Emergency Medicine

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Giving crushed prasugrel (Effient) to patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) en route to a planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve reperfusion rates, results of the COMPARE CRUSH trial show.

Patients assigned to prasugrel as crushed or integral tablets had similar rates of the study’s co-primary endpoints of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in the infarct-related artery at first angiography (31% vs. 32.7%; P = .64) and complete ST-segment resolution 1 hour post PCI (59.9% vs. 57.3%; P = .55).

“These findings hold in spite of the fact that crushed tablets of prasugrel led to more potent platelet inhibition compared with integral tablets,” said study author Georgios Vlachojannis, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

“Whether faster and more potent antiplatelet therapy can improve coronary reperfusion in contemporary STEMI treatment regimen warrants further investigation.”

The results were reported in a late-breaking clinical science session at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting and published simultaneously in the journal Circulation. The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Fibrinolytics and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have demonstrated improved coronary reperfusion and outcomes when given pre hospital. Prior studies have also shown that early administration of a crushed P2Y12 inhibitor increases bioavailability and speeds platelet inhibition in STEMI patients, Dr. Vlachojannis noted.

However, the large randomized ATLANTIC trial, which compared prehospital to cath lab administration of crushed or integral ticagrelor (Brilinta), also found no difference in either TIMI flow in the infarct-related artery or ST-segment resolution.

Between November 2017 and March 2020, the investigator-initiated COMPARE CRUSH trial randomly allocated 727 STEMI patients (mean age, 62 years; 23% female) undergoing primary PCI to receive in the ambulance a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel as either crushed or integral tablets.

The median time from onset of symptoms to first medical contact was 59 minutes, from first medical contact to study treatment 22 minutes, and from study treatment to primary PCI 57 minutes. These times did not differ between groups.

Platelet reactivity at the beginning of coronary angiography was significantly lower in the crushed group than in the integral group (P2Y12 reactivity units 192 vs. 227; P < .01). This resulted in significantly fewer patients in the crushed group with high platelet reactivity, defined as P2Y12 reactivity units >208, prior to the start of PCI (43.3% vs. 62.6%; P < .01).

There was no difference between the crushed and integral groups in the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major and BARC type 3 or higher bleeding within 48 hours after study treatment (0.4% vs 0.7%).

Death, MI, stroke, and urgent revascularization rates were also similar between groups during index hospitalization and at 30 days. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in one patient in the crushed group and two patients in the integral group.

In an exploratory analysis, the co-primary endpoint results were consistent across multiple subgroups, although there was a trend toward greater benefit on TIMI 3 flow in the crushed tablet group in patients older than age 75 years (P for interaction = .04), presenting with anterior infarction (P for interaction = .03), or with a history of prior PCI (P for interaction < .01).

“However, these results should be regarded as hypothesis-generating,” the authors wrote. “Opioids use in the ambulance was remarkably low in our study compared with the ATLANTIC trial, which might explain that we did not observe any significant interaction.”

Notably, morphine was used in half the ATLANTIC patients and was thought to have possibly delayed the absorption of ticagrelor.

During discussion following the presentation, Sunil V. Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., asked: “Based on what you found, which is really no clinical advantage but no safety issue either, are you having your patients with ST-segment MI administering crushed prasugrel now?”

Dr. Vlachojannis said they didn’t see any clinical impact but reiterated that high platelet reactivity was reduced by one-third. “If this now translates into a safer primary PCI procedure, we can’t say. The study wasn’t powered for this kind of endpoint. Is this enough to give you a recommendation, Sunil, I’m not sure.”

“What we know with COMPARE CRUSH, and this is important, is that we tried to give the medication as soon as possible and tried to give this medication in a formulation which has the most favorable pharmacodynamics profile, and we still see it’s not doing the job,” he added.

Fellow panelist Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, questioned whether treatment time may play a role in teasing out the relatively modest differences that platelet reactivity may have on clinical outcomes.

Dr. Vlachojannis said the time from symptom onset to first medical contact was very fast and similar to that in the ATLANTIC trial. “The short time intervals have certainly influenced the outcomes.”

Panelist Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, followed up on the morphine issue, asking whether the investigators tested for an interaction between morphine or opioid use and platelet reactivity at the time of PCI.

“We haven’t looked into this but you probably have the ON-TIME 3 data in your mind when you’re asking this, where crushed ticagrelor given in the ambulance didn’t influence platelet reactivity at the time point of PCI,” Dr. Vlachojannis said. “We are going to look further into the data and certainly the platelet reactivity analysis is going to be very interesting in this data set.”

The study was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Maasstad Cardiovascular Research B.V. with unrestricted grants from Shanghai MicroPort Medical and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Vlachojannis declared receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, and research grants from Daiichi Sankyo and Shanghai MicroPort.

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

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers an alternative triage tool for acute GI bleeding that may reduce personnel exposure to SARS-CoV-2, based on a cohort study with historical controls.

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

VCE should be considered even when rapid coronavirus testing is available, as active bleeding is more likely to be detected when evaluated sooner, potentially sparing patients from invasive procedures, reported lead author Shahrad Hakimian, MD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worchester, and colleagues.

“Endoscopists and staff are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus through aerosols, as well as unintended, unrecognized splashes that are well known to occur frequently during routine endoscopy,” Dr. Hakimian said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although pretesting and delaying procedures as needed may mitigate risks of viral exposure, “many urgent procedures, such as endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, can’t really wait,” Dr. Hakimian said.

Current guidelines recommend early upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy for evaluation of GI bleeding, but Dr. Hakimian noted that two out of three initial tests are nondiagnostic, so multiple procedures are often needed to find an answer.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled trial coauthored by Dr. Hakimian’s colleagues demonstrated how VCE may be a better approach, as it more frequently detected active bleeding than standard of care (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

The present study built on these findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Hakimian and colleagues analyzed data from 50 consecutive, hemodynamically stable patients with severe anemia or suspected GI bleeding who underwent VCE as a first-line diagnostic modality from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (COVID arm). These patients were compared with 57 consecutive patients who were evaluated for acute GI bleeding or severe anemia with standard of care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID arm).

Characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar, although the COVID arm included a slightly older population, with a median age of 68 years, compared with a median age of 61.8 years for the pre-COVID arm (P = .03). Among presenting symptoms, hematochezia was less common in the COVID group (4% vs. 18%; P = .03). Comorbidities were not significantly different between cohorts.

Per the study design, 100% of patients in the COVID arm underwent VCE as their first diagnostic modality. In the pre-COVID arm, 82% of patients first underwent upper endoscopy, followed by colonoscopy (12%) and VCE (5%).

The main outcome, bleeding localization, did not differ between groups, whether this was confined to the first test, or in terms of final localization. But VCE was significantly better at detecting active bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, at a rate of 66%, compared with 28% in the pre-COVID group (P < .001). Patients in the COVID arm were also significantly less likely to need any invasive procedures (44% vs. 96%; P < .001).

No intergroup differences were observed in rates of blood transfusion, in-hospital or GI-bleed mortality, rebleeding, or readmission for bleeding.

“VCE appears to be a safe alternative to traditional diagnostic evaluation of GI bleeding in the era of COVID,” Dr. Hakimian concluded, noting that “the VCE-first strategy reduces the risk of staff exposure to endoscopic aerosols, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces staff utilization.”

According to Neil Sengupta, MD, of the University of Chicago, “a VCE-first strategy in GI bleeding may be a useful triage tool in the COVID-19 era to determine which patients truly benefit from invasive endoscopy,” although he also noted that “further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this approach.”

Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., had a similar opinion.

“VCE appears to be a reasonable alternative in this patient group, at least as a first step,” Dr. Hookey said. “However, whether it truly makes a difference in the decision making process would have to be assessed prospectively via a randomized controlled trial or a decision analysis done in real time at various steps of the patient’s care path.”

Erik A. Holzwanger, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, suggested that these findings may “serve as a foundation” for similar studies, “as it appears COVID-19 will be an ongoing obstacle in endoscopy for the foreseeable future.”

“It would be interesting to have further discussion of timing of VCE, any COVID-19 transmission to staff during the VCE placement, and discussion of what constituted proceeding with endoscopic intervention [high-risk lesion, active bleeding] in both groups,” he added.

David Cave, MD, PhD, coauthor of the present study and the 2015 ACG clinical guideline for small bowel bleeding, said that VCE is gaining ground as the diagnostic of choice for GI bleeding, and patients prefer it, since it does not require anesthesia.

“This abstract is another clear pointer to the way in which, we should in the future, investigate gastrointestinal bleeding, both acute and chronic,” Dr. Cave said. “We are at an inflection point of transition to a new technology.”

Dr. Cave disclosed relationships with Medtronic and Olympus. The other investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers an alternative triage tool for acute GI bleeding that may reduce personnel exposure to SARS-CoV-2, based on a cohort study with historical controls.

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

VCE should be considered even when rapid coronavirus testing is available, as active bleeding is more likely to be detected when evaluated sooner, potentially sparing patients from invasive procedures, reported lead author Shahrad Hakimian, MD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worchester, and colleagues.

“Endoscopists and staff are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus through aerosols, as well as unintended, unrecognized splashes that are well known to occur frequently during routine endoscopy,” Dr. Hakimian said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although pretesting and delaying procedures as needed may mitigate risks of viral exposure, “many urgent procedures, such as endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, can’t really wait,” Dr. Hakimian said.

Current guidelines recommend early upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy for evaluation of GI bleeding, but Dr. Hakimian noted that two out of three initial tests are nondiagnostic, so multiple procedures are often needed to find an answer.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled trial coauthored by Dr. Hakimian’s colleagues demonstrated how VCE may be a better approach, as it more frequently detected active bleeding than standard of care (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

The present study built on these findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Hakimian and colleagues analyzed data from 50 consecutive, hemodynamically stable patients with severe anemia or suspected GI bleeding who underwent VCE as a first-line diagnostic modality from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (COVID arm). These patients were compared with 57 consecutive patients who were evaluated for acute GI bleeding or severe anemia with standard of care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID arm).

Characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar, although the COVID arm included a slightly older population, with a median age of 68 years, compared with a median age of 61.8 years for the pre-COVID arm (P = .03). Among presenting symptoms, hematochezia was less common in the COVID group (4% vs. 18%; P = .03). Comorbidities were not significantly different between cohorts.

Per the study design, 100% of patients in the COVID arm underwent VCE as their first diagnostic modality. In the pre-COVID arm, 82% of patients first underwent upper endoscopy, followed by colonoscopy (12%) and VCE (5%).

