era of high-sensitivity troponin assays.⁴

Common examples of underlying causes of non-MI troponin elevation include:

• Acute (on chronic) systolic or diastolic heart failure: Usually due to acute ventricular wall stretch/strain. Troponin elevations tend to be mild, with more indolent (or even flat) troponin trajectories.
• Pericarditis and myocarditis: Due to direct injury from myocardial inflammation.
• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): Due to physical injury to the heart from mechanical chest compressions and from electrical shocks of external defibrillation.
• Stress-induced (takotsubo) cardiomyopathy: Stress-induced release of neurohormonal factors and catecholamines that cause direct myocyte injury and transient dilatation of the ventricle.
• Acute pulmonary embolism: Result of acute right ventricular wall stretch/strain, not from myocardial ischemia.
• Sepsis without shock: Direct toxicity of circulating cytokines to cardiac myocytes. In the absence of evidence of shock and symptoms/signs of myocardial ischemia, do not document type 2 MI.
• Renal failure (acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease): Multiple etiologies, but at least partially related to reduced renal clearance of troponin. In general, renal failure in the absence of symptoms/signs of ischemia is best classified as a non-MI troponin elevation. ESRD patients who present with volume overload due to missed dialysis also typically have a non-MI troponin elevation.
• Stroke/intracranial hemorrhage: Mechanisms of myocardial injury and troponin elevation are incompletely understood, but may include catecholamine surges that injure the heart.

Some underlying conditions can cause a type 2 MI or a non-MI troponin elevation depending on the clinical context. For example, hypertensive emergency, severe aortic valve stenosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and tachyarrhythmias (including atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response) may cause increased myocardial oxygen demand, and in patients with underlying CAD, could precipitate a type 2 MI.

However, these same conditions could cause a non-MI troponin elevation in patients without CAD and could also cause myocardial injury and troponin release by causing acute left ventricular stretch/strain. Distinguishing the diagnose of type 2 MI vs. non-MI troponin elevation depends on documenting whether there are ancillary ischemic symptoms, ECG findings, imaging, and/or cath findings of acute myocardial ischemia.
 

Case examples 

1. A 60-year-old male presents with fever, cough, shortness of breath, and an infiltrate on CXR and is diagnosed with sepsis secondary to pneumonia. His initial troponin of 0.07 (normal < 0.05) rises to 0.11, peaks at 0.23, then subsequently trends down.

While some may be tempted to diagnose a type 2 MI, remember that sepsis can cause direct myocardial cell injury via direct cell toxicity. Unless this patient had at least one additional criteria (anginal chest pain, new ischemic ECG changes, or imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium, which does not recover with treatment of sepsis), this was most likely myocardial injury via direct cell toxicity, and should be documented as a non-MI troponin elevation due to sepsis without shock.

If there were ischemic ECG changes and the patient had chest pain, one would have to use clinical suspicion to differentiate between a type 1 NSTEMI and a type 2 MI. If there is a high clinical suspicion for an acute plaque rupture/thrombus, one would call it an NSTEMI and would have to document treatment as such (e.g. start heparin drip). Again, cardiology consultation can be helpful in cases where it may be hard to decide how to manage. Many times, the true mechanism is not determined until the patient is taken to the cath lab and if no acute plaque rupture is seen, then it was likely a type 2 MI.

2. A 70-year-old male with chronic systolic heart failure, noncompliant with medications, presents with 3 days of dyspnea on exertion and lower extremity edema. He had no chest discomfort. Exam shows bibasilar crackles and hepatojugular reflux. ECG shows no ischemic changes. Serial troponin values over 48 hours were: 0.48, 0.58, 0.51. A transthoracic echocardiogram reveals an LVEF of 40% with poor movement in the apex, similar to his prior echo.

This patient had no overt evidence of ischemia (no chest pain, ischemic ECG, or imaging changes) so the troponin elevation was most likely a non-MI troponin elevation secondary to acute on chronic systolic heart failure (in which the mechanism of troponin elevation is left ventricular chamber stretch from volume overload, and not demand ischemia). Generally, it is uncommon for a heart failure exacerbation to cause a type 2 MI.
 

Why is it so important to get this diagnosis right?

Misdiagnosing an MI when the patient does not have one can have multiple downstream repercussions. Because it stays on their medical record, it impacts their ability to get insurance and their premium costs. We expose patients to additional medications (e.g. dual antiplatelet therapy, statins), which can have adverse effects. As a result, it is very important to classify the etiology of the troponin elevation and treat accordingly.

Finally, when we incorrectly label a patient as having an MI, this can impact billing and reimbursement, DRG denials, insurance premiums, and quality metrics for both the hospital and the physicians. Hospitals’ 30-day readmission rates for AMI will suffer and quality metrics can be significantly impacted. We must be diligent and as precise as possible with our diagnoses and documentation to ensure the maximum benefit for our patients and our health care system.
 

Dr. Nave is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Goyal is associate professor of medicine (cardiology), at Emory University, and chief quality officer, Emory Heart and Vascular Center, Emory Healthcare. He is also codirector of nuclear cardiology at Emory University Hospital.

Key points

• A diagnosis of a type 1 MI is supported by evidence or strong suspicion of acute coronary artery thrombus or plaque rupture/erosion.
• A very high troponin level alone is not diagnostic for a type 1 or type 2 MI. It has to be contextualized with the patient’s presentation and other supporting findings.
• Type 2 MI is a mismatch between myocardial oxygen supply and demand unrelated to acute coronary thrombosis or plaque rupture triggered by an abrupt increase in myocardial oxygen demand, drop in myocardial blood supply, or both. Type 2 MI should be documented along with its underlying cause.
• To diagnose an MI (either type 1 or type 2 MI), in addition to the troponin elevation, the patient must have symptoms of acute ischemia, ischemic ECG findings, and/or imaging suggestive of new ischemia.
• An elevated troponin level without new symptoms or ECG/imaging evidence of myocardial ischemia should be documented as a non-MI troponin elevation secondary to an underlying cause.

References

1. Goyal A, Gluckman TJ, Tcheng JE. What’s in a name? The new ICD-10 (10th revision of the international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems) codes and type 2 myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2017;136:1180-2.

2. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;Aug 25:[Epub ahead of print].

3. Goyal, et al. Translating the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction into Clinical Documentation: Ten Pearls For Frontline Clinicians. Cardiology Magazine. Nov 2018.

4. Roongsritong C, Warraich I, Bradley C. Common causes of troponin elevations in the absence of acute myocardial infarction: incidence and clinical significance. Chest. 2004;125:1877-84.

Hospitalists encounter troponin elevations daily, but we have to use clinical judgment to determine if the troponin elevation represents either a myocardial infarction (MI), or a non-MI troponin elevation (i.e. a , nonischemic myocardial injury).

©decade3d/Thinkstock.com

It is important to remember that an MI specifically refers to myocardial injury due to acute myocardial ischemia to the myocardium. This lack of blood supply can be due to an acute absolute or relative deficiency in coronary artery blood flow. However, there are also many mechanisms of myocardial injury unrelated to reduced coronary artery blood flow, and these should be more appropriately termed non-MI troponin elevations.

Historically, when an ischemic mechanism of myocardial injury was suspected, providers would categorize troponin elevations into ST-elevation MI (STEMI) versus non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI) based on the electrocardiogram (ECG). We would further classify the NSTEMI into type 1 or type 2, depending on the mechanism of injury. The term “NSTEMI” served as a “catch-all” term to describe both type 1 NSTEMIs and type 2 MIs, but that classification system is no longer valid.

Classification of MI types

The Fourth Universal Definition of MI published in August 2018 further updated the definitions of MI (summarized in Figure 1).² This review focuses on type 1 and type 2 MIs, which are the most common types encountered by hospitalists. Types 3-5 MI (grouped under a common ICD-10 diagnosis code for “Other MI Types,” or I21.A9) would rarely be diagnosed by hospitalists.



Figure 1: Classification of MI
 

The diagnosis of a type 1 MIs (STEMI and NSTEMI) is supported by the presence of an acute coronary thrombus or plaque rupture/erosion on coronary angiography or a strong suspicion for these when angiography is unavailable or contraindicated. Type 1 MI (also referred to as spontaneous MI) is generally a primary reason (or “principal” diagnosis) for a patient’s presentation to a hospital.³ Please note that a very high or rising troponin level alone is not diagnostic for a type 1 or type 2 NSTEMI. The lab has to be taken in the context of the patient’s presentation and other supporting findings.

In contrast to a type 1 MI (STEMI and NSTEMI), at type 2 MI results from an imbalance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand unrelated to acute coronary artery thrombosis or plaque rupture. A type 2 MI is a relative (as opposed to an absolute) deficiency in coronary artery blood flow triggered by an abrupt increase in myocardial oxygen demand, drop in myocardial blood supply, or both. In type 2 MI, myocardial injury occurs secondary to an underlying process, and therefore requires correct documentation of the underlying cause as well. 

