Patrice Wendling

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Oral apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) was as effective as subcutaneous dalteparin (Fragmin, Pfizer) for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) without an increased risk of major bleeding, the CARAVAGGIO study suggests.

Over 6 months of follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome of recurrent thromboembolism occurred in 32 of 576 patients (5.6%) randomly assigned to apixaban and in 46 of 579 patients (7.9%) assigned dalteparin (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-1.07). The risk difference met the criteria for noninferiority (P < .001) but not for superiority (P = .09).

The risk for major bleeding was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (3.8% and 4.0%; P = .60), including major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds (11 vs 10 events). 

There was a numeric excess of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the apixaban group (9.0% vs 6.0%; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.88-2.30).

However, the site of this bleeding “was essentially the genitourinary tract and the upper respiratory tract, so again there was no increase in gastrointestinal bleeding, even when the clinically relevant major bleeding was considered,” said lead author Giancarlo Agnelli, MD, University of Perugia, Italy.

Taken together, “We believe that the findings of CARAVAGGIO expand the proportion of patients with cancer-associated thrombosis who are eligible for treatment with oral direct anticoagulants, including patients with gastrointestinal cancer,” he concluded.

The findings were presented online March 29 at the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC) and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Major guidelines recommend the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of cancer-related VTE but also support the use of edoxaban (Savaysa, Daiichi Sankyo) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) as an alternative based on data from the OKUSAI VTE and SELECT-D trials, respectively. But an increased risk for bleeding was observed among patients with GI cancer in both studies.

“The findings are of clinical relevance because we were able to confirm the efficacy of another [novel oral anticoagulant] NOAC but we have the absence of bleeding, GI bleeding in particular. This is an important point; this is what the clinical community is looking for,” Agnelli told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The recent ADAM VTE trial testing apixaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, vs dalteparin, a LMWH, reported no major bleeding among patients treated with apixaban (primary safety endpoint) and a significant reduction of VTE (secondary efficacy endpoint). But the trial included only 300 patients with cancer and a more selected population compared with the CARAVAGGIO trial, noted Chiara Melloni, MD, MHS, a cardiologist at Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved with the trial.

“The trial presented today by Prof. Agnelli provides evidence that apixaban represents an additional valid option, next to edoxaban and rivaroxaban, for the treatment of VTE in cancer patients,” she told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology in an email. “The subgroup analyses showed consistent results across all different subgroups, but a significant interaction was observed between age groups, with a more favorable profile among those less than 75 years old (and mostly among those <65 years old). This may require more investigation.”

The CARAVAGGIO investigators randomly assigned 576 consecutive patients with cancer who had newly diagnosed symptomatic or incidental acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism to receive apixaban 10 mg twice daily for 7 days followed by 5 mg twice daily or subcutaneous dalteparin 200 IU per kg once daily for 1 month followed by 150 U/kg once daily, both for a total of 6 months. Dose reduction was allowed for dalteparin but not for apixaban during the study.

Various types of cancer were included in the trial, including lung, breast, genitourinary, and upper GI.

The incidence of death was similar in the apixaban and dalteparin groups (23.4% vs 26.4%), with most deaths related to cancer (85.2% vs 88.2%, respectively).

During a discussion of the findings, panelist Bonnie Ky, MD, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and editor in chief of JACC: CardioOncology, congratulated the authors on an “excellent, well-done study” in a high-need cancer population suffering from a clinically significant burden of VTE, reported to be anywhere from 8% to 19% depending on tumor type.

“I was particularly impressed by the low rate of bleeding, which has been traditionally a concern with DOACs, as well the demonstration of noninferiority of apixaban,” she said.

Ky asked why the bleeding rate was lower than observed in other published studies and in whom clinicians shouldn’t be considering apixaban now.

Agnelli said that a head-to-head study is needed to compare the various oral anticoagulant agents but that the gastrointestinal bleeding rate is well known to be reduced with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation.

“So whether this is related to the drug or the administration twice daily, it’s something that can be discussed, but honestly the final solution would be to have a comparative study,” he said. “It’s going to be difficult, but it’s what we need.”

As to the clinical application of the data, Agnelli said, “The apixaban data actually extend the number of our patients who could receive the oral agents, including patients with GI cancer. So I do believe this indication about using DOACs in cancer patients will change and the indication expanded. But of course, we are building on something that was already known. We did not discover this all by ourselves.”

Panelist Robert M. Carey, MD, a leader in cardiovascular endocrinology and dean emeritus, University of Virginia School of Medicine  in Charlottesville, said the study “conclusively shows noninferiority” but asked for more detail on the subset of patients with GI malignancies and the bleeding rate there.

Agnelli replied that the proportion and number of these patients in CARAVAGGIO is the same as, if not slightly higher than, in other studies. “So we have a population that is representative of all the cancer population, including GI cancer,” he said, adding that subanalyses are underway correlating the site of cancer with the type of bleeding.

Agnes Y.Y. Lee, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Coastal Health, and the British Cancer Agency, all in Vancouver, Canada, notes in a linked editorial that CARAVAGGIO excluded patients with primary and metastatic brain lesions and included few patients with cancers of the upper GI tract, with hematologic cancers, or receiving newer cancer therapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors.

She says clinicians will have to choose carefully which anticoagulant to use but that LMWH is “preferred in patients in whom drug-drug interaction is a concern and in those who have undergone surgery involving the upper gastrointestinal tract because absorption of all direct oral anticoagulants occurs in the stomach or proximal small bowel.”

Warfarin may also be the only option when cost is the “decision driver” in patients with cancer facing major financial healthcare burdens, Lee writes.

Duke’s Melloni also said the cost of oral anticoagulants needs to be taken into account and varies widely for patients based on their insurance and availability of other copay assistance programs. “It is therefore important to discuss with the patients upfront because if the patients are started but cannot afford long term, early discontinuation can impact their safety,” she said.

The trial was sponsored by FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) and was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance. Agnelli reports personal fees from Pfizer and Bayer Healthcare, and “other” from Daiichi Sankyo outside the submitted work. Melloni reports having no relevant conflicts of interest. Lee reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from Bayer; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Quercegen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The test-driven world of cardiovascular medicine is rapidly shifting to remote hands-off telemedicine to keep patients and their physicians safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a recent telehealth webinar, Ami Bhatt, MD, director of the adult congenital heart disease program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said they’ve gone from seeing 400 patients a day in their clinic to fewer than 40 and are trying to push that number even lower and use virtual care as much as possible.

“The reason is we are having to send home physicians who are exposed and it’s cutting into our workforce very quickly. So the more people you could have at home doing work virtually is important because you’re going to need to call them in [during] the next couple of weeks,” she said. “And our PPE [personal protective equipment] is running low. So if we can afford to not have someone come in the office and not wear a mask because they had a cough, that’s a mask that can be used by someone performing CPR in an ICU.”

The hospital also adopted a train-the-trainer method to bring its existing telehealth program to cardiology, said Dr. Bhatt, who coauthored the American College of Cardiology’s recent guidance on establishing telehealth in the cardiology clinic.

“We find that sending people tip sheets and PowerPoints in addition to everything that is happening ... is too much,” Dr. Bhatt observed. “So actually holding your friend’s hand and walking them through it once you’ve learned how to do it has been really great in terms of adoption. Otherwise, everyone would fall back on phone, which is OK for now, but we need to establish a long-term plan.”

During the same March 20 webinar, David Konur, CEO of the Cardiovascular Institute of the South, Houma, La., said they began doing telecardiology more than 5 years ago and now do about 30,000 “patient touches” a month with 24/7 access.

“This is certainly an unprecedented time,” he said. “COVID-19 is shining a very bright light on the barriers that exist in health care, as well as the friction that exists to accessing care for all of our patients.”
 