The main outcome, bleeding localization, did not differ between groups, whether this was confined to the first test, or in terms of final localization. But VCE was significantly better at detecting active bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, at a rate of 66%, compared with 28% in the pre-COVID group (P < .001). Patients in the COVID arm were also significantly less likely to need any invasive procedures (44% vs. 96%; P < .001).

No intergroup differences were observed in rates of blood transfusion, in-hospital or GI-bleed mortality, rebleeding, or readmission for bleeding.

“VCE appears to be a safe alternative to traditional diagnostic evaluation of GI bleeding in the era of COVID,” Dr. Hakimian concluded, noting that “the VCE-first strategy reduces the risk of staff exposure to endoscopic aerosols, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces staff utilization.”

According to Neil Sengupta, MD, of the University of Chicago, “a VCE-first strategy in GI bleeding may be a useful triage tool in the COVID-19 era to determine which patients truly benefit from invasive endoscopy,” although he also noted that “further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this approach.”

Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., had a similar opinion.

“VCE appears to be a reasonable alternative in this patient group, at least as a first step,” Dr. Hookey said. “However, whether it truly makes a difference in the decision making process would have to be assessed prospectively via a randomized controlled trial or a decision analysis done in real time at various steps of the patient’s care path.”

Erik A. Holzwanger, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, suggested that these findings may “serve as a foundation” for similar studies, “as it appears COVID-19 will be an ongoing obstacle in endoscopy for the foreseeable future.”

“It would be interesting to have further discussion of timing of VCE, any COVID-19 transmission to staff during the VCE placement, and discussion of what constituted proceeding with endoscopic intervention [high-risk lesion, active bleeding] in both groups,” he added.

David Cave, MD, PhD, coauthor of the present study and the 2015 ACG clinical guideline for small bowel bleeding, said that VCE is gaining ground as the diagnostic of choice for GI bleeding, and patients prefer it, since it does not require anesthesia.

“This abstract is another clear pointer to the way in which, we should in the future, investigate gastrointestinal bleeding, both acute and chronic,” Dr. Cave said. “We are at an inflection point of transition to a new technology.”

Dr. Cave disclosed relationships with Medtronic and Olympus. The other investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) offers an alternative triage tool for acute GI bleeding that may reduce personnel exposure to SARS-CoV-2, based on a cohort study with historical controls.

Yuuji/iStock/Getty Images

VCE should be considered even when rapid coronavirus testing is available, as active bleeding is more likely to be detected when evaluated sooner, potentially sparing patients from invasive procedures, reported lead author Shahrad Hakimian, MD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worchester, and colleagues.

“Endoscopists and staff are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus through aerosols, as well as unintended, unrecognized splashes that are well known to occur frequently during routine endoscopy,” Dr. Hakimian said during a virtual presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Although pretesting and delaying procedures as needed may mitigate risks of viral exposure, “many urgent procedures, such as endoscopic evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding, can’t really wait,” Dr. Hakimian said.

Current guidelines recommend early upper endoscopy and/or colonoscopy for evaluation of GI bleeding, but Dr. Hakimian noted that two out of three initial tests are nondiagnostic, so multiple procedures are often needed to find an answer.

In 2018, a randomized, controlled trial coauthored by Dr. Hakimian’s colleagues demonstrated how VCE may be a better approach, as it more frequently detected active bleeding than standard of care (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.64).

The present study built on these findings in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dr. Hakimian and colleagues analyzed data from 50 consecutive, hemodynamically stable patients with severe anemia or suspected GI bleeding who underwent VCE as a first-line diagnostic modality from mid-March to mid-May 2020 (COVID arm). These patients were compared with 57 consecutive patients who were evaluated for acute GI bleeding or severe anemia with standard of care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-COVID arm).

Characteristics of the two cohorts were generally similar, although the COVID arm included a slightly older population, with a median age of 68 years, compared with a median age of 61.8 years for the pre-COVID arm (P = .03). Among presenting symptoms, hematochezia was less common in the COVID group (4% vs. 18%; P = .03). Comorbidities were not significantly different between cohorts.

Per the study design, 100% of patients in the COVID arm underwent VCE as their first diagnostic modality. In the pre-COVID arm, 82% of patients first underwent upper endoscopy, followed by colonoscopy (12%) and VCE (5%).

The main outcome, bleeding localization, did not differ between groups, whether this was confined to the first test, or in terms of final localization. But VCE was significantly better at detecting active bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, at a rate of 66%, compared with 28% in the pre-COVID group (P < .001). Patients in the COVID arm were also significantly less likely to need any invasive procedures (44% vs. 96%; P < .001).

No intergroup differences were observed in rates of blood transfusion, in-hospital or GI-bleed mortality, rebleeding, or readmission for bleeding.

“VCE appears to be a safe alternative to traditional diagnostic evaluation of GI bleeding in the era of COVID,” Dr. Hakimian concluded, noting that “the VCE-first strategy reduces the risk of staff exposure to endoscopic aerosols, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces staff utilization.”

According to Neil Sengupta, MD, of the University of Chicago, “a VCE-first strategy in GI bleeding may be a useful triage tool in the COVID-19 era to determine which patients truly benefit from invasive endoscopy,” although he also noted that “further data are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of this approach.”

Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., had a similar opinion.

“VCE appears to be a reasonable alternative in this patient group, at least as a first step,” Dr. Hookey said. “However, whether it truly makes a difference in the decision making process would have to be assessed prospectively via a randomized controlled trial or a decision analysis done in real time at various steps of the patient’s care path.”

Erik A. Holzwanger, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, suggested that these findings may “serve as a foundation” for similar studies, “as it appears COVID-19 will be an ongoing obstacle in endoscopy for the foreseeable future.”

“It would be interesting to have further discussion of timing of VCE, any COVID-19 transmission to staff during the VCE placement, and discussion of what constituted proceeding with endoscopic intervention [high-risk lesion, active bleeding] in both groups,” he added.

David Cave, MD, PhD, coauthor of the present study and the 2015 ACG clinical guideline for small bowel bleeding, said that VCE is gaining ground as the diagnostic of choice for GI bleeding, and patients prefer it, since it does not require anesthesia.

“This abstract is another clear pointer to the way in which, we should in the future, investigate gastrointestinal bleeding, both acute and chronic,” Dr. Cave said. “We are at an inflection point of transition to a new technology.”

Dr. Cave disclosed relationships with Medtronic and Olympus. The other investigators and interviewees reported no conflicts of interest.

A new poll of emergency physicians on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic shows many are fearful of seeking mental health care for fear of stigma and the potential career impact.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

The results of the nationally representative poll, conducted Oct. 7-13 by the American College of Emergency Physicians, showed almost half (45%) of 862 emergency physician respondents reported being uncomfortable seeking available psychiatric care. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The findings provide new insight into both the challenges of serving in emergency medicine during the pandemic and the persistent barriers to mental health care in terms of stigma and concerns about potential career setbacks.

In the poll, 42% of respondents said they have been feeling much more stress since the start of COVID-19, with another 45% report they were feeling somewhat more stressed.

When asked about causes of stress related directly to COVID-19, 83% cited concerns about family and friends contracting COVID-19. Also factoring into emergency physicians’ stress and burnout were concerns about their own safety (80%) and lack of personal protective equipment or other needed resources (60%).

In the poll, 29% of respondents reported having excellent access to mental health treatment and 42% reported having good access. Despite this, 30% of respondents still reported feeling there was a lot of stigma in their workplace about seeking mental health treatment, with another 43% reporting they felt there was some stigma.

Poll results also showed that 24% of respondents were very concerned about what might happen with their employment if they were to seek mental health treatment, with another 33% saying they were somewhat concerned.

In recent years there have been efforts to break down cultural roadblocks in medicine that deter many physicians from seeking mental health treatment, but more needs to be done, said Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, who was elected president of ACEP at last weekend’s annual meeting, ACEP20.

“The pandemic emphatically underscores our need to change the status quo when it comes to physicians’ mental health,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, current efforts to remove such barriers include initiatives to limit inquiries into clinicians’ past or present mental health treatment.

In May, the influential Joint Commission issued a statement urging organizations to refrain from asking about any history of mental health conditions or treatment. The Joint Commission said it supports recommendations already made by the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Medical Association to limit inquiries on licensing applications to conditions that currently impair a clinician’s ability to perform their job.

Also supporting these efforts is the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation, created in honor of an emergency physician who died by suicide in April amid the pandemic.

Lorna Breen, MD, had been working intensely in the response to the pandemic. During one shift, she covered two EDs in Manhattan at locations 5 miles apart, according to a backgrounder on the foundation’s web site.

At an ACEP press conference this week, Dr. Breen’s brother-in-law, J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, cofounder of the foundation, noted that some states’ licensing applications for physicians include questions that fall outside of the boundaries of the Americans With Disabilities Act. He cited an analysis of state medical boards’ initial licensing questions published in 2018 in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

In many cases, states have posed questions that extend beyond an assessment of a physician’s current ability to care for patients, creating a needless hurdle to seeking care, wrote the paper’s lead author, Carol North, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“Over the years, many medical licensure boards have asked applicants intrusive questions about whether they have any psychiatric history. This has created a major problem for applicants, and unfortunately this has discouraged many of those who need psychiatric treatment from seeking it because of fear of the questions,” Dr. North and colleagues noted. They cited Ohio as an example of a state that had overhauled its approach to questioning to bring it in compliance with the ADA.

Ohio previously required applicants to answer lengthy questions about their mental health, including:

• Within the last 10 years, have you been diagnosed with or have you been treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
• Have you, since attaining the age of eighteen or within the last 10 years, whichever period is shorter, been admitted to a hospital or other facility for the treatment of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
• Do you have, or have you been diagnosed as having, a medical condition which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety?

In the new version, the single question reads: “In the past 5 years, have you been diagnosed as having, or been hospitalized for, a medical condition which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety?”

Other states such as New York pose no mental health questions on applications for licensure.

Still, even when states have nondiscriminatory laws, physicians may not be aware of them, said Mr. Feist at an ACEP press conference. In addition to his work with the foundation, Mr. Feist is the CEO of the University of Virginia Physicians Group.

He said his sister-in-law Dr. Breen may have worried without cause about potential consequences of seeking psychiatric treatment during the pandemic. In addition, physicians in need of psychiatric care may worry about encountering hitches with medical organizations and insurers.

“This stigma and this fear of professional action on your license or your credentialing or privileging is pervasive throughout the industry,” he said.