Common examples of underlying causes of type 2 MI include acute blood loss anemia (e.g. GI bleed), acute hypoxia (e.g. COPD exacerbation), shock states (cardiogenic, hypovolemic, hemorrhagic, or septic), coronary vasospasm (e.g. spontaneous), and bradyarrhythmias. Patients with type 2 MI often have a history of fixed obstructive coronary disease, which when coupled with the acute trigger facilitates the type 2 MI; however, underlying CAD is not always present. 

Diagnosing a type 2 MI requires evidence of acute myocardial ischemia (Figure 2) with an elevated troponin but must also have at least one of the following:²

• Symptoms of acute myocardial ischemia such as typical chest pain.
• New ischemic ECG changes.
• Development of pathological Q waves.
• Imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium, significant reversible perfusion defect on nuclear imaging, or new regional wall motion abnormality in a pattern consistent with an ischemic etiology.

Distinguishing a type 1 NSTEMI from a type 2 MI depends mainly on the clinical context and clinical judgment. A patient whose presenting symptoms include acute chest discomfort, acute ST-T wave changes, and a rise in troponin would be suspected of having a type 1 NSTEMI. However, in a patient presenting with other or vague complaints where an elevated troponin was found amongst a battery of tests, a type 2 MI may be favored, particularly if there is evidence of an underlying trigger for a supply-demand mismatch. In challenging cases, cardiology consultation can help determine the MI type and/or the next diagnostic and treatment considerations.

When there is only elevated troponin levels (or even a rise and fall in troponin) without new symptoms or ECG/imaging evidence of myocardial ischemia, it is most appropriate to document a non-MI troponin elevation due to a nonischemic mechanism of myocardial injury.
 

Non-MI troponin elevation (nonischemic myocardial injury)

The number of conditions known to cause myocardial injury through mechanisms other than myocardial ischemia (see Figure 2) is growing, especially in the current era of high-sensitivity troponin assays.⁴

Common examples of underlying causes of non-MI troponin elevation include:

• Acute (on chronic) systolic or diastolic heart failure: Usually due to acute ventricular wall stretch/strain. Troponin elevations tend to be mild, with more indolent (or even flat) troponin trajectories.
• Pericarditis and myocarditis: Due to direct injury from myocardial inflammation.
• Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR): Due to physical injury to the heart from mechanical chest compressions and from electrical shocks of external defibrillation.
• Stress-induced (takotsubo) cardiomyopathy: Stress-induced release of neurohormonal factors and catecholamines that cause direct myocyte injury and transient dilatation of the ventricle.
• Acute pulmonary embolism: Result of acute right ventricular wall stretch/strain, not from myocardial ischemia.
• Sepsis without shock: Direct toxicity of circulating cytokines to cardiac myocytes. In the absence of evidence of shock and symptoms/signs of myocardial ischemia, do not document type 2 MI.
• Renal failure (acute kidney injury or chronic kidney disease): Multiple etiologies, but at least partially related to reduced renal clearance of troponin. In general, renal failure in the absence of symptoms/signs of ischemia is best classified as a non-MI troponin elevation. ESRD patients who present with volume overload due to missed dialysis also typically have a non-MI troponin elevation.
• Stroke/intracranial hemorrhage: Mechanisms of myocardial injury and troponin elevation are incompletely understood, but may include catecholamine surges that injure the heart.

Some underlying conditions can cause a type 2 MI or a non-MI troponin elevation depending on the clinical context. For example, hypertensive emergency, severe aortic valve stenosis, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and tachyarrhythmias (including atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response) may cause increased myocardial oxygen demand, and in patients with underlying CAD, could precipitate a type 2 MI.

However, these same conditions could cause a non-MI troponin elevation in patients without CAD and could also cause myocardial injury and troponin release by causing acute left ventricular stretch/strain. Distinguishing the diagnose of type 2 MI vs. non-MI troponin elevation depends on documenting whether there are ancillary ischemic symptoms, ECG findings, imaging, and/or cath findings of acute myocardial ischemia.
 

Case examples 

1. A 60-year-old male presents with fever, cough, shortness of breath, and an infiltrate on CXR and is diagnosed with sepsis secondary to pneumonia. His initial troponin of 0.07 (normal < 0.05) rises to 0.11, peaks at 0.23, then subsequently trends down.

While some may be tempted to diagnose a type 2 MI, remember that sepsis can cause direct myocardial cell injury via direct cell toxicity. Unless this patient had at least one additional criteria (anginal chest pain, new ischemic ECG changes, or imaging evidence of new loss of viable myocardium, which does not recover with treatment of sepsis), this was most likely myocardial injury via direct cell toxicity, and should be documented as a non-MI troponin elevation due to sepsis without shock.

If there were ischemic ECG changes and the patient had chest pain, one would have to use clinical suspicion to differentiate between a type 1 NSTEMI and a type 2 MI. If there is a high clinical suspicion for an acute plaque rupture/thrombus, one would call it an NSTEMI and would have to document treatment as such (e.g. start heparin drip). Again, cardiology consultation can be helpful in cases where it may be hard to decide how to manage. Many times, the true mechanism is not determined until the patient is taken to the cath lab and if no acute plaque rupture is seen, then it was likely a type 2 MI.

2. A 70-year-old male with chronic systolic heart failure, noncompliant with medications, presents with 3 days of dyspnea on exertion and lower extremity edema. He had no chest discomfort. Exam shows bibasilar crackles and hepatojugular reflux. ECG shows no ischemic changes. Serial troponin values over 48 hours were: 0.48, 0.58, 0.51. A transthoracic echocardiogram reveals an LVEF of 40% with poor movement in the apex, similar to his prior echo.

This patient had no overt evidence of ischemia (no chest pain, ischemic ECG, or imaging changes) so the troponin elevation was most likely a non-MI troponin elevation secondary to acute on chronic systolic heart failure (in which the mechanism of troponin elevation is left ventricular chamber stretch from volume overload, and not demand ischemia). Generally, it is uncommon for a heart failure exacerbation to cause a type 2 MI.
 

Why is it so important to get this diagnosis right?

Misdiagnosing an MI when the patient does not have one can have multiple downstream repercussions. Because it stays on their medical record, it impacts their ability to get insurance and their premium costs. We expose patients to additional medications (e.g. dual antiplatelet therapy, statins), which can have adverse effects. As a result, it is very important to classify the etiology of the troponin elevation and treat accordingly.

Finally, when we incorrectly label a patient as having an MI, this can impact billing and reimbursement, DRG denials, insurance premiums, and quality metrics for both the hospital and the physicians. Hospitals’ 30-day readmission rates for AMI will suffer and quality metrics can be significantly impacted. We must be diligent and as precise as possible with our diagnoses and documentation to ensure the maximum benefit for our patients and our health care system.
 

Dr. Nave is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Goyal is associate professor of medicine (cardiology), at Emory University, and chief quality officer, Emory Heart and Vascular Center, Emory Healthcare. He is also codirector of nuclear cardiology at Emory University Hospital.

Key points

• A diagnosis of a type 1 MI is supported by evidence or strong suspicion of acute coronary artery thrombus or plaque rupture/erosion.
• A very high troponin level alone is not diagnostic for a type 1 or type 2 MI. It has to be contextualized with the patient’s presentation and other supporting findings.
• Type 2 MI is a mismatch between myocardial oxygen supply and demand unrelated to acute coronary thrombosis or plaque rupture triggered by an abrupt increase in myocardial oxygen demand, drop in myocardial blood supply, or both. Type 2 MI should be documented along with its underlying cause.
• To diagnose an MI (either type 1 or type 2 MI), in addition to the troponin elevation, the patient must have symptoms of acute ischemia, ischemic ECG findings, and/or imaging suggestive of new ischemia.
• An elevated troponin level without new symptoms or ECG/imaging evidence of myocardial ischemia should be documented as a non-MI troponin elevation secondary to an underlying cause.

References

1. Goyal A, Gluckman TJ, Tcheng JE. What’s in a name? The new ICD-10 (10th revision of the international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems) codes and type 2 myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2017;136:1180-2.

2. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;Aug 25:[Epub ahead of print].

3. Goyal, et al. Translating the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction into Clinical Documentation: Ten Pearls For Frontline Clinicians. Cardiology Magazine. Nov 2018.

4. Roongsritong C, Warraich I, Bradley C. Common causes of troponin elevations in the absence of acute myocardial infarction: incidence and clinical significance. Chest. 2004;125:1877-84.

Changes in gut microbiota linked to red meat intake over time were significantly associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, regardless of baseline microbiota measures, based on data from 760 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study.

“A gut microbiota–related metabolite, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), has been related to risks of major adverse cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease (CHD) in epidemiological studies,” but previous studies have not examined the impact of long-term changes in TMAO on CHD risk, wrote Yoriko Heianza, RD, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

Red meat has been shown to increase TMAO levels, whereas discontinuation of red meat intake reduced plasma TMAO levels (Eur Heart J 2019;40:583-94), the investigators wrote.

In their study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers evaluated blood samples from 760 women who were participants in the Nurses’ Health Study. The samples were collected at two time points: 1989-1990 and 2000-2002. The researchers identified 360 incident cases of CHD over the study period and compared them with matched controls.