New mandates

A new Food and Drug Administration policy, temporarily relaxing prior guidance on certain connected remote monitoring devices such as ECGs and cardiac monitors, is part of a shifting landscape to reduce barriers to telehealth during the ongoing pandemic. The increased flexibility may increase access to important patient physiological data, while eliminating unnecessary patient contact and easing the burden on healthcare facilities and providers, the agency said in the new guidance, issued March 20.

As such, the FDA “does not intend to object to limited modifications to the indications, claims, functionality, or hardware or software of FDA-cleared noninvasive remote monitoring devices that are used to support patient monitoring.”

Modifications could include the addition of monitoring statements for patients with COVID-19 or coexisting conditions such as hypertension and heart failure; a change to the indications or claims related to home use of devices previously cleared for use only in health care settings; and changes to hardware or software to increase remote monitoring capability. The approved devices listed in the guidance are clinical electronic thermometers, ECGs, cardiac monitors, ECG software for over-the-counter use, pulse oximetry, noninvasive blood pressure monitors, respiratory rate/breathing frequency monitors, and electronic stethoscopes.

The FDA policy comes just days after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth coverage to Medicare beneficiaries and the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services said it would not penalize health care providers for using such non–HIPAA compliant third-party apps as Skype or Google Hangouts video. The HHS also signaled that physicians would be allowed to practice across state lines during the COVID-19 crisis.

“All these mandates have come in a time of desperation where we’re doing the best that we can to provide for patients and keep them safe,” Eugenia Gianos, MD, system director of cardiovascular prevention at Northwell Health and director of the Women’s Cardiovascular Center, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “Realistically, the whole digital realm has a lot of promise for our patients.” She noted that telehealth programs are still being developed for the department, but that office visits have been purposely scaled back by more than 75% to protect patients as well as health care providers. “In times of need, the most promising technologies we have, have to come to the forefront,” Dr. Gianos said. “So using the data from the home – whether they have a blood pressure cuff or something that tracks their heart rate or their weight – when we don’t otherwise have data, is of great value.”

Andrew M. Freeman, MD, director of clinical cardiology and operations at National Jewish Hospital in Denver, said “in the current situation, telehealth is the most viable option because it keeps patients safe and physicians safe. So it wouldn’t surprise me if every institution in the country, if not worldwide, is very rapidly pursuing this kind of approach.”
Exactly how many programs or cardiologists were already using telehealth is impossible to say, although the ACC is planning to survey its members on their practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.

The situation is so fluid that ACC is already revising its March 13 telehealth guidance to reflect the recent policy changes. Another document is being prepared to provide physicians with a template for the telehealth space, said Dr. Freeman, who coauthored the telehealth guidance and also serves on the ACC’s Innovation Leadership Council. 
The new FDA policy allowing greater flexibility on remote monitoring devices is somewhat “vaguely worded,” Dr. Freeman noted, but highlights the ability of existing technology to provide essential patient data from home. “I think as we add adjuncts to the things we’re used to in the normal face-to-face visit, it’s going to make the face-to-face visit less required,” he said.

Questions remain, however, on implementing telehealth for new patients and whether payers will follow HHS’s decision not to conduct audits to ensure a prior relationship existed. The potential for telehealth to reach across state lines also is being viewed cautiously until tested legally, Dr. Freeman observed.

“If there’s one blessing in this awful disease that we have received, is that it may really give the power to clinicians, hospital systems, and payers to make telehealth a true viable, sustainable solution for good care that’s readily available to folks,” he said.
 

Fast-tracked research

On March 24, the American Heart Association announced it is committing $2.5 million for fast-tracked research grants for projects than can turn around results within 9-12 months and focus on how this novel coronavirus affects heart and brain health.

Additional funding also will be made available to the AHA’s new Center for Health Technology & Innovation’s Strategically Focused Research Networks to develop rapid technology solutions to aid in dealing with the pandemic.

The rapid response grant is an “unprecedented but logical move for the organization in these extraordinary times,” AHA President Bob Harrington, MD, chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a statement. “We are committed to quickly bringing together and supporting some of the brightest minds in research science and clinical care who are shovel ready with the laboratories, tools, and data resources to immediately begin work on addressing this emergent issue.”

Dr. Freeman and Dr. Bhatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Harrington is on the editorial board for Medscape Cardiology.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com

The test-driven world of cardiovascular medicine is rapidly shifting to remote hands-off telemedicine to keep patients and their physicians safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a recent telehealth webinar, Ami Bhatt, MD, director of the adult congenital heart disease program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said they’ve gone from seeing 400 patients a day in their clinic to fewer than 40 and are trying to push that number even lower and use virtual care as much as possible.

“The reason is we are having to send home physicians who are exposed and it’s cutting into our workforce very quickly. So the more people you could have at home doing work virtually is important because you’re going to need to call them in [during] the next couple of weeks,” she said. “And our PPE [personal protective equipment] is running low. So if we can afford to not have someone come in the office and not wear a mask because they had a cough, that’s a mask that can be used by someone performing CPR in an ICU.”

The hospital also adopted a train-the-trainer method to bring its existing telehealth program to cardiology, said Dr. Bhatt, who coauthored the American College of Cardiology’s recent guidance on establishing telehealth in the cardiology clinic.

“We find that sending people tip sheets and PowerPoints in addition to everything that is happening ... is too much,” Dr. Bhatt observed. “So actually holding your friend’s hand and walking them through it once you’ve learned how to do it has been really great in terms of adoption. Otherwise, everyone would fall back on phone, which is OK for now, but we need to establish a long-term plan.”

During the same March 20 webinar, David Konur, CEO of the Cardiovascular Institute of the South, Houma, La., said they began doing telecardiology more than 5 years ago and now do about 30,000 “patient touches” a month with 24/7 access.

“This is certainly an unprecedented time,” he said. “COVID-19 is shining a very bright light on the barriers that exist in health care, as well as the friction that exists to accessing care for all of our patients.”
 

New mandates

A new Food and Drug Administration policy, temporarily relaxing prior guidance on certain connected remote monitoring devices such as ECGs and cardiac monitors, is part of a shifting landscape to reduce barriers to telehealth during the ongoing pandemic. The increased flexibility may increase access to important patient physiological data, while eliminating unnecessary patient contact and easing the burden on healthcare facilities and providers, the agency said in the new guidance, issued March 20.

As such, the FDA “does not intend to object to limited modifications to the indications, claims, functionality, or hardware or software of FDA-cleared noninvasive remote monitoring devices that are used to support patient monitoring.”

Modifications could include the addition of monitoring statements for patients with COVID-19 or coexisting conditions such as hypertension and heart failure; a change to the indications or claims related to home use of devices previously cleared for use only in health care settings; and changes to hardware or software to increase remote monitoring capability. The approved devices listed in the guidance are clinical electronic thermometers, ECGs, cardiac monitors, ECG software for over-the-counter use, pulse oximetry, noninvasive blood pressure monitors, respiratory rate/breathing frequency monitors, and electronic stethoscopes.

The FDA policy comes just days after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth coverage to Medicare beneficiaries and the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services said it would not penalize health care providers for using such non–HIPAA compliant third-party apps as Skype or Google Hangouts video. The HHS also signaled that physicians would be allowed to practice across state lines during the COVID-19 crisis.

“All these mandates have come in a time of desperation where we’re doing the best that we can to provide for patients and keep them safe,” Eugenia Gianos, MD, system director of cardiovascular prevention at Northwell Health and director of the Women’s Cardiovascular Center, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “Realistically, the whole digital realm has a lot of promise for our patients.” She noted that telehealth programs are still being developed for the department, but that office visits have been purposely scaled back by more than 75% to protect patients as well as health care providers. “In times of need, the most promising technologies we have, have to come to the forefront,” Dr. Gianos said. “So using the data from the home – whether they have a blood pressure cuff or something that tracks their heart rate or their weight – when we don’t otherwise have data, is of great value.”