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

A new poll of emergency physicians on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic shows many are fearful of seeking mental health care for fear of stigma and the potential career impact.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

The results of the nationally representative poll, conducted Oct. 7-13 by the American College of Emergency Physicians, showed almost half (45%) of 862 emergency physician respondents reported being uncomfortable seeking available psychiatric care. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The findings provide new insight into both the challenges of serving in emergency medicine during the pandemic and the persistent barriers to mental health care in terms of stigma and concerns about potential career setbacks.

In the poll, 42% of respondents said they have been feeling much more stress since the start of COVID-19, with another 45% report they were feeling somewhat more stressed.

When asked about causes of stress related directly to COVID-19, 83% cited concerns about family and friends contracting COVID-19. Also factoring into emergency physicians’ stress and burnout were concerns about their own safety (80%) and lack of personal protective equipment or other needed resources (60%).

In the poll, 29% of respondents reported having excellent access to mental health treatment and 42% reported having good access. Despite this, 30% of respondents still reported feeling there was a lot of stigma in their workplace about seeking mental health treatment, with another 43% reporting they felt there was some stigma.

Poll results also showed that 24% of respondents were very concerned about what might happen with their employment if they were to seek mental health treatment, with another 33% saying they were somewhat concerned.

In recent years there have been efforts to break down cultural roadblocks in medicine that deter many physicians from seeking mental health treatment, but more needs to be done, said Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, who was elected president of ACEP at last weekend’s annual meeting, ACEP20.

“The pandemic emphatically underscores our need to change the status quo when it comes to physicians’ mental health,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, current efforts to remove such barriers include initiatives to limit inquiries into clinicians’ past or present mental health treatment.

In May, the influential Joint Commission issued a statement urging organizations to refrain from asking about any history of mental health conditions or treatment. The Joint Commission said it supports recommendations already made by the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Medical Association to limit inquiries on licensing applications to conditions that currently impair a clinician’s ability to perform their job.

Also supporting these efforts is the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation, created in honor of an emergency physician who died by suicide in April amid the pandemic.

Lorna Breen, MD, had been working intensely in the response to the pandemic. During one shift, she covered two EDs in Manhattan at locations 5 miles apart, according to a backgrounder on the foundation’s web site.

At an ACEP press conference this week, Dr. Breen’s brother-in-law, J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, cofounder of the foundation, noted that some states’ licensing applications for physicians include questions that fall outside of the boundaries of the Americans With Disabilities Act. He cited an analysis of state medical boards’ initial licensing questions published in 2018 in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

In many cases, states have posed questions that extend beyond an assessment of a physician’s current ability to care for patients, creating a needless hurdle to seeking care, wrote the paper’s lead author, Carol North, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“Over the years, many medical licensure boards have asked applicants intrusive questions about whether they have any psychiatric history. This has created a major problem for applicants, and unfortunately this has discouraged many of those who need psychiatric treatment from seeking it because of fear of the questions,” Dr. North and colleagues noted. They cited Ohio as an example of a state that had overhauled its approach to questioning to bring it in compliance with the ADA.

Ohio previously required applicants to answer lengthy questions about their mental health, including:

• Within the last 10 years, have you been diagnosed with or have you been treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
• Have you, since attaining the age of eighteen or within the last 10 years, whichever period is shorter, been admitted to a hospital or other facility for the treatment of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
• Do you have, or have you been diagnosed as having, a medical condition which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety?

In the new version, the single question reads: “In the past 5 years, have you been diagnosed as having, or been hospitalized for, a medical condition which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety?”

Other states such as New York pose no mental health questions on applications for licensure.

Still, even when states have nondiscriminatory laws, physicians may not be aware of them, said Mr. Feist at an ACEP press conference. In addition to his work with the foundation, Mr. Feist is the CEO of the University of Virginia Physicians Group.

He said his sister-in-law Dr. Breen may have worried without cause about potential consequences of seeking psychiatric treatment during the pandemic. In addition, physicians in need of psychiatric care may worry about encountering hitches with medical organizations and insurers.

“This stigma and this fear of professional action on your license or your credentialing or privileging is pervasive throughout the industry,” he said.

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

A new poll of emergency physicians on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic shows many are fearful of seeking mental health care for fear of stigma and the potential career impact.

wutwhanfoto/Getty Images

The results of the nationally representative poll, conducted Oct. 7-13 by the American College of Emergency Physicians, showed almost half (45%) of 862 emergency physician respondents reported being uncomfortable seeking available psychiatric care. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The findings provide new insight into both the challenges of serving in emergency medicine during the pandemic and the persistent barriers to mental health care in terms of stigma and concerns about potential career setbacks.

In the poll, 42% of respondents said they have been feeling much more stress since the start of COVID-19, with another 45% report they were feeling somewhat more stressed.

When asked about causes of stress related directly to COVID-19, 83% cited concerns about family and friends contracting COVID-19. Also factoring into emergency physicians’ stress and burnout were concerns about their own safety (80%) and lack of personal protective equipment or other needed resources (60%).

In the poll, 29% of respondents reported having excellent access to mental health treatment and 42% reported having good access. Despite this, 30% of respondents still reported feeling there was a lot of stigma in their workplace about seeking mental health treatment, with another 43% reporting they felt there was some stigma.

Poll results also showed that 24% of respondents were very concerned about what might happen with their employment if they were to seek mental health treatment, with another 33% saying they were somewhat concerned.

In recent years there have been efforts to break down cultural roadblocks in medicine that deter many physicians from seeking mental health treatment, but more needs to be done, said Mark Rosenberg, DO, MBA, who was elected president of ACEP at last weekend’s annual meeting, ACEP20.

“The pandemic emphatically underscores our need to change the status quo when it comes to physicians’ mental health,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, current efforts to remove such barriers include initiatives to limit inquiries into clinicians’ past or present mental health treatment.

In May, the influential Joint Commission issued a statement urging organizations to refrain from asking about any history of mental health conditions or treatment. The Joint Commission said it supports recommendations already made by the Federation of State Medical Boards and the American Medical Association to limit inquiries on licensing applications to conditions that currently impair a clinician’s ability to perform their job.

Also supporting these efforts is the Dr. Lorna Breen Heroes’ Foundation, created in honor of an emergency physician who died by suicide in April amid the pandemic.

Lorna Breen, MD, had been working intensely in the response to the pandemic. During one shift, she covered two EDs in Manhattan at locations 5 miles apart, according to a backgrounder on the foundation’s web site.

At an ACEP press conference this week, Dr. Breen’s brother-in-law, J. Corey Feist, JD, MBA, cofounder of the foundation, noted that some states’ licensing applications for physicians include questions that fall outside of the boundaries of the Americans With Disabilities Act. He cited an analysis of state medical boards’ initial licensing questions published in 2018 in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

In many cases, states have posed questions that extend beyond an assessment of a physician’s current ability to care for patients, creating a needless hurdle to seeking care, wrote the paper’s lead author, Carol North, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“Over the years, many medical licensure boards have asked applicants intrusive questions about whether they have any psychiatric history. This has created a major problem for applicants, and unfortunately this has discouraged many of those who need psychiatric treatment from seeking it because of fear of the questions,” Dr. North and colleagues noted. They cited Ohio as an example of a state that had overhauled its approach to questioning to bring it in compliance with the ADA.

Ohio previously required applicants to answer lengthy questions about their mental health, including:

• Within the last 10 years, have you been diagnosed with or have you been treated for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
• Have you, since attaining the age of eighteen or within the last 10 years, whichever period is shorter, been admitted to a hospital or other facility for the treatment of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, or any other psychotic disorder?
• Do you have, or have you been diagnosed as having, a medical condition which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety?

In the new version, the single question reads: “In the past 5 years, have you been diagnosed as having, or been hospitalized for, a medical condition which in any way impairs or limits your ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety?”

Other states such as New York pose no mental health questions on applications for licensure.

Still, even when states have nondiscriminatory laws, physicians may not be aware of them, said Mr. Feist at an ACEP press conference. In addition to his work with the foundation, Mr. Feist is the CEO of the University of Virginia Physicians Group.

He said his sister-in-law Dr. Breen may have worried without cause about potential consequences of seeking psychiatric treatment during the pandemic. In addition, physicians in need of psychiatric care may worry about encountering hitches with medical organizations and insurers.

“This stigma and this fear of professional action on your license or your credentialing or privileging is pervasive throughout the industry,” he said.

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

A new consensus statement offers detailed guidelines for inpatient use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.

Aimed at clinicians, researchers, and hospital administrators, the open-access document was recently published by a multidisciplinary international panel of 24 experts in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

The statement includes 77 separate recommendations under five headings: 1) continued use of CGM by patients already using them at home, 2) initiation of CGM in hospital, 3) continuation of AID systems in hospital by patients already using them at home, 4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGM and AID systems, and 5) data management of CGM and AID systems in hospital.

“This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date guideline on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital now,” lead author Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

“Overall, most experts believe that CGM and AID have the potential to overcome the current limitations of glycemic monitoring in the hospital to improve patient outcomes, but we need research – first to get the approval and second to get widespread use,” said Galindo, medical chair of the hospital diabetes taskforce at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
 

“COVID-19 changed everything”

The guideline is an update of a 2017 statement on hospital use of CGM. The new guideline adds AID systems (sometimes referred to as an artificial pancreas), which combines a CGM and insulin pump and uses an algorithm to guide insulin delivery, and is the first to be developed during the COVID-19 era.

The update had been planned prior to the pandemic, but the actual panel meeting took place in April 2020, after the US Food and Drug Administration allowed inpatient use of CGM despite lack of official approval.

“COVID-19 changed everything. ... We had to be more specific about how to implement CGM in these patients. The standard of care is hourly point-of-care glucose monitoring in the [ICU], and at least every 4 hours outside the ICU. With limited [personal protective equipment] and the burden on nursing it was unachievable,” Galindo explained.

In June 2020, Galindo and other guideline authors developed a COVID-19–specific document (also open-access), which goes more into detail about CGM and how to implement in-hospital use during the pandemic.

The current consensus guideline “provides a high-level review of the evidence by experts,” Galindo added.
 

Recommendations cover different technologies and hospital settings

The panel “strongly” advises that hospital providers consult with an inpatient diabetes team, if available, to help manage patients already using CGM prior to admission. Among other recommendations, they list several situations in which CGM data should not be relied upon for management decisions, including severe hyper- or hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or in patients with skin infections near the sensor site.

The panel also call for more research into outcomes for CGM continuation in the hospital and optimal implementation of both CGM and point-of-care glucose testing. For hospitals, strong recommendations include developing standard CGM data reports and workflows, as well as policies for CGM use.