Over roughly 10 years, increases in TMAO over time were significantly associated with increased CHD risk, with a relative risk of 1.58 for the top tertile and a relative risk of 1.33 per each standard deviation.

Women with elevated levels of TMAO both at baseline and at the 10-year point had the highest CHD risk (relative risk 1.79), compared with women with low TMAO levels at baseline and 10 years later.

The researchers also found an impact of diet on the TMAO-CHD relationship. Individuals with unhealthy eating patterns based on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index showed greater increases in TMAO and greater CHD risk. By contrast, greater adherence to healthy eating habits attenuated the impact of TMAO and CHD.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess the timing of the changes in the metabolites that contributed to CHD, the reliance on self-reports for dietary patterns and other variables, and the inclusion only of women health professionals in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the availability of long-term blood samples and a patient population free of disease at baseline.

In addition, “adherence to healthy dietary patterns may modulate the adverse relationship between TMAO changes and CHD, suggesting that TMAO as a potential intermediate endpoint of interventions focusing on dietary modifications for CHD prevention,” the researchers wrote.

“The findings of the study provide further evidence for the role of TMAO as a predictive biomarker for atherosclerotic heart disease and strengthen the case for TMAO as a potential intervention target in CV [cardiovascular] disease prevention,” wrote Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, and Petra Mamic, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, “It is increasingly clear that GMB [gut microbiota] metabolites have biological activity, and that dietary changes alter the GMB and its metabolic output, with subsequent modulation of downstream host effects,” they wrote.

“While acknowledging the limitations of self-reported dietary pattern assessment, this is an important finding because it suggests that healthy dietary patterns may in some ways neutralize TMAO’s harmful effects on the CV system, potentially through other identified and unidentified GMB-mediated pathways,” they added.

The study was sponsored in part by the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. Neither the researchers nor the editorialists had any financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Heianza Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 0.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.060; Heidenreich PA, Mamic P. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.023.

Changes in gut microbiota linked to red meat intake over time were significantly associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, regardless of baseline microbiota measures, based on data from 760 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study.

“A gut microbiota–related metabolite, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), has been related to risks of major adverse cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease (CHD) in epidemiological studies,” but previous studies have not examined the impact of long-term changes in TMAO on CHD risk, wrote Yoriko Heianza, RD, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

Red meat has been shown to increase TMAO levels, whereas discontinuation of red meat intake reduced plasma TMAO levels (Eur Heart J 2019;40:583-94), the investigators wrote.

In their study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers evaluated blood samples from 760 women who were participants in the Nurses’ Health Study. The samples were collected at two time points: 1989-1990 and 2000-2002. The researchers identified 360 incident cases of CHD over the study period and compared them with matched controls.

Over roughly 10 years, increases in TMAO over time were significantly associated with increased CHD risk, with a relative risk of 1.58 for the top tertile and a relative risk of 1.33 per each standard deviation.

Women with elevated levels of TMAO both at baseline and at the 10-year point had the highest CHD risk (relative risk 1.79), compared with women with low TMAO levels at baseline and 10 years later.

The researchers also found an impact of diet on the TMAO-CHD relationship. Individuals with unhealthy eating patterns based on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index showed greater increases in TMAO and greater CHD risk. By contrast, greater adherence to healthy eating habits attenuated the impact of TMAO and CHD.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess the timing of the changes in the metabolites that contributed to CHD, the reliance on self-reports for dietary patterns and other variables, and the inclusion only of women health professionals in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the availability of long-term blood samples and a patient population free of disease at baseline.

In addition, “adherence to healthy dietary patterns may modulate the adverse relationship between TMAO changes and CHD, suggesting that TMAO as a potential intermediate endpoint of interventions focusing on dietary modifications for CHD prevention,” the researchers wrote.

“The findings of the study provide further evidence for the role of TMAO as a predictive biomarker for atherosclerotic heart disease and strengthen the case for TMAO as a potential intervention target in CV [cardiovascular] disease prevention,” wrote Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, and Petra Mamic, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, “It is increasingly clear that GMB [gut microbiota] metabolites have biological activity, and that dietary changes alter the GMB and its metabolic output, with subsequent modulation of downstream host effects,” they wrote.

“While acknowledging the limitations of self-reported dietary pattern assessment, this is an important finding because it suggests that healthy dietary patterns may in some ways neutralize TMAO’s harmful effects on the CV system, potentially through other identified and unidentified GMB-mediated pathways,” they added.

The study was sponsored in part by the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. Neither the researchers nor the editorialists had any financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Heianza Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 0.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.060; Heidenreich PA, Mamic P. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.023.

Changes in gut microbiota linked to red meat intake over time were significantly associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease, regardless of baseline microbiota measures, based on data from 760 participants in the Nurses’ Health Study.

“A gut microbiota–related metabolite, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), has been related to risks of major adverse cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease (CHD) in epidemiological studies,” but previous studies have not examined the impact of long-term changes in TMAO on CHD risk, wrote Yoriko Heianza, RD, PhD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

Red meat has been shown to increase TMAO levels, whereas discontinuation of red meat intake reduced plasma TMAO levels (Eur Heart J 2019;40:583-94), the investigators wrote.

In their study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the researchers evaluated blood samples from 760 women who were participants in the Nurses’ Health Study. The samples were collected at two time points: 1989-1990 and 2000-2002. The researchers identified 360 incident cases of CHD over the study period and compared them with matched controls.

Over roughly 10 years, increases in TMAO over time were significantly associated with increased CHD risk, with a relative risk of 1.58 for the top tertile and a relative risk of 1.33 per each standard deviation.

Women with elevated levels of TMAO both at baseline and at the 10-year point had the highest CHD risk (relative risk 1.79), compared with women with low TMAO levels at baseline and 10 years later.

The researchers also found an impact of diet on the TMAO-CHD relationship. Individuals with unhealthy eating patterns based on the Alternate Healthy Eating Index showed greater increases in TMAO and greater CHD risk. By contrast, greater adherence to healthy eating habits attenuated the impact of TMAO and CHD.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to assess the timing of the changes in the metabolites that contributed to CHD, the reliance on self-reports for dietary patterns and other variables, and the inclusion only of women health professionals in the study population, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the availability of long-term blood samples and a patient population free of disease at baseline.

In addition, “adherence to healthy dietary patterns may modulate the adverse relationship between TMAO changes and CHD, suggesting that TMAO as a potential intermediate endpoint of interventions focusing on dietary modifications for CHD prevention,” the researchers wrote.

“The findings of the study provide further evidence for the role of TMAO as a predictive biomarker for atherosclerotic heart disease and strengthen the case for TMAO as a potential intervention target in CV [cardiovascular] disease prevention,” wrote Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, and Petra Mamic, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, in an accompanying editorial.

In addition, “It is increasingly clear that GMB [gut microbiota] metabolites have biological activity, and that dietary changes alter the GMB and its metabolic output, with subsequent modulation of downstream host effects,” they wrote.

“While acknowledging the limitations of self-reported dietary pattern assessment, this is an important finding because it suggests that healthy dietary patterns may in some ways neutralize TMAO’s harmful effects on the CV system, potentially through other identified and unidentified GMB-mediated pathways,” they added.

The study was sponsored in part by the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. Neither the researchers nor the editorialists had any financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCES: Heianza Y et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 0.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.060; Heidenreich PA, Mamic P. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 17. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.023.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology on Feb. 13, 2020, released a clinical bulletin that aims to address cardiac implications of the current epidemic of the novel coronavirus, now known as COVID-19.

The bulletin, reviewed and approved by the college’s Science and Quality Oversight Committee, “provides background on the epidemic, which was first reported in late December 2019, and looks at early cardiac implications from case reports,” the ACC noted in a press release. “It also provides information on the potential cardiac implications from analog viral respiratory pandemics and offers early clinical guidance given current COVID-19 uncertainty.”

The document looks at some early cardiac implications of the infection. For example, early case reports suggest patients with underlying conditions are at higher risk of complications or mortality from the virus, with up to 50% of hospitalized patients having a chronic medical illness, the authors wrote.

About 40% of hospitalized patients confirmed to have the virus have cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, they noted.

In a recent case report on 138 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, they noted, 19.6% developed acute respiratory distress syndrome, 16.7% developed arrhythmia, 8.7% developed shock, 7.2% developed acute cardiac injury, and 3.6% developed acute kidney injury. “Rates of complication were universally higher for ICU patients,” they wrote.

“The first reported death was a 61-year-old male, with a long history of smoking, who succumbed to acute respiratory distress, heart failure, and cardiac arrest,” the document noted. “Early, unpublished first-hand reports suggest at least some patients develop myocarditis.”