Andrew M. Freeman, MD, director of clinical cardiology and operations at National Jewish Hospital in Denver, said “in the current situation, telehealth is the most viable option because it keeps patients safe and physicians safe. So it wouldn’t surprise me if every institution in the country, if not worldwide, is very rapidly pursuing this kind of approach.”
Exactly how many programs or cardiologists were already using telehealth is impossible to say, although the ACC is planning to survey its members on their practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.

The situation is so fluid that ACC is already revising its March 13 telehealth guidance to reflect the recent policy changes. Another document is being prepared to provide physicians with a template for the telehealth space, said Dr. Freeman, who coauthored the telehealth guidance and also serves on the ACC’s Innovation Leadership Council. 
The new FDA policy allowing greater flexibility on remote monitoring devices is somewhat “vaguely worded,” Dr. Freeman noted, but highlights the ability of existing technology to provide essential patient data from home. “I think as we add adjuncts to the things we’re used to in the normal face-to-face visit, it’s going to make the face-to-face visit less required,” he said.

Questions remain, however, on implementing telehealth for new patients and whether payers will follow HHS’s decision not to conduct audits to ensure a prior relationship existed. The potential for telehealth to reach across state lines also is being viewed cautiously until tested legally, Dr. Freeman observed.

“If there’s one blessing in this awful disease that we have received, is that it may really give the power to clinicians, hospital systems, and payers to make telehealth a true viable, sustainable solution for good care that’s readily available to folks,” he said.
 

Fast-tracked research

On March 24, the American Heart Association announced it is committing $2.5 million for fast-tracked research grants for projects than can turn around results within 9-12 months and focus on how this novel coronavirus affects heart and brain health.

Additional funding also will be made available to the AHA’s new Center for Health Technology & Innovation’s Strategically Focused Research Networks to develop rapid technology solutions to aid in dealing with the pandemic.

The rapid response grant is an “unprecedented but logical move for the organization in these extraordinary times,” AHA President Bob Harrington, MD, chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a statement. “We are committed to quickly bringing together and supporting some of the brightest minds in research science and clinical care who are shovel ready with the laboratories, tools, and data resources to immediately begin work on addressing this emergent issue.”

Dr. Freeman and Dr. Bhatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Harrington is on the editorial board for Medscape Cardiology.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com

The test-driven world of cardiovascular medicine is rapidly shifting to remote hands-off telemedicine to keep patients and their physicians safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During a recent telehealth webinar, Ami Bhatt, MD, director of the adult congenital heart disease program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said they’ve gone from seeing 400 patients a day in their clinic to fewer than 40 and are trying to push that number even lower and use virtual care as much as possible.

“The reason is we are having to send home physicians who are exposed and it’s cutting into our workforce very quickly. So the more people you could have at home doing work virtually is important because you’re going to need to call them in [during] the next couple of weeks,” she said. “And our PPE [personal protective equipment] is running low. So if we can afford to not have someone come in the office and not wear a mask because they had a cough, that’s a mask that can be used by someone performing CPR in an ICU.”

The hospital also adopted a train-the-trainer method to bring its existing telehealth program to cardiology, said Dr. Bhatt, who coauthored the American College of Cardiology’s recent guidance on establishing telehealth in the cardiology clinic.

“We find that sending people tip sheets and PowerPoints in addition to everything that is happening ... is too much,” Dr. Bhatt observed. “So actually holding your friend’s hand and walking them through it once you’ve learned how to do it has been really great in terms of adoption. Otherwise, everyone would fall back on phone, which is OK for now, but we need to establish a long-term plan.”

During the same March 20 webinar, David Konur, CEO of the Cardiovascular Institute of the South, Houma, La., said they began doing telecardiology more than 5 years ago and now do about 30,000 “patient touches” a month with 24/7 access.

“This is certainly an unprecedented time,” he said. “COVID-19 is shining a very bright light on the barriers that exist in health care, as well as the friction that exists to accessing care for all of our patients.”
 

New mandates

A new Food and Drug Administration policy, temporarily relaxing prior guidance on certain connected remote monitoring devices such as ECGs and cardiac monitors, is part of a shifting landscape to reduce barriers to telehealth during the ongoing pandemic. The increased flexibility may increase access to important patient physiological data, while eliminating unnecessary patient contact and easing the burden on healthcare facilities and providers, the agency said in the new guidance, issued March 20.

As such, the FDA “does not intend to object to limited modifications to the indications, claims, functionality, or hardware or software of FDA-cleared noninvasive remote monitoring devices that are used to support patient monitoring.”

Modifications could include the addition of monitoring statements for patients with COVID-19 or coexisting conditions such as hypertension and heart failure; a change to the indications or claims related to home use of devices previously cleared for use only in health care settings; and changes to hardware or software to increase remote monitoring capability. The approved devices listed in the guidance are clinical electronic thermometers, ECGs, cardiac monitors, ECG software for over-the-counter use, pulse oximetry, noninvasive blood pressure monitors, respiratory rate/breathing frequency monitors, and electronic stethoscopes.

The FDA policy comes just days after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services expanded telehealth coverage to Medicare beneficiaries and the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services said it would not penalize health care providers for using such non–HIPAA compliant third-party apps as Skype or Google Hangouts video. The HHS also signaled that physicians would be allowed to practice across state lines during the COVID-19 crisis.

“All these mandates have come in a time of desperation where we’re doing the best that we can to provide for patients and keep them safe,” Eugenia Gianos, MD, system director of cardiovascular prevention at Northwell Health and director of the Women’s Cardiovascular Center, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, said in an interview. “Realistically, the whole digital realm has a lot of promise for our patients.” She noted that telehealth programs are still being developed for the department, but that office visits have been purposely scaled back by more than 75% to protect patients as well as health care providers. “In times of need, the most promising technologies we have, have to come to the forefront,” Dr. Gianos said. “So using the data from the home – whether they have a blood pressure cuff or something that tracks their heart rate or their weight – when we don’t otherwise have data, is of great value.”

Andrew M. Freeman, MD, director of clinical cardiology and operations at National Jewish Hospital in Denver, said “in the current situation, telehealth is the most viable option because it keeps patients safe and physicians safe. So it wouldn’t surprise me if every institution in the country, if not worldwide, is very rapidly pursuing this kind of approach.”
Exactly how many programs or cardiologists were already using telehealth is impossible to say, although the ACC is planning to survey its members on their practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, he noted.

The situation is so fluid that ACC is already revising its March 13 telehealth guidance to reflect the recent policy changes. Another document is being prepared to provide physicians with a template for the telehealth space, said Dr. Freeman, who coauthored the telehealth guidance and also serves on the ACC’s Innovation Leadership Council. 
The new FDA policy allowing greater flexibility on remote monitoring devices is somewhat “vaguely worded,” Dr. Freeman noted, but highlights the ability of existing technology to provide essential patient data from home. “I think as we add adjuncts to the things we’re used to in the normal face-to-face visit, it’s going to make the face-to-face visit less required,” he said.

Questions remain, however, on implementing telehealth for new patients and whether payers will follow HHS’s decision not to conduct audits to ensure a prior relationship existed. The potential for telehealth to reach across state lines also is being viewed cautiously until tested legally, Dr. Freeman observed.

“If there’s one blessing in this awful disease that we have received, is that it may really give the power to clinicians, hospital systems, and payers to make telehealth a true viable, sustainable solution for good care that’s readily available to folks,” he said.
 

Fast-tracked research

On March 24, the American Heart Association announced it is committing $2.5 million for fast-tracked research grants for projects than can turn around results within 9-12 months and focus on how this novel coronavirus affects heart and brain health.

Additional funding also will be made available to the AHA’s new Center for Health Technology & Innovation’s Strategically Focused Research Networks to develop rapid technology solutions to aid in dealing with the pandemic.