Galindo pointed out: “A lot of hospitals have policies on that, but there aren’t many studies. It’s just that patients like it and it’s very hard to take it away from patients when they’re doing well.”

The section on CGM inpatient initiation is where COVID-19 plays the greatest role, which includes just one strong clinical practice recommendation: “Healthcare providers should consider prescribing CGM to reduce the need for frequent nurse contact for point-of-care glucose testing and the use of personal protective equipment for patients on isolation with highly contagious infectious diseases (eg, COVID-19).”

Strong recommendations also include a call for outcomes research and for hospitals to develop CGM protocols and educational tools for staff.

“We can do a study for approval but if administration and hospital policies aren’t there we’re not going to be able to use them,” Galindo noted.

For patients who already use AID systems – either the Medtronic 670G or Tandem Control IQ in the United States – the panel advises assessment to ensure the AID system is the most appropriate inpatient treatment, and the development of an alternative plan for diabetes management, if necessary. They also strongly recommend research in this area, and for hospitals to develop protocols for use of AID systems in various clinical situations.
 

Most detailed guidance addresses logistics and data management

Most of the strong recommendations regarding logistics are aimed at nursing staff, including receiving training in use of CGM and AID systems, confirming patient capacity, inspection of devices, and understanding when to administer a point-of-care glucose test.

Again, the panel calls for more data and for hospitals to develop policies and protocols for ensuring safe CGM and AID systems use, and when to avoid use.

Finally, they make one strong clinical recommendation regarding data management: “Healthcare providers should develop a set of core data elements and definitions for CGM data for inclusion in common data models and the electronic health record.”

That’s followed by a long list of relevant recommendations for research in the area, and for hospitals to integrate CGM and AID system data into their EHR systems.

This last area has proven particularly challenging, Galindo said. “Right now we do four point-of-care glucoses a day, and that goes right into the EHR, but with CGM it’s much more than that. How do we get all those data into the EHR and interpret it? Many steps need to be taken into consideration.”

Studies are being conducted in order to fulfill requirements for FDA approval of inpatient CGM use, he said, with data on implementation and inpatient AID system use to follow.

“More data will be available, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of technology in the hospital goes beyond COVID-19,” he said

Galindo has reported receiving unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Valeritas. He is partially supported by research grants from the NIH/NIDDK.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement offers detailed guidelines for inpatient use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.

Aimed at clinicians, researchers, and hospital administrators, the open-access document was recently published by a multidisciplinary international panel of 24 experts in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

The statement includes 77 separate recommendations under five headings: 1) continued use of CGM by patients already using them at home, 2) initiation of CGM in hospital, 3) continuation of AID systems in hospital by patients already using them at home, 4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGM and AID systems, and 5) data management of CGM and AID systems in hospital.

“This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date guideline on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital now,” lead author Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

“Overall, most experts believe that CGM and AID have the potential to overcome the current limitations of glycemic monitoring in the hospital to improve patient outcomes, but we need research – first to get the approval and second to get widespread use,” said Galindo, medical chair of the hospital diabetes taskforce at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
 

“COVID-19 changed everything”

The guideline is an update of a 2017 statement on hospital use of CGM. The new guideline adds AID systems (sometimes referred to as an artificial pancreas), which combines a CGM and insulin pump and uses an algorithm to guide insulin delivery, and is the first to be developed during the COVID-19 era.

The update had been planned prior to the pandemic, but the actual panel meeting took place in April 2020, after the US Food and Drug Administration allowed inpatient use of CGM despite lack of official approval.

“COVID-19 changed everything. ... We had to be more specific about how to implement CGM in these patients. The standard of care is hourly point-of-care glucose monitoring in the [ICU], and at least every 4 hours outside the ICU. With limited [personal protective equipment] and the burden on nursing it was unachievable,” Galindo explained.

In June 2020, Galindo and other guideline authors developed a COVID-19–specific document (also open-access), which goes more into detail about CGM and how to implement in-hospital use during the pandemic.

The current consensus guideline “provides a high-level review of the evidence by experts,” Galindo added.
 

Recommendations cover different technologies and hospital settings

The panel “strongly” advises that hospital providers consult with an inpatient diabetes team, if available, to help manage patients already using CGM prior to admission. Among other recommendations, they list several situations in which CGM data should not be relied upon for management decisions, including severe hyper- or hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or in patients with skin infections near the sensor site.

The panel also call for more research into outcomes for CGM continuation in the hospital and optimal implementation of both CGM and point-of-care glucose testing. For hospitals, strong recommendations include developing standard CGM data reports and workflows, as well as policies for CGM use.

Galindo pointed out: “A lot of hospitals have policies on that, but there aren’t many studies. It’s just that patients like it and it’s very hard to take it away from patients when they’re doing well.”

The section on CGM inpatient initiation is where COVID-19 plays the greatest role, which includes just one strong clinical practice recommendation: “Healthcare providers should consider prescribing CGM to reduce the need for frequent nurse contact for point-of-care glucose testing and the use of personal protective equipment for patients on isolation with highly contagious infectious diseases (eg, COVID-19).”

Strong recommendations also include a call for outcomes research and for hospitals to develop CGM protocols and educational tools for staff.

“We can do a study for approval but if administration and hospital policies aren’t there we’re not going to be able to use them,” Galindo noted.

For patients who already use AID systems – either the Medtronic 670G or Tandem Control IQ in the United States – the panel advises assessment to ensure the AID system is the most appropriate inpatient treatment, and the development of an alternative plan for diabetes management, if necessary. They also strongly recommend research in this area, and for hospitals to develop protocols for use of AID systems in various clinical situations.
 

Most detailed guidance addresses logistics and data management

Most of the strong recommendations regarding logistics are aimed at nursing staff, including receiving training in use of CGM and AID systems, confirming patient capacity, inspection of devices, and understanding when to administer a point-of-care glucose test.

Again, the panel calls for more data and for hospitals to develop policies and protocols for ensuring safe CGM and AID systems use, and when to avoid use.

Finally, they make one strong clinical recommendation regarding data management: “Healthcare providers should develop a set of core data elements and definitions for CGM data for inclusion in common data models and the electronic health record.”

That’s followed by a long list of relevant recommendations for research in the area, and for hospitals to integrate CGM and AID system data into their EHR systems.

This last area has proven particularly challenging, Galindo said. “Right now we do four point-of-care glucoses a day, and that goes right into the EHR, but with CGM it’s much more than that. How do we get all those data into the EHR and interpret it? Many steps need to be taken into consideration.”

Studies are being conducted in order to fulfill requirements for FDA approval of inpatient CGM use, he said, with data on implementation and inpatient AID system use to follow.

“More data will be available, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of technology in the hospital goes beyond COVID-19,” he said

Galindo has reported receiving unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Valeritas. He is partially supported by research grants from the NIH/NIDDK.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new consensus statement offers detailed guidelines for inpatient use of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) and automated insulin delivery (AID) systems.

Aimed at clinicians, researchers, and hospital administrators, the open-access document was recently published by a multidisciplinary international panel of 24 experts in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology.

The statement includes 77 separate recommendations under five headings: 1) continued use of CGM by patients already using them at home, 2) initiation of CGM in hospital, 3) continuation of AID systems in hospital by patients already using them at home, 4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGM and AID systems, and 5) data management of CGM and AID systems in hospital.

“This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date guideline on the use of diabetes technology in the hospital now,” lead author Rodolfo J. Galindo, MD, told Medscape Medical News in an interview.

“Overall, most experts believe that CGM and AID have the potential to overcome the current limitations of glycemic monitoring in the hospital to improve patient outcomes, but we need research – first to get the approval and second to get widespread use,” said Galindo, medical chair of the hospital diabetes taskforce at Emory Healthcare System, Atlanta.
 

“COVID-19 changed everything”

The guideline is an update of a 2017 statement on hospital use of CGM. The new guideline adds AID systems (sometimes referred to as an artificial pancreas), which combines a CGM and insulin pump and uses an algorithm to guide insulin delivery, and is the first to be developed during the COVID-19 era.

The update had been planned prior to the pandemic, but the actual panel meeting took place in April 2020, after the US Food and Drug Administration allowed inpatient use of CGM despite lack of official approval.

“COVID-19 changed everything. ... We had to be more specific about how to implement CGM in these patients. The standard of care is hourly point-of-care glucose monitoring in the [ICU], and at least every 4 hours outside the ICU. With limited [personal protective equipment] and the burden on nursing it was unachievable,” Galindo explained.

In June 2020, Galindo and other guideline authors developed a COVID-19–specific document (also open-access), which goes more into detail about CGM and how to implement in-hospital use during the pandemic.

The current consensus guideline “provides a high-level review of the evidence by experts,” Galindo added.
 

Recommendations cover different technologies and hospital settings

The panel “strongly” advises that hospital providers consult with an inpatient diabetes team, if available, to help manage patients already using CGM prior to admission. Among other recommendations, they list several situations in which CGM data should not be relied upon for management decisions, including severe hyper- or hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or in patients with skin infections near the sensor site.

The panel also call for more research into outcomes for CGM continuation in the hospital and optimal implementation of both CGM and point-of-care glucose testing. For hospitals, strong recommendations include developing standard CGM data reports and workflows, as well as policies for CGM use.

Galindo pointed out: “A lot of hospitals have policies on that, but there aren’t many studies. It’s just that patients like it and it’s very hard to take it away from patients when they’re doing well.”

The section on CGM inpatient initiation is where COVID-19 plays the greatest role, which includes just one strong clinical practice recommendation: “Healthcare providers should consider prescribing CGM to reduce the need for frequent nurse contact for point-of-care glucose testing and the use of personal protective equipment for patients on isolation with highly contagious infectious diseases (eg, COVID-19).”

Strong recommendations also include a call for outcomes research and for hospitals to develop CGM protocols and educational tools for staff.

“We can do a study for approval but if administration and hospital policies aren’t there we’re not going to be able to use them,” Galindo noted.

For patients who already use AID systems – either the Medtronic 670G or Tandem Control IQ in the United States – the panel advises assessment to ensure the AID system is the most appropriate inpatient treatment, and the development of an alternative plan for diabetes management, if necessary. They also strongly recommend research in this area, and for hospitals to develop protocols for use of AID systems in various clinical situations.
 

Most detailed guidance addresses logistics and data management

Most of the strong recommendations regarding logistics are aimed at nursing staff, including receiving training in use of CGM and AID systems, confirming patient capacity, inspection of devices, and understanding when to administer a point-of-care glucose test.