Stressing the current uncertainty about the virus, the bulletin provides the following clinical guidance:

• COVID-19 is spread through droplets and can live for substantial periods outside the body; containment and prevention using standard public health and personal strategies for preventing the spread of communicable disease remains the priority.
• In geographies with active COVID-19 transmission (mainly China), it is reasonable to advise patients with underlying cardiovascular disease of the potential increased risk and to encourage additional, reasonable precautions.
• Older adults are less likely to present with fever, thus close assessment for other symptoms such as cough or shortness of breath is warranted.
• Some experts have suggested that the rigorous use of guideline-directed, plaque-stabilizing agents could offer additional protection to cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients during a widespread outbreak (statins, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, acetylsalicylic acid); however, such therapies should be tailored to individual patients.
• It is important for patients with CVD to remain current with vaccinations, including the pneumococcal vaccine, given the increased risk of secondary bacterial infection; it would also be prudent to receive vaccination to prevent another source of fever which could be initially confused with coronavirus infection.
• It may be reasonable to triage COVID-19 patients according to the presence of underlying cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, and other chronic diseases for prioritized treatment.
• Providers are cautioned that classic symptoms and presentation of acute MI may be overshadowed in the context of coronavirus, resulting in underdiagnosis.
• For CVD patients in geographies without widespread COVID-19, emphasis should remain on the threat from influenza, the importance of vaccination and frequent handwashing, and continued adherence to all guideline-directed therapy for underlying chronic conditions.
• COVID-19 is a fast-moving epidemic with an uncertain clinical profile; providers should be prepared for guidance to shift as more information becomes available.

The full clinical update is available here.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min on cardiopulmonary exercise tests have more than double the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality, according to a prospective study of 714 subjects with exertional dyspnea but preserved ejection fractions.

SPL/Science Source

The findings “suggest that across a wide range of individuals with chronic dyspnea, exercise can unmask abnormal pulmonary vascular responses that in turn bear significant clinical implications. These findings, coupled with a growing body of work ... suggest that reintroduction of an exercise based definition of [pulmonary hypertension (PH)] in PH guidelines” – using the pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope – “merits consideration,” wrote Jennifer Ho, MD, a heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048).
 

A new definition takes hold

The slope captures the steepness of pulmonary artery pressure increase as cardiac output goes up, giving a measure of overall pulmonary resistance. A value above 3 mm Hg/L/min means that pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is too high for a given cardiac output (CO). The slope “is preferable to using a single absolute cut point value for exercise PAP” to define exercise pulmonary hypertension.“ Indeed, we confirm that in the absence of elevated PAP/CO, an absolute exercise PAP [above] 30 mm Hg” – the definition of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in years past – “does not portend worse outcomes,” Dr. Ho and her team noted.

In an accompanying editorial titled, “Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Is Back,” Marius Hoeper, MD, a senior physician in the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School, explained that the findings likely signal the revival of exercise pulmonary hypertension as a useful clinical concept (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:27-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.010).

The standalone 30 mm Hg cut point was largely abandoned about a decade ago when it was realized that pressures above that mark were “not necessarily abnormal in certain subjects, for instance in athletes or elderly individuals,” he said.

But it’s become clear in recent years, and now confirmed by Dr. Ho and her team, that what matters is not the stand-alone measurement, but it’s relationship to cardiac output. “There is now sufficient evidence to define exercise PH by an abnormal [mean]PAP/CO slope [above] 3 mm Hg/L/min,” Dr. Hoeper said.
 

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

Each subject in the Massachusetts General study had an average of 10 paired PAP and CO measurements taken by invasive hemodynamic monitoring, including pulmonary artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein, while they road a stationary bicycle. The measurements were used to calculate the PAP/CO slope. A slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min was defined as abnormal based on previous research.

Results of the one-time assessment were correlated with the study’s primary outcome – cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death – over a mean follow up of 3.7 years. Subjects were 57 years old, on average, and 59% were women; just 2% had a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 41% of the subjects had abnormal PAP/CO slopes, 26% had abnormal slopes without resting pulmonary hypertension, and 208 subjects (29%) met the primary outcome.

After adjustments for age, sex, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities, abnormal slopes more than doubled the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48-2.78; P less than .001). The risk remained elevated even in the absence of resting pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21-2.54, P = .003), and in people with only mildly elevated resting PAPs of 21-29 mm Hg.

Older people were more likely to have abnormally elevated slopes, as well as were those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, lower exercise tolerance, lower peak oxygen uptake, and more severely impaired right ventricular function. Diabetes, prior heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were more prevalent in the elevated slope group, and their median N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide level was 154 pg/mL, versus 52 pg/mL among people with normal slopes.

A simpler test is needed

In his editorial, Dr. Hoeper noted that diagnosing exercise PH by elevated slope “will occasionally help physicians and patients to better understand exertional dyspnea and to detect early pulmonary vascular disease in patients at risk,” but for the most part, the new definition “will have little immediate [effect] on clinical practice, as evidence-based treatments for this condition are not yet available.”

Even so, “having a globally accepted gold standard” for exercise PH based on the PAP/CO slope might well spur development of “simpler, noninvasive” ways to measure it so it can be used outside of specialty settings.

Dr. Ho and her team agreed. “These findings should prompt additional work using less invasive measurement modalities such as exercise echocardiography to evaluate” exercise PAP/CO slopes, they said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, the American Heart Association, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Failure Research Innovation Fund. The investigators had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hoeper reported lecture and consultation fees from Actelion, Bayer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ho JE et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048.

Patients with a pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min on cardiopulmonary exercise tests have more than double the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality, according to a prospective study of 714 subjects with exertional dyspnea but preserved ejection fractions.

SPL/Science Source

The findings “suggest that across a wide range of individuals with chronic dyspnea, exercise can unmask abnormal pulmonary vascular responses that in turn bear significant clinical implications. These findings, coupled with a growing body of work ... suggest that reintroduction of an exercise based definition of [pulmonary hypertension (PH)] in PH guidelines” – using the pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope – “merits consideration,” wrote Jennifer Ho, MD, a heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048).
 

A new definition takes hold

The slope captures the steepness of pulmonary artery pressure increase as cardiac output goes up, giving a measure of overall pulmonary resistance. A value above 3 mm Hg/L/min means that pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is too high for a given cardiac output (CO). The slope “is preferable to using a single absolute cut point value for exercise PAP” to define exercise pulmonary hypertension.“ Indeed, we confirm that in the absence of elevated PAP/CO, an absolute exercise PAP [above] 30 mm Hg” – the definition of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in years past – “does not portend worse outcomes,” Dr. Ho and her team noted.

In an accompanying editorial titled, “Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Is Back,” Marius Hoeper, MD, a senior physician in the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School, explained that the findings likely signal the revival of exercise pulmonary hypertension as a useful clinical concept (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:27-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.010).

The standalone 30 mm Hg cut point was largely abandoned about a decade ago when it was realized that pressures above that mark were “not necessarily abnormal in certain subjects, for instance in athletes or elderly individuals,” he said.

But it’s become clear in recent years, and now confirmed by Dr. Ho and her team, that what matters is not the stand-alone measurement, but it’s relationship to cardiac output. “There is now sufficient evidence to define exercise PH by an abnormal [mean]PAP/CO slope [above] 3 mm Hg/L/min,” Dr. Hoeper said.
 

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

Each subject in the Massachusetts General study had an average of 10 paired PAP and CO measurements taken by invasive hemodynamic monitoring, including pulmonary artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein, while they road a stationary bicycle. The measurements were used to calculate the PAP/CO slope. A slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min was defined as abnormal based on previous research.

Results of the one-time assessment were correlated with the study’s primary outcome – cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death – over a mean follow up of 3.7 years. Subjects were 57 years old, on average, and 59% were women; just 2% had a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 41% of the subjects had abnormal PAP/CO slopes, 26% had abnormal slopes without resting pulmonary hypertension, and 208 subjects (29%) met the primary outcome.

After adjustments for age, sex, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities, abnormal slopes more than doubled the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48-2.78; P less than .001). The risk remained elevated even in the absence of resting pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21-2.54, P = .003), and in people with only mildly elevated resting PAPs of 21-29 mm Hg.

Older people were more likely to have abnormally elevated slopes, as well as were those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, lower exercise tolerance, lower peak oxygen uptake, and more severely impaired right ventricular function. Diabetes, prior heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were more prevalent in the elevated slope group, and their median N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide level was 154 pg/mL, versus 52 pg/mL among people with normal slopes.

A simpler test is needed

In his editorial, Dr. Hoeper noted that diagnosing exercise PH by elevated slope “will occasionally help physicians and patients to better understand exertional dyspnea and to detect early pulmonary vascular disease in patients at risk,” but for the most part, the new definition “will have little immediate [effect] on clinical practice, as evidence-based treatments for this condition are not yet available.”

Even so, “having a globally accepted gold standard” for exercise PH based on the PAP/CO slope might well spur development of “simpler, noninvasive” ways to measure it so it can be used outside of specialty settings.

Dr. Ho and her team agreed. “These findings should prompt additional work using less invasive measurement modalities such as exercise echocardiography to evaluate” exercise PAP/CO slopes, they said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, the American Heart Association, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Failure Research Innovation Fund. The investigators had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hoeper reported lecture and consultation fees from Actelion, Bayer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ho JE et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048.

Patients with a pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min on cardiopulmonary exercise tests have more than double the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality, according to a prospective study of 714 subjects with exertional dyspnea but preserved ejection fractions.