The rapid response grant is an “unprecedented but logical move for the organization in these extraordinary times,” AHA President Bob Harrington, MD, chair of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a statement. “We are committed to quickly bringing together and supporting some of the brightest minds in research science and clinical care who are shovel ready with the laboratories, tools, and data resources to immediately begin work on addressing this emergent issue.”

Dr. Freeman and Dr. Bhatt have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Harrington is on the editorial board for Medscape Cardiology.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who frequently alter the amount of sleep and time they go to bed each night are twofold more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, independent of traditional CVD risk factors, new research suggests.

Prior studies have focused on shift workers because night shift work will influence circadian rhythm and increase CVD risk. But it is increasingly recognized that circadian disruption may occur outside of shift work and accumulate over time, particularly given modern lifestyle factors such as increased use of mobile devices and television at night, said study coauthor Tianyi Huang, ScD, MSc, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts.

“Even if they tend to go to sleep at certain times, by following that lifestyle or behavior, it can interfere with their planned sleep timing,” he said.

“One thing that surprised me in this sample is that about one third of participants have irregular sleep patterns that can put them at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. So I think the prevalence is higher than expected,” Huang added.

As reported today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the investigators used data from 7-day wrist actigraphy, 1 night of at-home polysomnography, and sleep questionnaires to assess sleep duration and sleep-onset timing among 1,992 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis () participants, aged 45 to 84 years, who were free of CVD and prospectively followed for a me MESA dian of 4.9 years.

A total of 786 patients (39.5%) had sleep duration standard deviation (SD) > 90 minutes and 510 (25.6%) had sleep-onset timing SD > 90 minutes.

During follow-up, there were 111 incident CVD events, including myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, stroke, and other coronary events.

Compared with people who had less than 1 hour of variation in sleep duration, the risk for incident CVD was 9% higher for people whose sleep duration varied 61 to 90 minutes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 - 1.92), even after controlling for a variety of cardiovascular and sleep-related risk factors such as body mass index, systolic blood pressure, smoking status, total cholesterol, average sleep duration, insomnia symptoms, and sleep apnea.

Moreover, the adjusted CVD risk was substantially increased with 91 to 120 minutes of variation (HR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.91 - 2.76) and more than 120 minutes of variation in sleep duration (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.24 - 3.68).

Every 1-hour increase in sleep duration SD was associated with 36% higher CVD risk (95% CI; 1.07 - 1.73).

Compared with people with no more than a half hour of variation in nightly bedtimes, the adjusted hazard ratios for CVD were 1.16 (95% CI, 0.64 - 2.13), 1.52 (95% CI, 0.81 - 2.88), and 2.11 (95% CI, 1.13 - 3.91) when bedtimes varied by 31 to 60 minutes, 61 to 90 minutes, and more than 90 minutes.

For every 1-hour increase in sleep-onset timing SD, the risk of CVD was 18% higher (95% CI; 1.06 - 1.31).

“The results are similar for the regularity of sleep timing and the regularity of sleep duration, which means that both can contribute to circadian disruption and then lead to development of cardiovascular disease,” Huang said.

This is an important article and signals how sleep is an important marker and possibly a mediator of cardiovascular risk, said Harlan Krumholz, MD, of Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, who was not involved with the study.

“What I like about this is it’s a nice longitudinal, epidemiologic study with not just self-report, but sensor-detected sleep, that has been correlated with well-curated and adjudicated outcomes to give us a strong sense of this association,” he told theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. “And also, that it goes beyond just the duration — they combine the duration and timing in order to give a fuller picture of sleep.”

Nevertheless, Krumholz said researchers are only at the beginning of being able to quantify the various dimensions of sleep and the degree to which sleep is a reflection of underlying physiologic issues, or whether patients are having erratic sleep patterns that are having a toxic effect on their overall health.

Questions also remain about the mechanism behind the association, whether the increased risk is universal or more harmful for some people, and the best way to measure factors during sleep that can most comprehensively and precisely predict risk.

“As we get more information flowing in from sensors, I think we will begin to develop more sophisticated approaches toward understanding risk, and it will be accompanied by other studies that will help us understand whether, again, this is a reflection of other processes that we should be paying attention to or whether it is a cause of disease and risk,” Krumholz said.

Subgroup analyses suggested positive associations between irregular sleep and CVD in African Americans, Hispanics, and Chinese Americans but not in whites. This could be because sleep irregularity, both timing and duration, was substantially higher in minorities, especially African Americans, but may also be as a result of chance because the study sample is relatively small, Huang explained.

The authors note that the overall findings are biologically plausible because of their previous work linking sleep irregularity with metabolic risk factors that predispose to atherosclerosis, such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Participants with irregular sleep tended to have worse baseline cardiometabolic profiles, but this only explained a small portion of the associations between sleep irregularity and CVD, they note.

Other possible explanations include circadian clock genes, such as clock, per2 and bmal1, which have been shown experimentally to control a broad range of cardiovascular functions, from blood pressure and endothelial functions to vascular thrombosis and cardiac remodeling.

Irregular sleep may also influence the rhythms of the autonomic nervous system, and behavioral rhythms with regard to timing and/or amount of eating or exercise.

Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the associations, the impact of sleep irregularity on individual CVD outcomes, and to determine whether a 7-day SD of more than 90 minutes for either sleep duration or sleep-onset timing can be used clinically as a threshold target for promoting cardiometabolically healthy sleep, Huang said.

“When providers communicate with their patients regarding strategies for CVD prevention, usually they focus on healthy diet and physical activity; and even when they talk about sleep, they talk about whether they have good sleep quality or sufficient sleep,” he said. “But one thing they should provide is advice regarding sleep regularity and [they should] recommend their patients follow a regular sleep pattern for the purpose of cardiovascular prevention.”

In a related editorial, Olaf Oldenburg, MD, Luderus-Kliniken Münster, Clemenshospital, Münster, Germany, and Jens Spiesshoefer, MD, Institute of Life Sciences, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, write that the observed independent association between sleep irregularity and CVD “is a particularly striking finding given that impaired circadian rhythm is likely to be much more prevalent than the extreme example of shift work.”

They call on researchers to utilize big data to facilitate understanding of the association and say it is essential to test whether experimental data support the hypothesis that altered circadian rhythms would translate into unfavorable changes in 24-hour sympathovagal and neurohormonal balance, and ultimately CVD.

The present study “will, and should, stimulate much needed additional research on the association between sleep and CVD that may offer novel approaches to help improve the prognosis and daily symptom burden of patients with CVD, and might make sleep itself a therapeutic target in CVD,” the editorialists conclude.

This research was supported by contracts from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and by grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The MESA Sleep Study was supported by an NHLBI grant. Huang was supported by a career development grant from the National Institutes of Health.

Krumholz and Oldenburg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Spiesshoefer is supported by grants from the Else-Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung, the Innovative Medical Research program at the University of Münster, and Deutsche Herzstiftung; and by young investigator research support from Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa. He also has received travel grants and lecture honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Chiesi.
 

Source: J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.054.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bempedoic acid (Nexletol) for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) who require additional LDL cholesterol lowering.

The oral adenosine triphosphate–citrate lyase (ACL) inhibitor is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy in these patients, and approved at the 180 mg once daily dose, the agency announced today.

The safety and efficacy of bempedoic acid were demonstrated over 52 weeks in two multicenter randomized, clinical trials involving 3,009 adults with HeFH or established ASCVD on maximally tolerated statin therapy.

The difference between bempedoic acid and placebo for the primary outcome of change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 was –18% in the first trial, CLEAR Harmony (95% confidence interval, –20% to –16%; P less than .001), and –17% in the second trial, CLEAR Wisdom (95% CI, –21% to –14%; P less than .001).

The label notes that the effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been determined. The label also includes warnings stating that bempedoic acid may increase blood uric acid levels and is associated with an increased risk of tendon rupture or injury.