Again, the panel calls for more data and for hospitals to develop policies and protocols for ensuring safe CGM and AID systems use, and when to avoid use.

Finally, they make one strong clinical recommendation regarding data management: “Healthcare providers should develop a set of core data elements and definitions for CGM data for inclusion in common data models and the electronic health record.”

That’s followed by a long list of relevant recommendations for research in the area, and for hospitals to integrate CGM and AID system data into their EHR systems.

This last area has proven particularly challenging, Galindo said. “Right now we do four point-of-care glucoses a day, and that goes right into the EHR, but with CGM it’s much more than that. How do we get all those data into the EHR and interpret it? Many steps need to be taken into consideration.”

Studies are being conducted in order to fulfill requirements for FDA approval of inpatient CGM use, he said, with data on implementation and inpatient AID system use to follow.

“More data will be available, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of technology in the hospital goes beyond COVID-19,” he said

Galindo has reported receiving unrestricted research support to Emory for investigator-initiated studies from Novo Nordisk and Dexcom, and consulting fees from Abbott Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Valeritas. He is partially supported by research grants from the NIH/NIDDK.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has released a new Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The document provides guidance to clinicians in identifying and managing this common complication of TAVR, covering the pre-TAVR, periprocedural and post-TAVR periods.

“Conduction disturbances after TAVR are common and there is currently heterogeneity in how they’re managed, ranging from a casual observational approach to invasive electrophysiological studies and preemptive pacemaker implantation,” said writing committee chair Scott Lilly, MD, PhD, from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

“We felt this kind of collaborative effort to review what little research there is on this topic and come to [an] expert consensus was long overdue,” he added.

The document was published online Oct. 21 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Lilly stressed in an interview that this effort is an ECDP and not a guideline “because there is not data out there to solidly stand on and say, ‘This is the way we should do things.’ “

His hope is that this document will generate more discussion on this topic and spur some (probably National Institutes of Health–sponsored) clinical trials to better guide practice.
 

Not uncommon and not decreasing

Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is seen in about 15% of patients within 30 days after TAVR. While this is a clear indication for PPM, there is no consensus on the management of less severe conduction disturbances such as new bundle branch or transient complete atrioventricular (AV) heart block.

Unlike the rates of bleeding, vascular injury, and stroke, which have decreased over time, the rates of in-hospital PPM implantation after TAVR have not changed significantly since commercialization in 2012. This is a concern because TAVR is increasingly used in younger, lower-risk patients.

“The pacemaker rate really hasn’t improved at a clip we would like to see if it was going to be a durable technology,” Dr. Lilly said.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after TAVR has been elusive. This is a result of several things: a dearth of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved.

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, but do not provide in-depth discussion on the topic. This is the first effort sponsored by a cardiovascular society in the United States to review the existing data and experience and propose evidence-based expert guidance.
 

Pre-TAVR assessment

Pre-TAVR assessment should consider the patient’s risk for postprocedure conduction disturbances, the authors said. Since bradyarrythmias and aortic stenosis may present similarly (fatigue, lightheadedness, and syncope being hallmarks of both), a careful history is needed to determine if bradyarrhythmia is present.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) or ambulatory rhythm monitoring may identify baseline conduction abnormalities and help predict the need for post-TAVR PPM.

“In this section, we underscored some of the literature that has raised awareness about the presence of preexisting arrhythmias in TAVR patients and suggest that monitoring in selected patients before the procedure is reasonable, particularly those presenting with syncope or lightheadedness,” said Dr. Lilly.
 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.
 

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.
 

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

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has released a new Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The document provides guidance to clinicians in identifying and managing this common complication of TAVR, covering the pre-TAVR, periprocedural and post-TAVR periods.

“Conduction disturbances after TAVR are common and there is currently heterogeneity in how they’re managed, ranging from a casual observational approach to invasive electrophysiological studies and preemptive pacemaker implantation,” said writing committee chair Scott Lilly, MD, PhD, from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

“We felt this kind of collaborative effort to review what little research there is on this topic and come to [an] expert consensus was long overdue,” he added.

The document was published online Oct. 21 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Lilly stressed in an interview that this effort is an ECDP and not a guideline “because there is not data out there to solidly stand on and say, ‘This is the way we should do things.’ “

His hope is that this document will generate more discussion on this topic and spur some (probably National Institutes of Health–sponsored) clinical trials to better guide practice.
 

Not uncommon and not decreasing

Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is seen in about 15% of patients within 30 days after TAVR. While this is a clear indication for PPM, there is no consensus on the management of less severe conduction disturbances such as new bundle branch or transient complete atrioventricular (AV) heart block.

Unlike the rates of bleeding, vascular injury, and stroke, which have decreased over time, the rates of in-hospital PPM implantation after TAVR have not changed significantly since commercialization in 2012. This is a concern because TAVR is increasingly used in younger, lower-risk patients.

“The pacemaker rate really hasn’t improved at a clip we would like to see if it was going to be a durable technology,” Dr. Lilly said.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after TAVR has been elusive. This is a result of several things: a dearth of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved.

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, but do not provide in-depth discussion on the topic. This is the first effort sponsored by a cardiovascular society in the United States to review the existing data and experience and propose evidence-based expert guidance.
 

Pre-TAVR assessment

Pre-TAVR assessment should consider the patient’s risk for postprocedure conduction disturbances, the authors said. Since bradyarrythmias and aortic stenosis may present similarly (fatigue, lightheadedness, and syncope being hallmarks of both), a careful history is needed to determine if bradyarrhythmia is present.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) or ambulatory rhythm monitoring may identify baseline conduction abnormalities and help predict the need for post-TAVR PPM.

“In this section, we underscored some of the literature that has raised awareness about the presence of preexisting arrhythmias in TAVR patients and suggest that monitoring in selected patients before the procedure is reasonable, particularly those presenting with syncope or lightheadedness,” said Dr. Lilly.
 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.
 

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.
 

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

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) has released a new Expert Consensus Decision Pathway (ECDP) on the management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The document provides guidance to clinicians in identifying and managing this common complication of TAVR, covering the pre-TAVR, periprocedural and post-TAVR periods.

“Conduction disturbances after TAVR are common and there is currently heterogeneity in how they’re managed, ranging from a casual observational approach to invasive electrophysiological studies and preemptive pacemaker implantation,” said writing committee chair Scott Lilly, MD, PhD, from the Ohio State Wexner Medical Center in Columbus.

“We felt this kind of collaborative effort to review what little research there is on this topic and come to [an] expert consensus was long overdue,” he added.

The document was published online Oct. 21 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Dr. Lilly stressed in an interview that this effort is an ECDP and not a guideline “because there is not data out there to solidly stand on and say, ‘This is the way we should do things.’ “

His hope is that this document will generate more discussion on this topic and spur some (probably National Institutes of Health–sponsored) clinical trials to better guide practice.
 

Not uncommon and not decreasing

Complete heart block requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is seen in about 15% of patients within 30 days after TAVR. While this is a clear indication for PPM, there is no consensus on the management of less severe conduction disturbances such as new bundle branch or transient complete atrioventricular (AV) heart block.

Unlike the rates of bleeding, vascular injury, and stroke, which have decreased over time, the rates of in-hospital PPM implantation after TAVR have not changed significantly since commercialization in 2012. This is a concern because TAVR is increasingly used in younger, lower-risk patients.

“The pacemaker rate really hasn’t improved at a clip we would like to see if it was going to be a durable technology,” Dr. Lilly said.

Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage cardiac conduction disturbances after TAVR has been elusive. This is a result of several things: a dearth of adequately powered, randomized controlled trials; the often transient nature of the conduction disturbances; evolving technologies; and the interplay of cardiology subspecialties involved.

The 2013 European Society of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, but do not provide in-depth discussion on the topic. This is the first effort sponsored by a cardiovascular society in the United States to review the existing data and experience and propose evidence-based expert guidance.
 

Pre-TAVR assessment

Pre-TAVR assessment should consider the patient’s risk for postprocedure conduction disturbances, the authors said. Since bradyarrythmias and aortic stenosis may present similarly (fatigue, lightheadedness, and syncope being hallmarks of both), a careful history is needed to determine if bradyarrhythmia is present.

An electrocardiogram (ECG) or ambulatory rhythm monitoring may identify baseline conduction abnormalities and help predict the need for post-TAVR PPM.

“In this section, we underscored some of the literature that has raised awareness about the presence of preexisting arrhythmias in TAVR patients and suggest that monitoring in selected patients before the procedure is reasonable, particularly those presenting with syncope or lightheadedness,” said Dr. Lilly.
 

Intraprocedural management

On the day of the procedure, patients determined to have elevated risk for complete AV heart block require careful perioperative ECG and hemodynamic monitoring. Regardless of preexisting risk, said the authors that all patients should be monitored on a telemetry unit during the procedure with ability to do emergency pacing if necessary.

“In the periprocedural section, we address the role of electrophysiological studies for identifying patients at high-risk of subsequent heart block,” said Dr. Lilly. “That’s a practice that’s occurring at a number of centers, but the data out there is insufficient to establish it as a pacemaker indication. Routine EP testing for patients deemed at risk for conduction disturbances after TAVR is not guideline-based and more research is needed.”

The document also outlines the effects of medications and anesthesia on postprocedure conduction abnormalities.
 

Post-TAVR management

The authors define post-TAVR management as continuing through 30-days after discharge.

The ECDP carefully outlines which patients can be discharged without monitoring and those for whom outpatient monitoring can be considered.

“If I’m going to pick one thing from this section, it’s the monitoring piece. A lot of patients that have a conduction disturbance right after TAVR – but you’re not sure if it’s going to progress and require a pacemaker – might stay in the hospital for an extended time waiting to see if the heart holds up,” reported Dr. Lilly.

“But a number of centers are now discharging people at 1 or 2 days, which begs the question: What do you do with these folks? Our group has published data showing that 30-day monitoring in select patients is a safe approach,” said Dr. Lilly.

There are shortcomings, however, in existing data, and recommendations will likely change as more data are collected, he explained.

As well, there remains uncertainty in how conduction block should be managed after TAVR, and clinical judgment is “foundational” in this, wrote the authors.

“This document is meant to help programs deal with these situations right now, acknowledging full and well, that really good randomized clinical data is not available,” said Dr. Lilly.

Dr. Lilly has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the American College of Cardiology without commercial support.
 

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

Regular consumption of foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids was associated with improved prognosis after ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a new observational study.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The prospective study, which involved 944 patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), showed that plasma levels of fatty acids at the time of the STEMI were inversely associated with both incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiovascular readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 and 0.74 for 1-SD increase; for both, P < .05).