SPL/Science Source

The findings “suggest that across a wide range of individuals with chronic dyspnea, exercise can unmask abnormal pulmonary vascular responses that in turn bear significant clinical implications. These findings, coupled with a growing body of work ... suggest that reintroduction of an exercise based definition of [pulmonary hypertension (PH)] in PH guidelines” – using the pulmonary artery pressure/cardiac output slope – “merits consideration,” wrote Jennifer Ho, MD, a heart failure and transplantation cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048).
 

A new definition takes hold

The slope captures the steepness of pulmonary artery pressure increase as cardiac output goes up, giving a measure of overall pulmonary resistance. A value above 3 mm Hg/L/min means that pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) is too high for a given cardiac output (CO). The slope “is preferable to using a single absolute cut point value for exercise PAP” to define exercise pulmonary hypertension.“ Indeed, we confirm that in the absence of elevated PAP/CO, an absolute exercise PAP [above] 30 mm Hg” – the definition of exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension in years past – “does not portend worse outcomes,” Dr. Ho and her team noted.

In an accompanying editorial titled, “Exercise Pulmonary Hypertension Is Back,” Marius Hoeper, MD, a senior physician in the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School, explained that the findings likely signal the revival of exercise pulmonary hypertension as a useful clinical concept (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75[1]:27-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.010).

The standalone 30 mm Hg cut point was largely abandoned about a decade ago when it was realized that pressures above that mark were “not necessarily abnormal in certain subjects, for instance in athletes or elderly individuals,” he said.

But it’s become clear in recent years, and now confirmed by Dr. Ho and her team, that what matters is not the stand-alone measurement, but it’s relationship to cardiac output. “There is now sufficient evidence to define exercise PH by an abnormal [mean]PAP/CO slope [above] 3 mm Hg/L/min,” Dr. Hoeper said.
 

Abnormal slopes in over 40%

Each subject in the Massachusetts General study had an average of 10 paired PAP and CO measurements taken by invasive hemodynamic monitoring, including pulmonary artery catheterization via the internal jugular vein, while they road a stationary bicycle. The measurements were used to calculate the PAP/CO slope. A slope greater than 3 mm Hg/L/min was defined as abnormal based on previous research.

Results of the one-time assessment were correlated with the study’s primary outcome – cardiovascular hospitalization or all-cause death – over a mean follow up of 3.7 years. Subjects were 57 years old, on average, and 59% were women; just 2% had a previous diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension. Overall, 41% of the subjects had abnormal PAP/CO slopes, 26% had abnormal slopes without resting pulmonary hypertension, and 208 subjects (29%) met the primary outcome.

After adjustments for age, sex, and cardiopulmonary comorbidities, abnormal slopes more than doubled the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48-2.78; P less than .001). The risk remained elevated even in the absence of resting pulmonary hypertension (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.21-2.54, P = .003), and in people with only mildly elevated resting PAPs of 21-29 mm Hg.

Older people were more likely to have abnormally elevated slopes, as well as were those with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, lower exercise tolerance, lower peak oxygen uptake, and more severely impaired right ventricular function. Diabetes, prior heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and interstitial lung disease were more prevalent in the elevated slope group, and their median N-terminal pro–B type natriuretic peptide level was 154 pg/mL, versus 52 pg/mL among people with normal slopes.

A simpler test is needed

In his editorial, Dr. Hoeper noted that diagnosing exercise PH by elevated slope “will occasionally help physicians and patients to better understand exertional dyspnea and to detect early pulmonary vascular disease in patients at risk,” but for the most part, the new definition “will have little immediate [effect] on clinical practice, as evidence-based treatments for this condition are not yet available.”

Even so, “having a globally accepted gold standard” for exercise PH based on the PAP/CO slope might well spur development of “simpler, noninvasive” ways to measure it so it can be used outside of specialty settings.

Dr. Ho and her team agreed. “These findings should prompt additional work using less invasive measurement modalities such as exercise echocardiography to evaluate” exercise PAP/CO slopes, they said.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Gilead Sciences, the American Heart Association, and the Massachusetts General Hospital Heart Failure Research Innovation Fund. The investigators had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Hoeper reported lecture and consultation fees from Actelion, Bayer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Pfizer.

aotto@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Ho JE et al., J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 7;75(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.048.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – If ever there was a major chronic disease that’s teed up and ready to be stamped into submission through diligent application of preventive medicine, it’s the epidemic of heart failure.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The best way to treat heart failure is to prevent it in the first place. There will be more than 1 million new cases of heart failure this year, and the vast majority of them could have been prevented,” Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, asserted at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Using firmly evidence-based, guideline-directed therapies, it’s often possible to prevent patients at high risk for developing heart failure (HF) from actually doing so. Or, in the terminology of the ACC/American Heart Association heart failure guidelines coauthored by Dr. Fonarow, the goal is to keep patients who are stage A – that is, pre-HF but at high risk because of hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, family history of cardiomyopathy, or other reasons – from progressing to stage B, marked by asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction, a prior MI, or asymptomatic valvular disease; and blocking those who are stage B from then moving on to stage C, the classic symptomatic form of HF; and thence to end-stage stage D disease.

Heart failure is an enormous public health problem, and one of the most expensive of all diseases. The prognostic impact of newly diagnosed HF is profound, with 10-15 years of life lost, compared with the general population. Even today, roughly one in five newly diagnosed patients won’t survive for a year, and the 5-year mortality is about 50%, said Dr. Fonarow, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine and chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director of the Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, also in Los Angeles.

Symptomatic stage C is “the tip of the iceberg,” the cardiologist stressed. Vastly more patients are in stages A and B. In order to keep them from progressing to stage C, it’s first necessary to identify them. That’s why the 2013 guidelines give a class IC recommendation for periodic evaluation for signs and symptoms of HF in patients who are at high risk, and for a noninvasive assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in those with a strong family history of cardiomyopathy or who are on cardiotoxic drugs (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct 15;62[16]:e147-239).

The two biggest risk factors for the development of symptomatic stage C HF are hypertension and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Close to 80% of patients presenting with heart failure have prevalent hypertension, and a history of ischemic heart disease is nearly as common.

Other major modifiable risk factors are diabetes, overweight and obesity, metabolic syndrome, dyslipidemia, smoking, valvular heart disease, and chronic kidney disease.
 

Hypertension

Most patients with high blood pressure believe they’re on antihypertensive medication to prevent MI and stroke, but in reality the largest benefit is what Dr. Fonarow termed the “phenomenal” reduction in the risk of developing HF, which amounted to a 52% relative risk reduction in one meta-analysis of older randomized trials. In the contemporary era, the landmark SPRINT trial of close to 10,000 randomized hypertensive patients showed that more-intensive blood pressure lowering to a target systolic BP of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in a 38% reduction in the risk of new-onset HF, compared with standard treatment to a target of less than 140 mm Hg. That’s why the 2017 focused update of the HF guidelines gives a strong class IB recommendation for a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg in hypertensive patients with stage A HF (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 8;70[6]:776-803).

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Within 6 years after diagnosis of an MI, 22% of men and 46% of women will develop symptomatic heart failure. Intensive statin therapy gets a strong recommendation post MI in the guidelines, not only because in a meta-analysis of four major randomized trials it resulted in a further 64% reduction in the risk of coronary death or recurrent MI, compared with moderate statin therapy, but also because of the 27% relative risk reduction in new-onset HF. ACE inhibitors get a class IA recommendation for prevention of symptomatic HF in patients who are stage A with a history of atherosclerotic disease, diabetes, or hypertension. Angiotensin receptor blockers get a class IC recommendation.

Diabetes

Diabetes markedly increases the risk of developing HF: by two to four times overall and by four to eight times in younger diabetes patients. The two chronic diseases are highly comorbid, with roughly 45% of patients with HF also having diabetes. Moreover, diabetes in HF patients is associated with a substantially worse prognosis, even when standard HF therapies are applied.

Choices regarding glycemic management can markedly affect HF risk and outcomes. Randomized trials show that the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists double the risk of HF. The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists are absolutely neutral with regard to HF outcomes. Similarly, the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors have no impact on the risks of major adverse cardiovascular events or HF. Intensive glycemic control has no impact on the risk of new-onset HF. Insulin therapy, too, is neutral on this score.

“Depressingly, even lifestyle modification with weight loss, once you have type 2 diabetes, does not lower the risk,” Dr. Fonarow continued.

In contrast, the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have impressive cardiovascular and renal protective benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes, as demonstrated in a meta-analysis of more than 34,000 participants in the randomized trials of empagliflozin (Jardiance) in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, canagliflozin (Invokana) in CANVAS/CANVAS-R, and dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in DECLARE-TIMI 58. The SGLT2 inhibitors collectively reduced the risk of HF hospitalization by 21% in participants with no baseline history of the disease and by 29% in those with a history of HF. Moreover, the risk of progression of renal disease was reduced by 45% (Lancet. 2019 Jan 5;393[10166]:31-9).

More recently, the landmark DAPA-HF trial established SGLT2 inhibitor therapy as part of standard-of-care, guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction regardless of whether they have comorbid type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008).