In clinical trials, 26% of bempedoic acid–treated patients with normal baseline uric acid values versus 9.5% of placebo-treated patients experienced hyperuricemia one or more times, and 3.5% of patients experienced clinically significant hyperuricemia reported as an adverse reaction versus 1.1% with placebo, according to the label. Gout was reported in 1.5% of patients treated with bempedoic acid and 0.4% of those treated with placebo.

Also in clinical trials, the risk of tendon rupture was 0.5% with bempedoic acid and 0% with placebo. Tendon rupture involved the rotator cuff, biceps tendon, or Achilles tendon, and occurred within weeks to months of starting the drug. Rupture may “occur more frequently in patients over 60 years of age, in those taking corticosteroid or fluoroquinolone drugs, in patients with renal failure, and in patients with previous tendon disorders,” the label states.

The label also advises that patients avoid concomitant use of bempedoic acid with simvastatin greater than 20 mg or pravastatin greater than 40 mg because it causes an increase in statin concentrations and may increase the risk of related myopathy.

A decision is expected shortly on a new drug application submitted by Esperion for an LDL cholesterol–lowering indication for bempedoic acid 180 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg combination tablet.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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.

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.

Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
 

The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).

“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”

That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.

Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.

The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).

The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).

The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).

The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.

Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”


 

Enhancing durability

“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.

In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.

5-year kerfuffle

As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.

However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.

On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.

“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.

“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”

EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
 

The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).

“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”

That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.

Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.

The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).

The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).

The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).

The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.

Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”


 

Enhancing durability

“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.

In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.

5-year kerfuffle

As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.

However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.

On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.

“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.

“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”

EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Repeat revascularization was more frequent after left main percutaneous coronary intervention than after coronary artery bypass surgery, but raised the mortality risk after both procedures in a secondary EXCEL analysis.
 

The 3-year rate of any repeat revascularization was 12.9% after PCI and 7.6% after CABG (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.33).

“It’s a real difference and shouldn’t be minimized. About 1 in 20 patients will need an additional repeat revascularization after PCI, compared with surgery,” study author Gregg Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in an interview. “Surgery is a more durable procedure in that regard, and patients need to be informed of that by heart team discussions.”

That said, Dr. Stone highlighted other differences between the two strategies, including more bleeding and atrial fibrillation after surgery and better early quality of life after PCI. There’s also an early myocardial infarction (MI) benefit with PCI but a late MI benefit with surgery, which “is probably a more important difference between the two, as opposed to the difference in repeat revascularization,” he added.

Although the increased need to perform repeat vascularization after PCI is not unexpected, the analysis of 346 repeat revascularizations in 185 patients provides more details on the timing and prognosis of these procedures in left main disease.

The need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.13-3.70) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.10-8.48) for both PCI and CABG (P for interaction = .85 for both outcomes).

The increase in mortality risk, however, was smaller than that for MI (adjusted HR, 4.03; 95% CI, 2.43-6.67) or stroke (adjusted HR, 16.62; 95% CI, 9.97-27.69).

The risk for death peaked in the 30 days after redo revascularization and then declined during follow-up. Most of the deaths were cardiovascular (74/128).

The incidence of repeat left main PCI was only 17.5%, whereas the left main was the most common site for redo revascularization in the CABG group.

Repeat revascularization of the index target vessel and target lesion – but not of other lesions – were both strongly associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, the authors reported January 15 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

“It just continues to show that, no matter what intervention we use, we haven’t achieved perfection yet and the opportunities for improvement and decision making between a PCI and a CABG is still up in the air,” Richard J. Shemin, MD, chief of cardiac surgery, UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “And there’s some evidence to suggest coronary bypass might be better in terms of mortality and the need for repeat revascularization.”


 

Enhancing durability

“Measures to reduce the need for repeat revascularization including improved stent platforms and implantation technique, use of pan-arterial bypass grafting, and aggressive risk factor control with guideline-directed medical therapy may improve prognosis after both PCI and CABG,” the authors concluded.

In a linked editorial, David O. Williams, MD, and Pinak B. Shah, MD, both with Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, say intravascular imaging should be “mandatory for all complex PCI,” but that intravascular ultrasound was used in only 77.2% of cases in EXCEL.

5-year kerfuffle

As previously reported, the EXCEL trial’s 5-year analysis showed no significant difference between PCI and CABG for the primary endpoint of all-cause death, MI, or stroke.

However, recent allegations that key MI data were withheld have called into question the final conclusion of relative parity and led the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) to withdraw support for the left main portion of the 2018 EACTS-European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guidelines based on 3-year EXCEL outcomes.

On January 14, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) joined EACTS and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in calling for independent reanalysis of the EXCEL data.

“Any final conclusions drawn from the EXCEL trial will not only affect the actions of physicians, surgeons, regulatory agencies, and third-party payers but, more importantly, they will seriously impact the health and wellbeing of our patients and their families for years to come,” the statement says.

“Given such potentially profound consequences, the Society believes that the final interpretation regarding the outcomes of the EXCEL study should wait until an independent analysis of all aspects of the EXCEL study has been performed.”

EXCEL was sponsored by Abbott Vascular. Dr. Stone reported speaker honoraria from Terumo and Amaranth and serving as a consultant to Reva. Coauthor conflict of interest disclosures are listed in the paper. Dr. Shemin reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two applications for first generic versions of apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) tablets to reduce the risk for stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

The FDA gave the go-ahead to market generic versions of apixaban to Micro Labs Limited and Mylan Pharmaceuticals.

“Today’s approvals of the first generics of apixaban are an example of how the FDA’s generic drug program improves access to lower-cost, safe, and high-quality medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement today. “These approvals mark the first generic approvals of a direct oral anticoagulant.”

It is estimated that between 2.7 and 6.1 million people in the United States have atrial fibrillation. Many of these individuals use anticoagulants or anticlotting drugs to reduce that risk. Direct oral anticoagulants, however, do not require repeated blood testing.

Apixaban was approved by the FDA in December 2012 for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Additional indications in the United States are to treat and prevent the recurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and as DVT/PE prophylaxis in adults who have undergone hip or knee replacement surgery.

The FDA reminds providers that, as with brand name apixaban, generic versions must be dispensed with a medication guide that provides important instructions on the drug’s uses and risks. Healthcare professionals should counsel patients on signs and symptoms of possible bleeding.

As with other FDA-approved anticlotting drugs, bleeding, including life-threatening and fatal bleeding, is the most serious risk with apixaban.

Full prescribing information for the drug also warns about the increased risk for stroke in patients who discontinue use of the drug without taking some other form of anticoagulation. Epidural or spinal hematoma, which may cause long-term or permanent paralysis, may occur in patients treated with apixaban who are undergoing spinal epidural anesthesia or spinal puncture.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two applications for first generic versions of apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) tablets to reduce the risk for stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

The FDA gave the go-ahead to market generic versions of apixaban to Micro Labs Limited and Mylan Pharmaceuticals.

“Today’s approvals of the first generics of apixaban are an example of how the FDA’s generic drug program improves access to lower-cost, safe, and high-quality medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement today. “These approvals mark the first generic approvals of a direct oral anticoagulant.”

It is estimated that between 2.7 and 6.1 million people in the United States have atrial fibrillation. Many of these individuals use anticoagulants or anticlotting drugs to reduce that risk. Direct oral anticoagulants, however, do not require repeated blood testing.

Apixaban was approved by the FDA in December 2012 for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Additional indications in the United States are to treat and prevent the recurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and as DVT/PE prophylaxis in adults who have undergone hip or knee replacement surgery.

The FDA reminds providers that, as with brand name apixaban, generic versions must be dispensed with a medication guide that provides important instructions on the drug’s uses and risks. Healthcare professionals should counsel patients on signs and symptoms of possible bleeding.

As with other FDA-approved anticlotting drugs, bleeding, including life-threatening and fatal bleeding, is the most serious risk with apixaban.