No association was seen for the endpoint of all-cause mortality.

“What we showed is that your consumption of fish and other sources of omega-3 fatty acids before the heart attack impacts your prognosis after the heart attack. It’s a novel approach because it’s not primary prevention or secondary prevention,” said Aleix Sala-Vila, PharmD, PhD, from the Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM) in Barcelona, Spain.

Sala-Vila, co–senior author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol, Barcelona, and first author Iolanda Lázaro, PhD, also from IMIM, reported their findings online Oct. 26 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It has been established that dietary omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) has cardioprotective properties, but observational studies and randomized trials of EPA intake have yielded disparate findings.

This study avoided the usual traps of nutritional epidemiology research – self-reported food diaries and intake questionnaires. For this study, the researchers measured tissue levels of EPA and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) by measuring serum phosphatidylcholine (PC) levels, which reflect dietary intake during the previous 3 or 4 weeks.

This technique, said Sala-Vila, not only provides a more reliable measure of fatty acid intake over time but also avoids measurement errors related to fatty acid content variation.

For example, “The EPA content of a piece of fish eaten in January could be very different from one eaten in June,” explained Sala-Vila.

That said, he acknowledged that this technique, which uses gas chromatography, does not at present have a clear clinical application. “It’s quite difficult just to convert levels of serum-PC EPA into consumption of fatty fish. We feel that the best advice at this point is that given by the American Heart Association to eat two servings of fatty fish a week.”
 

EPA and ALA: Partners in prevention?

In addition to the findings regarding EPA, the researchers also found that serum-PC ALA was inversely related to all-cause mortality after STEMI (HR, 0.65 for 1-SD increase; P < .05).

A trend was seen for an association between ALA and lower risk for incident MACE (P = .093).

ALA is readily available from inexpensive plant sources (eg, chia seeds, flax seeds, walnuts, soy beans) and has been associated with lower all-cause mortality in high-risk individuals.

This omega-3 fatty acid is often given short shrift in the fatty acid world because of the seven-step enzymatic process needed to convert it into more beneficial forms.

“We know that the conversion of ALA to EPA or DHA [docohexaenoic acid] is marginal, but we decided to include it in the study because we feel that this fatty acid is becoming more important because there are some issues with fish consumption – people are concerned about pollutants and sustainability, and some just don’t like it,” explained Sala-Vila.

“We were shocked to see that the marine-derived and vegetable-derived fatty acids don’t appear to compete, but rather they act synergistically,” said Sala-Villa. The researchers suggested that marine and vegetable omega-3 fatty acids may act as “partners in prevention.”

“We are not metabolically adapted to converting ALA to EPA, but despite this, there is a large body of evidence showing that one way to increase the status of EPA and DHA in our membranes is by eating these sources of fatty acids,” said Sala-Vila.

For almost 20 years, Sala-Vila has been studying how the consumption of foods rich in omega-3 affects disease. Two of his current projects involve studying levels of ALA in red blood cell membranes as a risk factor for ischemic stroke and omega-3 status in individuals with cognitive impairment who are at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Applicable to all patients with atherosclerosis

In comments to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, Deepak Bhatt, MD, called the study “terrific,” adding that the effort is “as good as it gets” for observational nutrition research.

“I think one has to view these findings in the larger universe of what is really a revolution in omega-3 fatty acid research,” said Bhatt.

This universe, he said, includes a wealth of observational research showing the benefits of omega-3s, two outcome trials – JELIS and REDUCE-IT – that showed the benefits of EPA supplementation, and two imaging studies – EVAPORATE and CHERRY – that showed favorable effects of EPA on the vasculature.

REDUCE-IT, for which Bhatt served as principal investigator, showed that treatment with icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), a high-dose purified form of EPA, led to a 25% relative risk reduction in MACE in an at-risk Western population.

The results, said Bhatt, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the current Sala-Vila article, “likely apply to all patients with atherosclerosis or who are at high risk for it” and supports the practice of counseling patients to increase their intake of food rich in omega-3 fatty acids.

The field may be due for a shake-up, he noted. At next month’s American Heart Association meeting, the results of another trial of another prescription-grade EPA/DHA supplement will be presented, and they are expected to be negative.

AstraZeneca announced in January 2020 the early closure of the STRENGTH trial of Epanova after an interim analysis showed a low likelihood of their product demonstrating benefit in the enrolled population.

Epanova is a fish-oil derived mixture of free fatty acids, primarily EPA and DHA. It is approved in the United States and is indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adults with severe (≥500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. This indication is not affected by the data from the STRENGTH trial, according to a company press release.

Sala-Vila has received grants and support from the California Walnut Commission, including a grant to support part of this study. Bayés-Genís and Bhatt have relationships with a number of companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular consumption of foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids was associated with improved prognosis after ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a new observational study.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The prospective study, which involved 944 patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), showed that plasma levels of fatty acids at the time of the STEMI were inversely associated with both incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiovascular readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 and 0.74 for 1-SD increase; for both, P < .05).

No association was seen for the endpoint of all-cause mortality.

“What we showed is that your consumption of fish and other sources of omega-3 fatty acids before the heart attack impacts your prognosis after the heart attack. It’s a novel approach because it’s not primary prevention or secondary prevention,” said Aleix Sala-Vila, PharmD, PhD, from the Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM) in Barcelona, Spain.

Sala-Vila, co–senior author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol, Barcelona, and first author Iolanda Lázaro, PhD, also from IMIM, reported their findings online Oct. 26 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It has been established that dietary omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) has cardioprotective properties, but observational studies and randomized trials of EPA intake have yielded disparate findings.

This study avoided the usual traps of nutritional epidemiology research – self-reported food diaries and intake questionnaires. For this study, the researchers measured tissue levels of EPA and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) by measuring serum phosphatidylcholine (PC) levels, which reflect dietary intake during the previous 3 or 4 weeks.

This technique, said Sala-Vila, not only provides a more reliable measure of fatty acid intake over time but also avoids measurement errors related to fatty acid content variation.

For example, “The EPA content of a piece of fish eaten in January could be very different from one eaten in June,” explained Sala-Vila.

That said, he acknowledged that this technique, which uses gas chromatography, does not at present have a clear clinical application. “It’s quite difficult just to convert levels of serum-PC EPA into consumption of fatty fish. We feel that the best advice at this point is that given by the American Heart Association to eat two servings of fatty fish a week.”
 

EPA and ALA: Partners in prevention?

In addition to the findings regarding EPA, the researchers also found that serum-PC ALA was inversely related to all-cause mortality after STEMI (HR, 0.65 for 1-SD increase; P < .05).

A trend was seen for an association between ALA and lower risk for incident MACE (P = .093).

ALA is readily available from inexpensive plant sources (eg, chia seeds, flax seeds, walnuts, soy beans) and has been associated with lower all-cause mortality in high-risk individuals.

This omega-3 fatty acid is often given short shrift in the fatty acid world because of the seven-step enzymatic process needed to convert it into more beneficial forms.

“We know that the conversion of ALA to EPA or DHA [docohexaenoic acid] is marginal, but we decided to include it in the study because we feel that this fatty acid is becoming more important because there are some issues with fish consumption – people are concerned about pollutants and sustainability, and some just don’t like it,” explained Sala-Vila.

“We were shocked to see that the marine-derived and vegetable-derived fatty acids don’t appear to compete, but rather they act synergistically,” said Sala-Villa. The researchers suggested that marine and vegetable omega-3 fatty acids may act as “partners in prevention.”

“We are not metabolically adapted to converting ALA to EPA, but despite this, there is a large body of evidence showing that one way to increase the status of EPA and DHA in our membranes is by eating these sources of fatty acids,” said Sala-Vila.

For almost 20 years, Sala-Vila has been studying how the consumption of foods rich in omega-3 affects disease. Two of his current projects involve studying levels of ALA in red blood cell membranes as a risk factor for ischemic stroke and omega-3 status in individuals with cognitive impairment who are at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Applicable to all patients with atherosclerosis

In comments to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, Deepak Bhatt, MD, called the study “terrific,” adding that the effort is “as good as it gets” for observational nutrition research.

“I think one has to view these findings in the larger universe of what is really a revolution in omega-3 fatty acid research,” said Bhatt.

This universe, he said, includes a wealth of observational research showing the benefits of omega-3s, two outcome trials – JELIS and REDUCE-IT – that showed the benefits of EPA supplementation, and two imaging studies – EVAPORATE and CHERRY – that showed favorable effects of EPA on the vasculature.

REDUCE-IT, for which Bhatt served as principal investigator, showed that treatment with icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), a high-dose purified form of EPA, led to a 25% relative risk reduction in MACE in an at-risk Western population.

The results, said Bhatt, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the current Sala-Vila article, “likely apply to all patients with atherosclerosis or who are at high risk for it” and supports the practice of counseling patients to increase their intake of food rich in omega-3 fatty acids.

The field may be due for a shake-up, he noted. At next month’s American Heart Association meeting, the results of another trial of another prescription-grade EPA/DHA supplement will be presented, and they are expected to be negative.

AstraZeneca announced in January 2020 the early closure of the STRENGTH trial of Epanova after an interim analysis showed a low likelihood of their product demonstrating benefit in the enrolled population.

Epanova is a fish-oil derived mixture of free fatty acids, primarily EPA and DHA. It is approved in the United States and is indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adults with severe (≥500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. This indication is not affected by the data from the STRENGTH trial, according to a company press release.

Sala-Vila has received grants and support from the California Walnut Commission, including a grant to support part of this study. Bayés-Genís and Bhatt have relationships with a number of companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Regular consumption of foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids was associated with improved prognosis after ST-segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) in a new observational study.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

The prospective study, which involved 944 patients with STEMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), showed that plasma levels of fatty acids at the time of the STEMI were inversely associated with both incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cardiovascular readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76 and 0.74 for 1-SD increase; for both, P < .05).

No association was seen for the endpoint of all-cause mortality.

“What we showed is that your consumption of fish and other sources of omega-3 fatty acids before the heart attack impacts your prognosis after the heart attack. It’s a novel approach because it’s not primary prevention or secondary prevention,” said Aleix Sala-Vila, PharmD, PhD, from the Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques (IMIM) in Barcelona, Spain.

Sala-Vila, co–senior author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol, Barcelona, and first author Iolanda Lázaro, PhD, also from IMIM, reported their findings online Oct. 26 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It has been established that dietary omega-3 eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) has cardioprotective properties, but observational studies and randomized trials of EPA intake have yielded disparate findings.