These are remarkable medications, generally very well tolerated, and it’s critical that cardiologists get on board in prescribing them, Dr. Fonarow emphasized. He alerted his colleagues to what he called an “incredibly helpful” review article that provides practical guidance for cardiologists in how to start using the SGLT2 inhibitors (JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Feb;7[2]:169-72).

“It’s pretty straightforward,” according to Dr. Fonarow. “If you’re comfortable enough in using ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and beta-blockers, I think you’ll find these medications fit similarly when you actually get experience in utilizing them.”

He reported serving as a consultant to 10 pharmaceutical or medical device companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

In 2017, roughly 3 years after evidence from several studies made endovascular thrombectomy first-line treatment for selected acute ischemic stroke patients, the treatment was available at barely more than one-third of all U.S. stroke centers, available within 30-minute access to just over 30% of Americans, and available within 15-minute access to one-fifth of U.S. residents, based on information in a comprehensive U.S. database.

Heba Sarraj

These numbers showed that “current direct EVT [endovascular thrombectomy] access in the United States is suboptimal under predominate EMS routing protocols,” Amrou Sarraj, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published online in Stroke on Feb. 12. “Only in eight states did the coverage exceed 25% of the population, and nine states had coverage for less than 10% of the population. These results reflect limited access to an effective treatment modality that would improve clinical outcomes in patients with large strokes and prevent potentially devastating disability,” wrote Dr. Sarraj, chief of the general neurology service at Memorial-Hermann Hospital in Houston and coauthors.

Their analysis of data collected in 2017 by the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database, maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, identified two apparently effective ways to improve EVT access for acute ischemic stroke patients: First, systematically divert patients to a nearby center that offers EVT even when it means bypassing a closer stroke center that does not perform EVT when the added travel time is less than 15 minutes. Second, convert selected stroke centers that currently do not perform EVT into centers that do. Between these two approaches, the strategy of having ambulances bypass stroke centers that do not perform EVT and continuing to ones that do generally has the greater potential to boost access, the authors found. They based their analysis exclusively on their calculations of expected consequences rather than actual experience.

The calculations showed that bypassing non-EVT centers when the added bypass time computed to less than 15 minutes linked with an anticipated overall U.S. gain in access of about 17%, or 52 million people, extending the ability of acute ischemic stroke patients able to quickly reach an EVT center to about 37% of the American public. The second approach to boost access, converting the top 10% of stroke centers based on case volume that currently do not provide EVT to centers that do offer it, would result in expanded access for about 23 million additional Americans, raising the total with access to about 27% of the public, the new report said.

As part of this analysis, the MEDPAR data identified 1,941 U.S. centers providing stroke services during 2017, of which 713 (37%) had performed at least one EVT procedure. By comparison, 2015 MEDPAR data showed 577 U.S. stroke centers performing EVT, indicating that during the 2-3 years following several reports in early 2015 on the net benefits of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients, the number of U.S. stroke centers offering this treatment had grown by a relative 24%. Based on the locations of the stroke centers that made EVT available in 2017, Dr. Sarraj and coauthors calculated that the 713 EVT-capable stroke centers provided emergency access within a 15-minute ground-ambulance trip for 61 million Americans (20% of the U.S. population), and within a 30-minute ground-transport trip to 95 million residents (31%).

Boosting these numbers by implementing a systematic bypass of stroke patients past non-EVT stroke centers to nearby centers that are EVT capable “has the benefit of ease of implementation and requires less time and resources,” the authors said. However, they also noted the heterogeneity of circumstances based on variables like population density and stroke center distribution, which means that in some locations the most effective way to boost access would be by increasing the number of stroke centers that provide EVT.

In 2018, Dr. Sarraj and associates reported results from a similar analysis of MEDPAR data that used 30-minute and 60-minute ground-transport times as the criteria for their calculations.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sarraj reported receiving research funding from Stryker Neurovascular outside of this work. One coauthor reported serving in roles for the University of Texas Health System for which the institution has been funded via various industry and government grants, and another coauthor reported receiving research funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, and CSL Behring, as well as consulting fees from Frazer Ltd.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850.

In 2017, roughly 3 years after evidence from several studies made endovascular thrombectomy first-line treatment for selected acute ischemic stroke patients, the treatment was available at barely more than one-third of all U.S. stroke centers, available within 30-minute access to just over 30% of Americans, and available within 15-minute access to one-fifth of U.S. residents, based on information in a comprehensive U.S. database.

Heba Sarraj

These numbers showed that “current direct EVT [endovascular thrombectomy] access in the United States is suboptimal under predominate EMS routing protocols,” Amrou Sarraj, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published online in Stroke on Feb. 12. “Only in eight states did the coverage exceed 25% of the population, and nine states had coverage for less than 10% of the population. These results reflect limited access to an effective treatment modality that would improve clinical outcomes in patients with large strokes and prevent potentially devastating disability,” wrote Dr. Sarraj, chief of the general neurology service at Memorial-Hermann Hospital in Houston and coauthors.

Their analysis of data collected in 2017 by the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database, maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, identified two apparently effective ways to improve EVT access for acute ischemic stroke patients: First, systematically divert patients to a nearby center that offers EVT even when it means bypassing a closer stroke center that does not perform EVT when the added travel time is less than 15 minutes. Second, convert selected stroke centers that currently do not perform EVT into centers that do. Between these two approaches, the strategy of having ambulances bypass stroke centers that do not perform EVT and continuing to ones that do generally has the greater potential to boost access, the authors found. They based their analysis exclusively on their calculations of expected consequences rather than actual experience.

The calculations showed that bypassing non-EVT centers when the added bypass time computed to less than 15 minutes linked with an anticipated overall U.S. gain in access of about 17%, or 52 million people, extending the ability of acute ischemic stroke patients able to quickly reach an EVT center to about 37% of the American public. The second approach to boost access, converting the top 10% of stroke centers based on case volume that currently do not provide EVT to centers that do offer it, would result in expanded access for about 23 million additional Americans, raising the total with access to about 27% of the public, the new report said.

As part of this analysis, the MEDPAR data identified 1,941 U.S. centers providing stroke services during 2017, of which 713 (37%) had performed at least one EVT procedure. By comparison, 2015 MEDPAR data showed 577 U.S. stroke centers performing EVT, indicating that during the 2-3 years following several reports in early 2015 on the net benefits of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients, the number of U.S. stroke centers offering this treatment had grown by a relative 24%. Based on the locations of the stroke centers that made EVT available in 2017, Dr. Sarraj and coauthors calculated that the 713 EVT-capable stroke centers provided emergency access within a 15-minute ground-ambulance trip for 61 million Americans (20% of the U.S. population), and within a 30-minute ground-transport trip to 95 million residents (31%).

Boosting these numbers by implementing a systematic bypass of stroke patients past non-EVT stroke centers to nearby centers that are EVT capable “has the benefit of ease of implementation and requires less time and resources,” the authors said. However, they also noted the heterogeneity of circumstances based on variables like population density and stroke center distribution, which means that in some locations the most effective way to boost access would be by increasing the number of stroke centers that provide EVT.

In 2018, Dr. Sarraj and associates reported results from a similar analysis of MEDPAR data that used 30-minute and 60-minute ground-transport times as the criteria for their calculations.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sarraj reported receiving research funding from Stryker Neurovascular outside of this work. One coauthor reported serving in roles for the University of Texas Health System for which the institution has been funded via various industry and government grants, and another coauthor reported receiving research funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, and CSL Behring, as well as consulting fees from Frazer Ltd.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850.

In 2017, roughly 3 years after evidence from several studies made endovascular thrombectomy first-line treatment for selected acute ischemic stroke patients, the treatment was available at barely more than one-third of all U.S. stroke centers, available within 30-minute access to just over 30% of Americans, and available within 15-minute access to one-fifth of U.S. residents, based on information in a comprehensive U.S. database.

Heba Sarraj

These numbers showed that “current direct EVT [endovascular thrombectomy] access in the United States is suboptimal under predominate EMS routing protocols,” Amrou Sarraj, MD, and his associates wrote in an article published online in Stroke on Feb. 12. “Only in eight states did the coverage exceed 25% of the population, and nine states had coverage for less than 10% of the population. These results reflect limited access to an effective treatment modality that would improve clinical outcomes in patients with large strokes and prevent potentially devastating disability,” wrote Dr. Sarraj, chief of the general neurology service at Memorial-Hermann Hospital in Houston and coauthors.

Their analysis of data collected in 2017 by the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database, maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, identified two apparently effective ways to improve EVT access for acute ischemic stroke patients: First, systematically divert patients to a nearby center that offers EVT even when it means bypassing a closer stroke center that does not perform EVT when the added travel time is less than 15 minutes. Second, convert selected stroke centers that currently do not perform EVT into centers that do. Between these two approaches, the strategy of having ambulances bypass stroke centers that do not perform EVT and continuing to ones that do generally has the greater potential to boost access, the authors found. They based their analysis exclusively on their calculations of expected consequences rather than actual experience.