Full prescribing information for the drug also warns about the increased risk for stroke in patients who discontinue use of the drug without taking some other form of anticoagulation. Epidural or spinal hematoma, which may cause long-term or permanent paralysis, may occur in patients treated with apixaban who are undergoing spinal epidural anesthesia or spinal puncture.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved two applications for first generic versions of apixaban (Eliquis, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer) tablets to reduce the risk for stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

The FDA gave the go-ahead to market generic versions of apixaban to Micro Labs Limited and Mylan Pharmaceuticals.

“Today’s approvals of the first generics of apixaban are an example of how the FDA’s generic drug program improves access to lower-cost, safe, and high-quality medicines,” Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement today. “These approvals mark the first generic approvals of a direct oral anticoagulant.”

It is estimated that between 2.7 and 6.1 million people in the United States have atrial fibrillation. Many of these individuals use anticoagulants or anticlotting drugs to reduce that risk. Direct oral anticoagulants, however, do not require repeated blood testing.

Apixaban was approved by the FDA in December 2012 for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Additional indications in the United States are to treat and prevent the recurrence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and as DVT/PE prophylaxis in adults who have undergone hip or knee replacement surgery.

The FDA reminds providers that, as with brand name apixaban, generic versions must be dispensed with a medication guide that provides important instructions on the drug’s uses and risks. Healthcare professionals should counsel patients on signs and symptoms of possible bleeding.

As with other FDA-approved anticlotting drugs, bleeding, including life-threatening and fatal bleeding, is the most serious risk with apixaban.

Full prescribing information for the drug also warns about the increased risk for stroke in patients who discontinue use of the drug without taking some other form of anticoagulation. Epidural or spinal hematoma, which may cause long-term or permanent paralysis, may occur in patients treated with apixaban who are undergoing spinal epidural anesthesia or spinal puncture.

This story first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Surgeons can expect to see more abdominal organ transplant recipients presenting with aortic aneurysms, as transplant survival rates increase along with the age of organ donors and recipients.

“The consensus is that abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have a more aggressive course post-transplant and within that context, probably need to be managed more aggressively,” Dr. Michael J. Englesbe of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor said at the annual Northwestern Vascular Symposium.

Some 270,000 Americans are living with a functioning liver or kidney graft, and their average age has risen from 47 years to 57 years over the last decade.

Though the data isn’t great, it’s hypothesized that the immunosuppression prerequisite for successful organ transplantation promotes the progression of atherosclerosis and aneurysm growth in transplant patients, he said.

New-onset diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension are all common post-transplant due to immunosuppression therapy. Aortic aneurysms are also reported to rupture at smaller sizes in transplant recipients.

Intriguingly, the opposite effect has been observed in experimental animal models, where immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors has been shown to stabilize atherosclerotic lesions and inhibit aneurysm expansion.

The reason for this disparity is unclear, but immunosuppressants likely augment other cardiovascular comorbidities such as hypertension and atherosclerosis and this may trump their anti-inflammatory effects and lead to worse aneurysm disease and faster expansion in humans, Dr. Englesbe speculated in an interview.

As for when aneurysms should be fixed, kidney transplant candidates should undergo AAA repair prior to transplantation since the risk of renal complications after aneurysm repair puts the allograft at risk, Dr. Englesbe advised. Either an open or endovascular approach can be used.

In liver transplant candidates, elective AAA repair should be avoided if possible and is contraindicated if any signs of hepatic decompensation are present such as muscle wasting, ascites, platelet count less than 50 x 10⁹/L, or encephalopathy. For well-compensated cirrhotic patients, endovascular repair is best.

One of the most important considerations for any solid-organ transplant patient undergoing aneurysm repair is perioperative management of immunosuppression, Dr. Englesbe stressed.

Transplant patients are maintained on oral calcineurin inhibitors such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus (Prograf) throughout the perioperative period to prevent organ rejection, but these drugs have nephrotoxic effects. About 10% of recipients, typically the sicker patients, will be switched to mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus (Afinitor) and sirolumus (Rapamune) as a kidney-sparing alternative.

“Part of the mechanism of these [mTOR] drugs is that they really affect fibroblast functioning, so patients that are on these medications, their wound will fall apart and they will invariably get a hernia,” Dr. Englesbe said. “You have to stop them upwards of about 6 weeks before surgical intervention, and I think this is also true for many endografts.”

He highlighted a case in which an mTOR inhibitor was started three months after liver transplant due to renal dysfunction in a patient who was fully healed, but within three weeks, “her wound fell apart, completely fell apart.” She developed several seromas underneath her incision, one of which became infected and took months to close.

“The transplant professionals – your nephrologists, your cardiologists – aren’t going to know this fact, but as a transplant surgeon it’s usually the first question we’re going to ask with respect to any post-transplant patient we’re going to operate on, so it’s something to keep in mind,” Dr. Englesbe said.

Another take-home message was the importance of maintaining kidney function in kidney recipients presenting with aortic aneurysm, as mortality in these patients is about 10-fold higher once the kidney fails, he said. A recent study reported that AAAs are significantly more common in kidney than liver transplant recipients (29.6% vs. 11.4%; P = .02), despite a similar prevalence for any aneurysm (4%) in both groups (J Vasc Surg. 2014 Mar;59;594-8).

When kidney recipients present, preoperative imaging of the aorta from the aneurysm to the kidney allograft is mandatory, he said. Endovascular repair is preferred, whenever possible.

The renal graft is typically sewn to the external iliac artery 3 cm to 10 cm from the bifurcation of the external and internal iliac arteries. Because of this, repair is challenging when aneurysmal disease involves the iliac artery, Dr. Englesbe observed. Aneurysmal dilation is less common in the external iliac, but stenting an iliac aneurysm can still compromise inflow to the transplanted kidney.

Several surgical techniques including axillofemoral bypass, aortofemoral shunt, or extracorporeal circuit have been reported to preserve renal function during open AAA repair in renal transplant recipients. These techniques are not without their own risk of complications and should be avoided in patients with low creatinine, but are appropriate in patients with marginal or impaired renal function, according to Dr. Englesbe, who reported having no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Surgeons can expect to see more abdominal organ transplant recipients presenting with aortic aneurysms, as transplant survival rates increase along with the age of organ donors and recipients.

“The consensus is that abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have a more aggressive course post-transplant and within that context, probably need to be managed more aggressively,” Dr. Michael J. Englesbe of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor said at the annual Northwestern Vascular Symposium.

Some 270,000 Americans are living with a functioning liver or kidney graft, and their average age has risen from 47 years to 57 years over the last decade.

Though the data isn’t great, it’s hypothesized that the immunosuppression prerequisite for successful organ transplantation promotes the progression of atherosclerosis and aneurysm growth in transplant patients, he said.

New-onset diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension are all common post-transplant due to immunosuppression therapy. Aortic aneurysms are also reported to rupture at smaller sizes in transplant recipients.

Intriguingly, the opposite effect has been observed in experimental animal models, where immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors has been shown to stabilize atherosclerotic lesions and inhibit aneurysm expansion.

The reason for this disparity is unclear, but immunosuppressants likely augment other cardiovascular comorbidities such as hypertension and atherosclerosis and this may trump their anti-inflammatory effects and lead to worse aneurysm disease and faster expansion in humans, Dr. Englesbe speculated in an interview.

As for when aneurysms should be fixed, kidney transplant candidates should undergo AAA repair prior to transplantation since the risk of renal complications after aneurysm repair puts the allograft at risk, Dr. Englesbe advised. Either an open or endovascular approach can be used.

In liver transplant candidates, elective AAA repair should be avoided if possible and is contraindicated if any signs of hepatic decompensation are present such as muscle wasting, ascites, platelet count less than 50 x 10⁹/L, or encephalopathy. For well-compensated cirrhotic patients, endovascular repair is best.

One of the most important considerations for any solid-organ transplant patient undergoing aneurysm repair is perioperative management of immunosuppression, Dr. Englesbe stressed.