This study avoided the usual traps of nutritional epidemiology research – self-reported food diaries and intake questionnaires. For this study, the researchers measured tissue levels of EPA and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) by measuring serum phosphatidylcholine (PC) levels, which reflect dietary intake during the previous 3 or 4 weeks.

This technique, said Sala-Vila, not only provides a more reliable measure of fatty acid intake over time but also avoids measurement errors related to fatty acid content variation.

For example, “The EPA content of a piece of fish eaten in January could be very different from one eaten in June,” explained Sala-Vila.

That said, he acknowledged that this technique, which uses gas chromatography, does not at present have a clear clinical application. “It’s quite difficult just to convert levels of serum-PC EPA into consumption of fatty fish. We feel that the best advice at this point is that given by the American Heart Association to eat two servings of fatty fish a week.”
 

EPA and ALA: Partners in prevention?

In addition to the findings regarding EPA, the researchers also found that serum-PC ALA was inversely related to all-cause mortality after STEMI (HR, 0.65 for 1-SD increase; P < .05).

A trend was seen for an association between ALA and lower risk for incident MACE (P = .093).

ALA is readily available from inexpensive plant sources (eg, chia seeds, flax seeds, walnuts, soy beans) and has been associated with lower all-cause mortality in high-risk individuals.

This omega-3 fatty acid is often given short shrift in the fatty acid world because of the seven-step enzymatic process needed to convert it into more beneficial forms.

“We know that the conversion of ALA to EPA or DHA [docohexaenoic acid] is marginal, but we decided to include it in the study because we feel that this fatty acid is becoming more important because there are some issues with fish consumption – people are concerned about pollutants and sustainability, and some just don’t like it,” explained Sala-Vila.

“We were shocked to see that the marine-derived and vegetable-derived fatty acids don’t appear to compete, but rather they act synergistically,” said Sala-Villa. The researchers suggested that marine and vegetable omega-3 fatty acids may act as “partners in prevention.”

“We are not metabolically adapted to converting ALA to EPA, but despite this, there is a large body of evidence showing that one way to increase the status of EPA and DHA in our membranes is by eating these sources of fatty acids,” said Sala-Vila.

For almost 20 years, Sala-Vila has been studying how the consumption of foods rich in omega-3 affects disease. Two of his current projects involve studying levels of ALA in red blood cell membranes as a risk factor for ischemic stroke and omega-3 status in individuals with cognitive impairment who are at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Applicable to all patients with atherosclerosis

In comments to theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology, Deepak Bhatt, MD, called the study “terrific,” adding that the effort is “as good as it gets” for observational nutrition research.

“I think one has to view these findings in the larger universe of what is really a revolution in omega-3 fatty acid research,” said Bhatt.

This universe, he said, includes a wealth of observational research showing the benefits of omega-3s, two outcome trials – JELIS and REDUCE-IT – that showed the benefits of EPA supplementation, and two imaging studies – EVAPORATE and CHERRY – that showed favorable effects of EPA on the vasculature.

REDUCE-IT, for which Bhatt served as principal investigator, showed that treatment with icosapent ethyl (Vascepa), a high-dose purified form of EPA, led to a 25% relative risk reduction in MACE in an at-risk Western population.

The results, said Bhatt, who co-wrote an editorial that accompanies the current Sala-Vila article, “likely apply to all patients with atherosclerosis or who are at high risk for it” and supports the practice of counseling patients to increase their intake of food rich in omega-3 fatty acids.

The field may be due for a shake-up, he noted. At next month’s American Heart Association meeting, the results of another trial of another prescription-grade EPA/DHA supplement will be presented, and they are expected to be negative.

AstraZeneca announced in January 2020 the early closure of the STRENGTH trial of Epanova after an interim analysis showed a low likelihood of their product demonstrating benefit in the enrolled population.

Epanova is a fish-oil derived mixture of free fatty acids, primarily EPA and DHA. It is approved in the United States and is indicated as an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adults with severe (≥500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia. This indication is not affected by the data from the STRENGTH trial, according to a company press release.

Sala-Vila has received grants and support from the California Walnut Commission, including a grant to support part of this study. Bayés-Genís and Bhatt have relationships with a number of companies.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vertebral fractures appear to be common in people with severe COVID-19, and also raise the mortality risk, findings from a retrospective cohort suggest.

Among 114 patients with COVID-19 who underwent lateral chest x-rays at the San Raffaele Hospital ED in Milan, more than a third were found to have thoracic vertebral fractures. And, those individuals were more than twice as likely to die as were those without vertebral fractures.

“Morphometric vertebral fractures are one of the most common comorbidities among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and the presence of such fractures may predict the severity of disease outcomes,” lead investigator Andrea Giustina, MD, said in an interview.

This is the first study to examine vertebral fracture prevalence in any coronavirus disease, but such fractures have been linked to an increased risk of pneumonia and impaired respiratory function, including restrictive pulmonary dysfunction. One possible mechanism may be that they cause anatomical changes, such as kyphosis, which negatively impact respiratory function by decreasing vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and inspiratory time, explained Dr. Giustina, professor of endocrinology, San Raffaele Vita Salute University, Milan, and president of the European Society of Endocrinology. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Clinically, the findings suggest that all patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing chest x-rays should have morphometric vertebral x-ray evaluation, said Dr. Giustina.

“One interesting aspect of the study is that without morphometry, approximatively two thirds of vertebral fractures [would have been] missed. Therefore, they are largely underestimated in clinical practice,” he noted.
 

Thoracic vertebral fractures assessed via lateral chest x-rays

The 114 study subjects included were those whose lateral chest x-rays allowed for a high-quality assessment and in which all the thoracic tract of T4-T12 were viewable and assessable. None had been using glucocorticoids and only 3% had a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The majority (75%) were male, and median age was 57 years. Most (79%) were hospitalized after evaluation in the ED. Of those, 12% (13) were admitted to the ICU and 15% (16) died.

Thoracic vertebral fractures were detected on the lateral chest x-rays in 36% (41) of the patients. In contrast, in studies of women aged 50 years and older from the general European population, morphometric vertebral fracture prevalence ranged from 18% to 26%, the investigators noted.

Of the total 65 vertebral fractures detected, 60% were classified as mild (height ratio decrease <25%), 33.3% as moderate (25%-40% decrease) and 7.7% as severe (>40%). Patients with more than one vertebral fracture were classified by their most severe one.

Those with versus without vertebral fractures didn’t differ by sex, body mass index, or clinical or biological parameters evaluated in the ED. But, compared with those without vertebral fractures, those with them were significantly older (68 vs. 54 years) and were more likely to have arterial hypertension (56% vs. 30%) and coronary artery disease (22% vs. 7%).

In multivariate analysis, age was the only statistically significant predictor of vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001).

Mortality doubled, though not significantly

Those with vertebral fractures were more likely to be hospitalized, although not significantly (88% vs. 74%). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (11% vs. 12.5%).

However, those with vertebral fractures required noninvasive mechanical ventilation significantly more often (48.8% vs. 27.4%; P = .02), and were more than twice as likely to die (22% vs. 10%; P = .07). While the difference in overall mortality wasn’t quite statistically significant, those with severe vertebral fractures were significantly more likely to die, compared with those with mild or moderate fractures (60%, 7%, 24%, respectively, for severe, moderate, and mild; P = .04), despite no significant differences in clinical or laboratory parameters.

“Our data from the field reinforce the need of implementing previously published recommendations concerning the importance of bone fragility care during the COVID pandemic with at least those patients already treated with antiosteoporotic drugs maintaining their adherence to treatments including vitamin D, which have also been suggested very recently to have no relevant predisposing effect on COVID-19,” Dr. Giustina and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, they added, “continuity of care should also include bone density monitoring despite very restricted access to clinical facilities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, all patients with fractures should start antiresorptive treatment right away, even during hospital stay.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Giustina A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa738.

Vertebral fractures appear to be common in people with severe COVID-19, and also raise the mortality risk, findings from a retrospective cohort suggest.

Among 114 patients with COVID-19 who underwent lateral chest x-rays at the San Raffaele Hospital ED in Milan, more than a third were found to have thoracic vertebral fractures. And, those individuals were more than twice as likely to die as were those without vertebral fractures.

“Morphometric vertebral fractures are one of the most common comorbidities among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and the presence of such fractures may predict the severity of disease outcomes,” lead investigator Andrea Giustina, MD, said in an interview.

This is the first study to examine vertebral fracture prevalence in any coronavirus disease, but such fractures have been linked to an increased risk of pneumonia and impaired respiratory function, including restrictive pulmonary dysfunction. One possible mechanism may be that they cause anatomical changes, such as kyphosis, which negatively impact respiratory function by decreasing vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and inspiratory time, explained Dr. Giustina, professor of endocrinology, San Raffaele Vita Salute University, Milan, and president of the European Society of Endocrinology. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Clinically, the findings suggest that all patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing chest x-rays should have morphometric vertebral x-ray evaluation, said Dr. Giustina.

“One interesting aspect of the study is that without morphometry, approximatively two thirds of vertebral fractures [would have been] missed. Therefore, they are largely underestimated in clinical practice,” he noted.
 

Thoracic vertebral fractures assessed via lateral chest x-rays

The 114 study subjects included were those whose lateral chest x-rays allowed for a high-quality assessment and in which all the thoracic tract of T4-T12 were viewable and assessable. None had been using glucocorticoids and only 3% had a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The majority (75%) were male, and median age was 57 years. Most (79%) were hospitalized after evaluation in the ED. Of those, 12% (13) were admitted to the ICU and 15% (16) died.

Thoracic vertebral fractures were detected on the lateral chest x-rays in 36% (41) of the patients. In contrast, in studies of women aged 50 years and older from the general European population, morphometric vertebral fracture prevalence ranged from 18% to 26%, the investigators noted.

Of the total 65 vertebral fractures detected, 60% were classified as mild (height ratio decrease <25%), 33.3% as moderate (25%-40% decrease) and 7.7% as severe (>40%). Patients with more than one vertebral fracture were classified by their most severe one.

Those with versus without vertebral fractures didn’t differ by sex, body mass index, or clinical or biological parameters evaluated in the ED. But, compared with those without vertebral fractures, those with them were significantly older (68 vs. 54 years) and were more likely to have arterial hypertension (56% vs. 30%) and coronary artery disease (22% vs. 7%).

In multivariate analysis, age was the only statistically significant predictor of vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001).