The calculations showed that bypassing non-EVT centers when the added bypass time computed to less than 15 minutes linked with an anticipated overall U.S. gain in access of about 17%, or 52 million people, extending the ability of acute ischemic stroke patients able to quickly reach an EVT center to about 37% of the American public. The second approach to boost access, converting the top 10% of stroke centers based on case volume that currently do not provide EVT to centers that do offer it, would result in expanded access for about 23 million additional Americans, raising the total with access to about 27% of the public, the new report said.

As part of this analysis, the MEDPAR data identified 1,941 U.S. centers providing stroke services during 2017, of which 713 (37%) had performed at least one EVT procedure. By comparison, 2015 MEDPAR data showed 577 U.S. stroke centers performing EVT, indicating that during the 2-3 years following several reports in early 2015 on the net benefits of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients, the number of U.S. stroke centers offering this treatment had grown by a relative 24%. Based on the locations of the stroke centers that made EVT available in 2017, Dr. Sarraj and coauthors calculated that the 713 EVT-capable stroke centers provided emergency access within a 15-minute ground-ambulance trip for 61 million Americans (20% of the U.S. population), and within a 30-minute ground-transport trip to 95 million residents (31%).

Boosting these numbers by implementing a systematic bypass of stroke patients past non-EVT stroke centers to nearby centers that are EVT capable “has the benefit of ease of implementation and requires less time and resources,” the authors said. However, they also noted the heterogeneity of circumstances based on variables like population density and stroke center distribution, which means that in some locations the most effective way to boost access would be by increasing the number of stroke centers that provide EVT.

In 2018, Dr. Sarraj and associates reported results from a similar analysis of MEDPAR data that used 30-minute and 60-minute ground-transport times as the criteria for their calculations.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Sarraj reported receiving research funding from Stryker Neurovascular outside of this work. One coauthor reported serving in roles for the University of Texas Health System for which the institution has been funded via various industry and government grants, and another coauthor reported receiving research funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Genentech, and CSL Behring, as well as consulting fees from Frazer Ltd.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sarraj A et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.028850.

Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.

Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).

“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.

“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
 

Lower Rate of Reported Events

The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.

Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.

To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.

Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).

There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
 

No malicious intent

“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”

“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”

Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.

“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”

Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.

The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.

“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.

“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
 

One size does not fit all

Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.

Courtesy Joe Howell

“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”

His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.

The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.

Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.

“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”

Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.

In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.

“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”

In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.

“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.

Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).

“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.

“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
 

Lower Rate of Reported Events

The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.

Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.

To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.

Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).

There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
 

No malicious intent

“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”

“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”

Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.

“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”

Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.

The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.

“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.

“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
 

One size does not fit all

Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.

Courtesy Joe Howell

“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”

His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.

The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.

Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.

“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”

Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.

In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.

“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”

In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.

“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical trials supporting Food and Drug Adminstration approval of contemporary cancer therapies frequently failed to capture major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and, when they did, reported rates 2.6-fold lower than noncancer trials, new research shows.

Overall, 51.3% of trials did not report MACE, with that number reaching 57.6% in trials enrolling patients with baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Nearly 40% of trials did not report any CVD events in follow-up, the authors reported online Feb. 10, 2020, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2020;75:620-8).

“Even in drug classes where there were established or emerging associations with cardiotoxic events, often there were no reported heart events or cardiovascular events across years of follow-up in trials that examined hundreds or even thousands of patients. That was actually pretty surprising,” senior author Daniel Addison, MD, codirector of the cardio-oncology program at the Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

The study was prompted by a series of events that crescendoed when his team was called to the ICU to determine whether a novel targeted agent played a role in the heart decline of a patient with acute myeloid leukemia. “I had a resident ask me a very important question: ‘How do we really know for sure that the trial actually reflects the true risk of heart events?’ to which I told him, ‘it’s difficult to know,’ ” he said.

“I think many of us rely heavily on what we see in the trials, particularly when they make it to the top journals, and quite frankly, we generally take it at face value,” Dr. Addison observed.
 

Lower Rate of Reported Events

The investigators reviewed CV events reported in 97,365 patients (median age, 61 years; 46% female) enrolled in 189 phase 2 and 3 trials supporting FDA approval of 123 anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018. Biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies accounted for 72.5% of drug approvals.

Over 148,138 person-years of follow-up (median trial duration, 30 months), there were 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 MIs, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 coronary revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths). MACE rates were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (792 vs. 356; P less than .01). Among the 64 trials that excluded patients with baseline CVD, there were 269 incidents of MACE.

To put this finding in context, the researchers examined the reported incidence of MACE among some 6,000 similarly aged participants in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The overall weighted-average incidence rate was 1,408 per 100,000 person-years among MESA participants, compared with 542 events per 100,000 person-years among oncology trial participants (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm). This represents a reported-to-expected ratio of 0.38 – a 2.6-fold lower rate of reported events (P less than .001) – and a risk difference of 866.

Further, MACE reporting was lower by a factor of 1.7 among all cancer trial participants irrespective of baseline CVD status (reported-to-expected ratio, 0.56; risk difference, 613; P less than .001).

There was no significant difference in MACE reporting between independent or industry-sponsored trials, the authors report.
 

No malicious intent

“There are likely some that might lean toward not wanting to attribute blame to a new drug when the drug is in a study, but I really think that the leading factor is lack of awareness,” Dr. Addison said. “I’ve talked with several cancer collaborators around the country who run large clinical trials, and I think often, when an event may be brought to someone’s attention, there is a tendency to just write it off as kind of a generic expected event due to age, or just something that’s not really pertinent to the study. So they don’t really focus on it as much.”

“Closer collaboration between cardiologists and cancer physicians is needed to better determine true cardiac risks among patients treated with these drugs.”

Breast cancer oncologist Marc E. Lippman, MD, of Georgetown University Medical Center and Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, D.C., isn’t convinced a lack of awareness is the culprit.

“I don’t agree with that at all,” he said in an interview. “I think there are very, very clear rules and guidelines these days for adverse-event reporting. I think that’s not a very likely explanation – that it’s not on the radar.”

Part of the problem may be that some of the toxicities, particularly cardiovascular, may not emerge for years, he said. Participant screening for the trials also likely removed patients with high cardiovascular risk. “It’s very understandable to me – I’m not saying it’s good particularly – but I think it’s very understandable that, if you’re trying to develop a drug, the last thing you’d want to have is a lot of toxicity that you might have avoided by just being restrictive in who you let into the study,” Dr. Lippman said.

The underreported CVD events may also reflect the rapidly changing profile of cardiovascular toxicities associated with novel anticancer therapies.

“Providers, both cancer and noncancer, generally put cardiotoxicity in the box of anthracyclines and radiation, but particularly over the last decade, we’ve begun to understand it’s well beyond any one class of drugs,” Dr. Addison said.

“I agree completely,” Dr. Lippman said. For example, “the checkpoint inhibitors are so unbelievably different in terms of their toxicities that many people simply didn’t even know what they were getting into at first.”
 

One size does not fit all

Javid Moslehi, MD, director of the cardio-oncology program at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said echocardiography – recommended to detect changes in left ventricular function in patients exposed to anthracyclines or targeted agents like trastuzumab (Herceptin) – isn’t enough to address today’s cancer therapy–related CVD events.

Courtesy Joe Howell

“Initial drugs like anthracyclines or Herceptin in cardio-oncology were associated with systolic cardiac dysfunction, whereas the majority of issues we see in the cardio-oncology clinics today are vascular, metabolic, arrhythmogenic, and inflammatory,” he said in an interview. “Echocardiography misses the big and increasingly complex picture.”

His group, for example, has been studying myocarditis associated with immunotherapies, but none of the clinical trials require screening or surveillance for myocarditis with a cardiac biomarker like troponin.

The group also recently identified 303 deaths in patients exposed to ibrutinib, a drug that revolutionized the treatment of several B-cell malignancies but is associated with higher rates of atrial fibrillation, which is also associated with increased bleeding risk. “So there’s a little bit of a double whammy there, given that we often treat atrial fibrillation with anticoagulation and where we can cause complications in patients,” Dr. Moslehi noted.

Although there needs to be closer collaboration between cardiologists and oncologists on individual trials, cardiologists also have to realize that oncology care has become very personalized, he suggested.

“What’s probably relevant for the breast cancer patient may not be relevant for the prostate cancer patient and their respective treatments,” Dr. Moslehi said. “So if we were to say, ‘every person should get an echo,’ that may be less relevant to the prostate cancer patient where treatments can cause vascular and metabolic perturbations or to the patient treated with immunotherapy who may have myocarditis, where many of the echos can be normal. There’s no one-size-fits-all for these things.”

Wearable technologies like smartwatches could play a role in improving the reporting of CVD events with novel therapies but a lot more research needs to be done to validate these tools, Dr. Addison said. “But as we continue on into the 21st century, this is going to expand and may potentially help us,” he added.

In the interim, better standardization is needed of the cardiovascular events reported in oncology trials, particularly the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), said Dr. Moslehi, who also serves as chair of the American Heart Association’s subcommittee on cardio-oncology.

“Cardiovascular definitions are not exactly uniform and are not consistent with what we in cardiology consider to be important or relevant,” he said. “So I think there needs to be better standardization of these definitions, specifically within the CTCAE, which is what the oncologists use to identify adverse events.”