Transplant patients are maintained on oral calcineurin inhibitors such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus (Prograf) throughout the perioperative period to prevent organ rejection, but these drugs have nephrotoxic effects. About 10% of recipients, typically the sicker patients, will be switched to mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus (Afinitor) and sirolumus (Rapamune) as a kidney-sparing alternative.

“Part of the mechanism of these [mTOR] drugs is that they really affect fibroblast functioning, so patients that are on these medications, their wound will fall apart and they will invariably get a hernia,” Dr. Englesbe said. “You have to stop them upwards of about 6 weeks before surgical intervention, and I think this is also true for many endografts.”

He highlighted a case in which an mTOR inhibitor was started three months after liver transplant due to renal dysfunction in a patient who was fully healed, but within three weeks, “her wound fell apart, completely fell apart.” She developed several seromas underneath her incision, one of which became infected and took months to close.

“The transplant professionals – your nephrologists, your cardiologists – aren’t going to know this fact, but as a transplant surgeon it’s usually the first question we’re going to ask with respect to any post-transplant patient we’re going to operate on, so it’s something to keep in mind,” Dr. Englesbe said.

Another take-home message was the importance of maintaining kidney function in kidney recipients presenting with aortic aneurysm, as mortality in these patients is about 10-fold higher once the kidney fails, he said. A recent study reported that AAAs are significantly more common in kidney than liver transplant recipients (29.6% vs. 11.4%; P = .02), despite a similar prevalence for any aneurysm (4%) in both groups (J Vasc Surg. 2014 Mar;59;594-8).

When kidney recipients present, preoperative imaging of the aorta from the aneurysm to the kidney allograft is mandatory, he said. Endovascular repair is preferred, whenever possible.

The renal graft is typically sewn to the external iliac artery 3 cm to 10 cm from the bifurcation of the external and internal iliac arteries. Because of this, repair is challenging when aneurysmal disease involves the iliac artery, Dr. Englesbe observed. Aneurysmal dilation is less common in the external iliac, but stenting an iliac aneurysm can still compromise inflow to the transplanted kidney.

Several surgical techniques including axillofemoral bypass, aortofemoral shunt, or extracorporeal circuit have been reported to preserve renal function during open AAA repair in renal transplant recipients. These techniques are not without their own risk of complications and should be avoided in patients with low creatinine, but are appropriate in patients with marginal or impaired renal function, according to Dr. Englesbe, who reported having no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Surgeons can expect to see more abdominal organ transplant recipients presenting with aortic aneurysms, as transplant survival rates increase along with the age of organ donors and recipients.

“The consensus is that abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have a more aggressive course post-transplant and within that context, probably need to be managed more aggressively,” Dr. Michael J. Englesbe of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor said at the annual Northwestern Vascular Symposium.

Some 270,000 Americans are living with a functioning liver or kidney graft, and their average age has risen from 47 years to 57 years over the last decade.

Though the data isn’t great, it’s hypothesized that the immunosuppression prerequisite for successful organ transplantation promotes the progression of atherosclerosis and aneurysm growth in transplant patients, he said.

New-onset diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension are all common post-transplant due to immunosuppression therapy. Aortic aneurysms are also reported to rupture at smaller sizes in transplant recipients.

Intriguingly, the opposite effect has been observed in experimental animal models, where immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors has been shown to stabilize atherosclerotic lesions and inhibit aneurysm expansion.

The reason for this disparity is unclear, but immunosuppressants likely augment other cardiovascular comorbidities such as hypertension and atherosclerosis and this may trump their anti-inflammatory effects and lead to worse aneurysm disease and faster expansion in humans, Dr. Englesbe speculated in an interview.

As for when aneurysms should be fixed, kidney transplant candidates should undergo AAA repair prior to transplantation since the risk of renal complications after aneurysm repair puts the allograft at risk, Dr. Englesbe advised. Either an open or endovascular approach can be used.

In liver transplant candidates, elective AAA repair should be avoided if possible and is contraindicated if any signs of hepatic decompensation are present such as muscle wasting, ascites, platelet count less than 50 x 10⁹/L, or encephalopathy. For well-compensated cirrhotic patients, endovascular repair is best.

One of the most important considerations for any solid-organ transplant patient undergoing aneurysm repair is perioperative management of immunosuppression, Dr. Englesbe stressed.

Transplant patients are maintained on oral calcineurin inhibitors such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus (Prograf) throughout the perioperative period to prevent organ rejection, but these drugs have nephrotoxic effects. About 10% of recipients, typically the sicker patients, will be switched to mTOR inhibitors such as everolimus (Afinitor) and sirolumus (Rapamune) as a kidney-sparing alternative.

“Part of the mechanism of these [mTOR] drugs is that they really affect fibroblast functioning, so patients that are on these medications, their wound will fall apart and they will invariably get a hernia,” Dr. Englesbe said. “You have to stop them upwards of about 6 weeks before surgical intervention, and I think this is also true for many endografts.”

He highlighted a case in which an mTOR inhibitor was started three months after liver transplant due to renal dysfunction in a patient who was fully healed, but within three weeks, “her wound fell apart, completely fell apart.” She developed several seromas underneath her incision, one of which became infected and took months to close.

“The transplant professionals – your nephrologists, your cardiologists – aren’t going to know this fact, but as a transplant surgeon it’s usually the first question we’re going to ask with respect to any post-transplant patient we’re going to operate on, so it’s something to keep in mind,” Dr. Englesbe said.

Another take-home message was the importance of maintaining kidney function in kidney recipients presenting with aortic aneurysm, as mortality in these patients is about 10-fold higher once the kidney fails, he said. A recent study reported that AAAs are significantly more common in kidney than liver transplant recipients (29.6% vs. 11.4%; P = .02), despite a similar prevalence for any aneurysm (4%) in both groups (J Vasc Surg. 2014 Mar;59;594-8).

When kidney recipients present, preoperative imaging of the aorta from the aneurysm to the kidney allograft is mandatory, he said. Endovascular repair is preferred, whenever possible.

The renal graft is typically sewn to the external iliac artery 3 cm to 10 cm from the bifurcation of the external and internal iliac arteries. Because of this, repair is challenging when aneurysmal disease involves the iliac artery, Dr. Englesbe observed. Aneurysmal dilation is less common in the external iliac, but stenting an iliac aneurysm can still compromise inflow to the transplanted kidney.

Several surgical techniques including axillofemoral bypass, aortofemoral shunt, or extracorporeal circuit have been reported to preserve renal function during open AAA repair in renal transplant recipients. These techniques are not without their own risk of complications and should be avoided in patients with low creatinine, but are appropriate in patients with marginal or impaired renal function, according to Dr. Englesbe, who reported having no relevant disclosures.

CHICAGO – Adoption of an organized, systematic approach to ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm has been inconsistent.

In a recent survey of vascular physicians in the western United States, 60% who accept ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) transfers do not have a formal protocol for treatment and 70% do not use a transfer protocol or clinical guidelines (J Vasc Surg. 2015 Aug;62:326-30).

Guidelines for the management and transfer of patients with rAAA have been developed in the United Kingdom, but no such guidelines currently exist in the United States.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

To address this disparity, the Western Vascular Society used the survey results, existing European guidelines, and a literature review to develop a set of 15 best practice steps for rAAA transfer. The “guidelines” were endorsed by the society members in September 2015 and are to be published early in 2016, Dr. Matthew Mell of Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University. The guidelines identify four key components to a successful transfer: an organized inter-facility system of care including rapid triage and transport, defined clinical criteria for transfer, standard resuscitation protocols for the transport, and appropriate resources at the receiving hospital.

During transport, aim for a systolic blood pressure of 70 mm Hg to 90 mm Hg, establish peripheral intravenous access, and avoid aggressive fluid resuscitation, the guidelines advise. Blood products may delay the transfer.

Receiving hospitals should provide a simple and reliable method of referral and have formal protocols in place for the treatment of transferred patients.

Centers that receive patients should have endovascular aortic repair capabilities for ruptured aneurysms, including the ability to perform EVAR under local anesthesia, as well as appropriate facilities and expertise, Dr. Mell said. This advice is based mainly on outcomes observed in the IMPROVE trial (Br J Surg. 2014;101;216-24).

Successful programs tend to repair more than 20-25 ruptures per year, have on-site EVAR inventory, and, for the most part, have vascular surgeons able to perform dual open and endovascular repair. Hospital resources in these successful programs have a single phone number for transfer requests, electronic image transfer, immediately available blood products, hospital policy to accept all requests regardless of bed capacity, a contingency plan to create bed capacity after repair, and real-time management between the transfer center, bed control, and clinicians.

“This is really important because a lot of tertiary centers struggle with bed capacity if bottlenecked and a significant number [about one-third] of transfer requests are declined because of lack of capacity or dedicated room,” Dr. Mell said.

In a more recent study, nearly 20% of 4,439 patients who presented with rAAA in New York, California, and Florida were transferred for definitive care. Transfer rates rose yearly during the study period from 14% in 2005 to 22% in 2010 (J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:553-7).

“Transfer is increasingly utilized as a means for definitive care,” Dr. Mell said.

However, one in six of those transferred died without receiving treatment.

In adjusted analyses, inter-facility transfer was associated with significantly lower mortality when only patients receiving treatment were analyzed (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; P = .02), but was actually associated with higher mortality when patients who died without treatment were also included (aOR, 1.30; P = .01).

“Outcomes after transfer can be improved by better patient selection and more efficient systems of care,” Dr. Mell concluded. “Guidelines may help; it’s too soon to know, but successful transfer programs require forethought, resources, and alignment of all stakeholders.”

Dr. Mell reported having no conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Adoption of an organized, systematic approach to ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm has been inconsistent.

In a recent survey of vascular physicians in the western United States, 60% who accept ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) transfers do not have a formal protocol for treatment and 70% do not use a transfer protocol or clinical guidelines (J Vasc Surg. 2015 Aug;62:326-30).

Guidelines for the management and transfer of patients with rAAA have been developed in the United Kingdom, but no such guidelines currently exist in the United States.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

To address this disparity, the Western Vascular Society used the survey results, existing European guidelines, and a literature review to develop a set of 15 best practice steps for rAAA transfer. The “guidelines” were endorsed by the society members in September 2015 and are to be published early in 2016, Dr. Matthew Mell of Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University. The guidelines identify four key components to a successful transfer: an organized inter-facility system of care including rapid triage and transport, defined clinical criteria for transfer, standard resuscitation protocols for the transport, and appropriate resources at the receiving hospital.

During transport, aim for a systolic blood pressure of 70 mm Hg to 90 mm Hg, establish peripheral intravenous access, and avoid aggressive fluid resuscitation, the guidelines advise. Blood products may delay the transfer.

Receiving hospitals should provide a simple and reliable method of referral and have formal protocols in place for the treatment of transferred patients.

Centers that receive patients should have endovascular aortic repair capabilities for ruptured aneurysms, including the ability to perform EVAR under local anesthesia, as well as appropriate facilities and expertise, Dr. Mell said. This advice is based mainly on outcomes observed in the IMPROVE trial (Br J Surg. 2014;101;216-24).

Successful programs tend to repair more than 20-25 ruptures per year, have on-site EVAR inventory, and, for the most part, have vascular surgeons able to perform dual open and endovascular repair. Hospital resources in these successful programs have a single phone number for transfer requests, electronic image transfer, immediately available blood products, hospital policy to accept all requests regardless of bed capacity, a contingency plan to create bed capacity after repair, and real-time management between the transfer center, bed control, and clinicians.

“This is really important because a lot of tertiary centers struggle with bed capacity if bottlenecked and a significant number [about one-third] of transfer requests are declined because of lack of capacity or dedicated room,” Dr. Mell said.

In a more recent study, nearly 20% of 4,439 patients who presented with rAAA in New York, California, and Florida were transferred for definitive care. Transfer rates rose yearly during the study period from 14% in 2005 to 22% in 2010 (J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:553-7).

“Transfer is increasingly utilized as a means for definitive care,” Dr. Mell said.

However, one in six of those transferred died without receiving treatment.

In adjusted analyses, inter-facility transfer was associated with significantly lower mortality when only patients receiving treatment were analyzed (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; P = .02), but was actually associated with higher mortality when patients who died without treatment were also included (aOR, 1.30; P = .01).

“Outcomes after transfer can be improved by better patient selection and more efficient systems of care,” Dr. Mell concluded. “Guidelines may help; it’s too soon to know, but successful transfer programs require forethought, resources, and alignment of all stakeholders.”

Dr. Mell reported having no conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Adoption of an organized, systematic approach to ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm has been inconsistent.

In a recent survey of vascular physicians in the western United States, 60% who accept ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) transfers do not have a formal protocol for treatment and 70% do not use a transfer protocol or clinical guidelines (J Vasc Surg. 2015 Aug;62:326-30).

Guidelines for the management and transfer of patients with rAAA have been developed in the United Kingdom, but no such guidelines currently exist in the United States.

Patrice Wendling/Frontline Medical News

To address this disparity, the Western Vascular Society used the survey results, existing European guidelines, and a literature review to develop a set of 15 best practice steps for rAAA transfer. The “guidelines” were endorsed by the society members in September 2015 and are to be published early in 2016, Dr. Matthew Mell of Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center said at a symposium on vascular surgery sponsored by Northwestern University. The guidelines identify four key components to a successful transfer: an organized inter-facility system of care including rapid triage and transport, defined clinical criteria for transfer, standard resuscitation protocols for the transport, and appropriate resources at the receiving hospital.

During transport, aim for a systolic blood pressure of 70 mm Hg to 90 mm Hg, establish peripheral intravenous access, and avoid aggressive fluid resuscitation, the guidelines advise. Blood products may delay the transfer.

Receiving hospitals should provide a simple and reliable method of referral and have formal protocols in place for the treatment of transferred patients.

Centers that receive patients should have endovascular aortic repair capabilities for ruptured aneurysms, including the ability to perform EVAR under local anesthesia, as well as appropriate facilities and expertise, Dr. Mell said. This advice is based mainly on outcomes observed in the IMPROVE trial (Br J Surg. 2014;101;216-24).

Successful programs tend to repair more than 20-25 ruptures per year, have on-site EVAR inventory, and, for the most part, have vascular surgeons able to perform dual open and endovascular repair. Hospital resources in these successful programs have a single phone number for transfer requests, electronic image transfer, immediately available blood products, hospital policy to accept all requests regardless of bed capacity, a contingency plan to create bed capacity after repair, and real-time management between the transfer center, bed control, and clinicians.

“This is really important because a lot of tertiary centers struggle with bed capacity if bottlenecked and a significant number [about one-third] of transfer requests are declined because of lack of capacity or dedicated room,” Dr. Mell said.

In a more recent study, nearly 20% of 4,439 patients who presented with rAAA in New York, California, and Florida were transferred for definitive care. Transfer rates rose yearly during the study period from 14% in 2005 to 22% in 2010 (J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:553-7).

“Transfer is increasingly utilized as a means for definitive care,” Dr. Mell said.

However, one in six of those transferred died without receiving treatment.

In adjusted analyses, inter-facility transfer was associated with significantly lower mortality when only patients receiving treatment were analyzed (adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; P = .02), but was actually associated with higher mortality when patients who died without treatment were also included (aOR, 1.30; P = .01).

“Outcomes after transfer can be improved by better patient selection and more efficient systems of care,” Dr. Mell concluded. “Guidelines may help; it’s too soon to know, but successful transfer programs require forethought, resources, and alignment of all stakeholders.”

Dr. Mell reported having no conflicts of interest.