In a linked editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;75:629-31), Dr. Lippman and cardiologist Nanette Bishopric, MD, of the Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute in Washington, D.C., suggested it may also be time to organize a consortium that can carry out “rigorous multicenter clinical investigations to evaluate the cardiotoxicity of emerging cancer treatments,” similar to the Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group.

“The success of this consortium in pioneering and targeting multiple generations of drugs for the treatment of MI, involving tens of thousands of patients and thousands of collaborations across multiple national borders, is a model for how to move forward in providing the new hope of cancer cure without the trade-off of years lost to heart disease,” the editorialists concluded.

The study was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants, including a K12-CA133250 grant to Dr. Addison. Dr. Bishopric reported being on the scientific board of C&C Biopharma. Dr. Lippman reports being on the board of directors of and holding stock in Seattle Genetics. Dr. Moslehi reported having served on advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Deciphera, Audentes Pharmaceuticals, Nektar, Takeda, Ipsen, Myokardia, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Intrexon, and Regeneron.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first year of operation, a mobile stroke unit in Melbourne demonstrated substantial savings in time to commencement of both thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), results from a prospective study showed.

“While previously published data from MSU [mobile stroke unit] services in Europe and North America show substantial reductions in time to thrombolysis of approximately 30-45 minutes, little is known about the clinical impact on EVT,” first author Henry Zhao, MBBS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Stroke.

Launched in November 2017, the Melbourne MSU is based at a large comprehensive stroke center and operates with a 20-km radius, servicing about 1.7 million people within the city of Melbourne. It is staffed with an onboard neurologist or senior stroke fellow who provides primary assessment and treatment decisions, a stroke advanced practice nurse who provides clinical support and treatment administration, a clinician who provides CT imaging, and advanced life support and mobile intensive care paramedics who provide transport logistics and paramedicine support. For the current analysis, MSU patients who received reperfusion therapy were compared with control patients presenting to metropolitan Melbourne stroke units via standard ambulance within MSU operating hours. The primary outcome was median time difference in first ambulance dispatch to treatment, which the researchers used quantile regression analysis to determine. Time savings were subsequently converted to disability-adjusted life years (DALY) avoiding using published estimates.

Dr. Zhao of the Melbourne Brain Centre and department of neurology at Royal Melbourne Hospital and his colleagues reported that, in its first year of operation, the Melbourne MSU administered prehospital thrombolysis to 100 patients with a mean age of nearly 74 years. More than half of the patients (62%) were male. Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations). The calculated overall time saving from dispatch to thrombolysis was 42.5 minutes.

Over the same time period, 41 MSU patients with a mean age of 76 years received EVT dispatch-to-treatment time saving of 51 minutes (P less than 0.001). This included a median time saving of 17 minutes for EVT hospital arrival to arterial puncture for MSU patients (P = .001). Overall estimated median DALYs saved through earlier provision of reperfusion therapies were 20.9 for thrombolysis and 24.6 for EVT.

“The benefit in EVT patients was primarily driven by prehospital MSU diagnosis of large vessel occlusion, which enabled bypass of a local non-EVT center directly to a comprehensive stroke center in almost 50% of patients with large vessel occlusion,” the researchers wrote. “Even when patients were located close to an EVT center, MSU pre-notification and facilitated workflows achieved a reduction in hospital arrival to arterial puncture by one-third. Furthermore, the time saving was seen despite the majority of EVT patients receiving repeat imaging in hospital to visualize the extracranial circulation.”

The study is scheduled to be presented at the International Stroke Conference on Feb. 20.

The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.

In its first year of operation, a mobile stroke unit in Melbourne demonstrated substantial savings in time to commencement of both thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), results from a prospective study showed.

“While previously published data from MSU [mobile stroke unit] services in Europe and North America show substantial reductions in time to thrombolysis of approximately 30-45 minutes, little is known about the clinical impact on EVT,” first author Henry Zhao, MBBS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Stroke.

Launched in November 2017, the Melbourne MSU is based at a large comprehensive stroke center and operates with a 20-km radius, servicing about 1.7 million people within the city of Melbourne. It is staffed with an onboard neurologist or senior stroke fellow who provides primary assessment and treatment decisions, a stroke advanced practice nurse who provides clinical support and treatment administration, a clinician who provides CT imaging, and advanced life support and mobile intensive care paramedics who provide transport logistics and paramedicine support. For the current analysis, MSU patients who received reperfusion therapy were compared with control patients presenting to metropolitan Melbourne stroke units via standard ambulance within MSU operating hours. The primary outcome was median time difference in first ambulance dispatch to treatment, which the researchers used quantile regression analysis to determine. Time savings were subsequently converted to disability-adjusted life years (DALY) avoiding using published estimates.

Dr. Zhao of the Melbourne Brain Centre and department of neurology at Royal Melbourne Hospital and his colleagues reported that, in its first year of operation, the Melbourne MSU administered prehospital thrombolysis to 100 patients with a mean age of nearly 74 years. More than half of the patients (62%) were male. Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations). The calculated overall time saving from dispatch to thrombolysis was 42.5 minutes.

Over the same time period, 41 MSU patients with a mean age of 76 years received EVT dispatch-to-treatment time saving of 51 minutes (P less than 0.001). This included a median time saving of 17 minutes for EVT hospital arrival to arterial puncture for MSU patients (P = .001). Overall estimated median DALYs saved through earlier provision of reperfusion therapies were 20.9 for thrombolysis and 24.6 for EVT.

“The benefit in EVT patients was primarily driven by prehospital MSU diagnosis of large vessel occlusion, which enabled bypass of a local non-EVT center directly to a comprehensive stroke center in almost 50% of patients with large vessel occlusion,” the researchers wrote. “Even when patients were located close to an EVT center, MSU pre-notification and facilitated workflows achieved a reduction in hospital arrival to arterial puncture by one-third. Furthermore, the time saving was seen despite the majority of EVT patients receiving repeat imaging in hospital to visualize the extracranial circulation.”

The study is scheduled to be presented at the International Stroke Conference on Feb. 20.

The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.

In its first year of operation, a mobile stroke unit in Melbourne demonstrated substantial savings in time to commencement of both thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT), results from a prospective study showed.

“While previously published data from MSU [mobile stroke unit] services in Europe and North America show substantial reductions in time to thrombolysis of approximately 30-45 minutes, little is known about the clinical impact on EVT,” first author Henry Zhao, MBBS, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Stroke.

Launched in November 2017, the Melbourne MSU is based at a large comprehensive stroke center and operates with a 20-km radius, servicing about 1.7 million people within the city of Melbourne. It is staffed with an onboard neurologist or senior stroke fellow who provides primary assessment and treatment decisions, a stroke advanced practice nurse who provides clinical support and treatment administration, a clinician who provides CT imaging, and advanced life support and mobile intensive care paramedics who provide transport logistics and paramedicine support. For the current analysis, MSU patients who received reperfusion therapy were compared with control patients presenting to metropolitan Melbourne stroke units via standard ambulance within MSU operating hours. The primary outcome was median time difference in first ambulance dispatch to treatment, which the researchers used quantile regression analysis to determine. Time savings were subsequently converted to disability-adjusted life years (DALY) avoiding using published estimates.

Dr. Zhao of the Melbourne Brain Centre and department of neurology at Royal Melbourne Hospital and his colleagues reported that, in its first year of operation, the Melbourne MSU administered prehospital thrombolysis to 100 patients with a mean age of nearly 74 years. More than half of the patients (62%) were male. Compared with controls, the median time savings per MSU patient was 26 minutes for dispatch to hospital arrival and 15 minutes for hospital arrival to thrombolysis (P less than .0010 for both associations). The calculated overall time saving from dispatch to thrombolysis was 42.5 minutes.

Over the same time period, 41 MSU patients with a mean age of 76 years received EVT dispatch-to-treatment time saving of 51 minutes (P less than 0.001). This included a median time saving of 17 minutes for EVT hospital arrival to arterial puncture for MSU patients (P = .001). Overall estimated median DALYs saved through earlier provision of reperfusion therapies were 20.9 for thrombolysis and 24.6 for EVT.

“The benefit in EVT patients was primarily driven by prehospital MSU diagnosis of large vessel occlusion, which enabled bypass of a local non-EVT center directly to a comprehensive stroke center in almost 50% of patients with large vessel occlusion,” the researchers wrote. “Even when patients were located close to an EVT center, MSU pre-notification and facilitated workflows achieved a reduction in hospital arrival to arterial puncture by one-third. Furthermore, the time saving was seen despite the majority of EVT patients receiving repeat imaging in hospital to visualize the extracranial circulation.”

The study is scheduled to be presented at the International Stroke Conference on Feb. 20.

The Melbourne MSU received funding from the Australian Commonwealth Government, Victorian State Government, Royal Melbourne Hospital Neurosciences Foundation, Stroke Foundation, the Florey Institute of Neurosciences and Mental Health, the University of Melbourne, Boehringer Ingelheim, and private donation. Dr. Zhao disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Zhao H et al. Stroke. 2020 Feb 12. doi: 10.1161/strokeaha.119.027843.