Mortality doubled, though not significantly

Those with vertebral fractures were more likely to be hospitalized, although not significantly (88% vs. 74%). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (11% vs. 12.5%).

However, those with vertebral fractures required noninvasive mechanical ventilation significantly more often (48.8% vs. 27.4%; P = .02), and were more than twice as likely to die (22% vs. 10%; P = .07). While the difference in overall mortality wasn’t quite statistically significant, those with severe vertebral fractures were significantly more likely to die, compared with those with mild or moderate fractures (60%, 7%, 24%, respectively, for severe, moderate, and mild; P = .04), despite no significant differences in clinical or laboratory parameters.

“Our data from the field reinforce the need of implementing previously published recommendations concerning the importance of bone fragility care during the COVID pandemic with at least those patients already treated with antiosteoporotic drugs maintaining their adherence to treatments including vitamin D, which have also been suggested very recently to have no relevant predisposing effect on COVID-19,” Dr. Giustina and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, they added, “continuity of care should also include bone density monitoring despite very restricted access to clinical facilities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, all patients with fractures should start antiresorptive treatment right away, even during hospital stay.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Giustina A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa738.

Vertebral fractures appear to be common in people with severe COVID-19, and also raise the mortality risk, findings from a retrospective cohort suggest.

Among 114 patients with COVID-19 who underwent lateral chest x-rays at the San Raffaele Hospital ED in Milan, more than a third were found to have thoracic vertebral fractures. And, those individuals were more than twice as likely to die as were those without vertebral fractures.

“Morphometric vertebral fractures are one of the most common comorbidities among adults hospitalized with COVID-19, and the presence of such fractures may predict the severity of disease outcomes,” lead investigator Andrea Giustina, MD, said in an interview.

This is the first study to examine vertebral fracture prevalence in any coronavirus disease, but such fractures have been linked to an increased risk of pneumonia and impaired respiratory function, including restrictive pulmonary dysfunction. One possible mechanism may be that they cause anatomical changes, such as kyphosis, which negatively impact respiratory function by decreasing vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and inspiratory time, explained Dr. Giustina, professor of endocrinology, San Raffaele Vita Salute University, Milan, and president of the European Society of Endocrinology. The results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Clinically, the findings suggest that all patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing chest x-rays should have morphometric vertebral x-ray evaluation, said Dr. Giustina.

“One interesting aspect of the study is that without morphometry, approximatively two thirds of vertebral fractures [would have been] missed. Therefore, they are largely underestimated in clinical practice,” he noted.
 

Thoracic vertebral fractures assessed via lateral chest x-rays

The 114 study subjects included were those whose lateral chest x-rays allowed for a high-quality assessment and in which all the thoracic tract of T4-T12 were viewable and assessable. None had been using glucocorticoids and only 3% had a prior diagnosis of osteoporosis.

The majority (75%) were male, and median age was 57 years. Most (79%) were hospitalized after evaluation in the ED. Of those, 12% (13) were admitted to the ICU and 15% (16) died.

Thoracic vertebral fractures were detected on the lateral chest x-rays in 36% (41) of the patients. In contrast, in studies of women aged 50 years and older from the general European population, morphometric vertebral fracture prevalence ranged from 18% to 26%, the investigators noted.

Of the total 65 vertebral fractures detected, 60% were classified as mild (height ratio decrease <25%), 33.3% as moderate (25%-40% decrease) and 7.7% as severe (>40%). Patients with more than one vertebral fracture were classified by their most severe one.

Those with versus without vertebral fractures didn’t differ by sex, body mass index, or clinical or biological parameters evaluated in the ED. But, compared with those without vertebral fractures, those with them were significantly older (68 vs. 54 years) and were more likely to have arterial hypertension (56% vs. 30%) and coronary artery disease (22% vs. 7%).

In multivariate analysis, age was the only statistically significant predictor of vertebral fractures (odds ratio, 1.04; P < .001).

Mortality doubled, though not significantly

Those with vertebral fractures were more likely to be hospitalized, although not significantly (88% vs. 74%). There was no significant difference in ICU admission (11% vs. 12.5%).

However, those with vertebral fractures required noninvasive mechanical ventilation significantly more often (48.8% vs. 27.4%; P = .02), and were more than twice as likely to die (22% vs. 10%; P = .07). While the difference in overall mortality wasn’t quite statistically significant, those with severe vertebral fractures were significantly more likely to die, compared with those with mild or moderate fractures (60%, 7%, 24%, respectively, for severe, moderate, and mild; P = .04), despite no significant differences in clinical or laboratory parameters.

“Our data from the field reinforce the need of implementing previously published recommendations concerning the importance of bone fragility care during the COVID pandemic with at least those patients already treated with antiosteoporotic drugs maintaining their adherence to treatments including vitamin D, which have also been suggested very recently to have no relevant predisposing effect on COVID-19,” Dr. Giustina and colleagues wrote.

Moreover, they added, “continuity of care should also include bone density monitoring despite very restricted access to clinical facilities, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, all patients with fractures should start antiresorptive treatment right away, even during hospital stay.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

SOURCE: Giustina A et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1210/clinem/dgaa738.

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

[email protected]

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

[email protected]

Danny Dvir, MD, has a message for physicians who have patients with severe valvular heart disease who are deferring valve replacement or repair until after the COVID-19 pandemic: Urge them not to wait.

Data from the Multicenter International Valve Disease Registry vividly demonstrate that clinical outcomes are poor in patients with uncorrected valve disease who become hospitalized with COVID-19. Indeed, the mortality rate within 30 days after hospital admission in 136 such patients enrolled in the registry from centers in Europe, North America, and Israel was 42%, Dr. Dvir reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“That’s dramatically higher than for an age-matched population infected with COVID-19 without valvular heart disease, which is 10%-15%,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The bright spot was that, in the small subgroup of 15 registry participants who underwent transcatheter or, much less frequently, surgical treatment of their failing valve while COVID-19 infected, 30-day mortality was far lower. In fact, it was comparable with the background rate in hospitalized COVID-19 patients without valve disease, according to Dr. Dvir, an interventional cardiologist at Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

He personally did several of the transcatheter aortic valve replacements.

“It’s doable. I truly believe that when you get a severe aortic stenosis patient who’s infected with the coronavirus, they get very unstable, but we can treat them. We can treat them even during the infection,” Dr. Dvir said.

The majority of patients in the registry had severe aortic stenosis. In the 42 such patients aged 80 years or more who didn’t undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical valve replacement, 30-day mortality was 60%. In contrast, only one of the six patients in this advanced-age category who underwent valve replacement while infected died. Similarly, 30-day mortality was 24% among those younger than age 80 who valve remained untreated, but it dropped to 11% in those who received a prosthetic valve.

“We try our best to protect our patients through social distancing, but we have a treatment that can potentially reduce their mortality risk if they get infected later on. So I say to my patients: ‘Don’t wait at home. Do not wait! If you get infected when you have severe aortic stenosis, the clinical outcome is bad.’ But it seems reasonable that if they get infected when they’ve already been treated for their aortic stenosis or mitral regurgitation, they will do better.”

Dr. Dvir noted that, although the case numbers in the registry series were small and subject to potential bias, the data suggest this treatment approach may be lifesaving.

Session comoderator Timothy D. Henry, MD, commented that this registry study contains a great take-home point: “This is really consistent with what see in a lot of the other areas of COVID, that what we know to be best clinical care, we should do it, with or without the COVID.”

He asked Dr. Dvir about any special measures he takes while doing TAVR in this extreme setting. In the United States, for example, interventionalists are increasingly using transesophageal echocardiography to guide their procedures using conscious sedation, without intubation, noted Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.

“We try to minimize the procedure time; that’s one of the important things,” Dr. Dvir replied. “And you need to be protected during the procedure in a very cautious and meticulous way. You need many fans in the room because you sweat a lot.”

Discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president of the CVPath Institute in Gaithersburg, Md., commented: “The main thing I get from this presentation is the need for patients to be educated that if you’ve got valve disease, you’re better off getting it treated before you’ve got COVID. Obviously, try to prevent getting COVID – that’s the best thing you can do – but you can’t always control that.”

Discussant Mamas Mamas, MD, professor of cardiology at Keele University, Staffordshire, England, said deferred treatment of severe valvular heart disease during the pandemic has created a looming public health crisis in the United Kingdom.

“We’ve analyzed the U.K. management of aortic stenosis, and what we’ve found is that during the COVID pandemic there have been 2,500 fewer cases of aortic stenosis that have been treated. We’ve got 2,500 patients on the waiting list, and we’ve got to work out how we’re going to treat them. We estimate with simulations that about 300 of them are going to die before we can get them treated for their aortic stenosis,” according to Dr. Mamas.

Dr. Henry commented that deferral of valve procedures is “really challenging” for a couple of reasons: Not only are patients scared to come into the hospital because they fear getting COVID, but they don’t want to be hospitalized during the pandemic because their family can’t visit them there.

“These patients are mostly over 80 years old. No one wants to come in the hospital when the family won’t be around, especially when you’re 90 years old,” the interventional cardiologist said.

Dr. Dvir reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, and Jena.

[email protected]

Highlights of new updated guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care from the American Heart Association include management of opioid-related emergencies; discussion of health disparities; and a new emphasis on physical, social, and emotional recovery after resuscitation.

© American Heart Association, Inc.

The AHA is also exploring digital territory to improve CPR outcomes. The guidelines encourage use of mobile phone technology to summon trained laypeople to individuals requiring CPR, and an adaptive learning suite will be available online for personalized CPR instruction, with lessons catered to individual needs and knowledge levels.

These novel approaches reflect an ongoing effort by the AHA to ensure that the guidelines evolve rapidly with science and technology, reported Raina Merchant, MD, chair of the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues. In 2015, the committee shifted from 5-year updates to a continuous online review process, citing a need for more immediate implementation of practice-altering data, they wrote in Circulation.

And new approaches do appear to save lives, at least in a hospital setting.

Since 2004, in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes have been improving, but similar gains have yet to be realized for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“Much of the variation in survival rates is thought to be due to the strength of the Chain of Survival, the [five] critical actions that must occur in rapid succession to maximize the chance of survival from cardiac arrest,” the committee wrote.
 

Update adds sixth link to Chains of Survival: Recovery

“Recovery expectations and survivorship plans that address treatment, surveillance, and rehabilitation need to be provided to cardiac arrest survivors and their caregivers at hospital discharge to address the sequelae of cardiac arrest and optimize transitions of care to independent physical, social, emotional, and role function,” the committee wrote.

Dr. Merchant and colleagues identified three “critically important” recommendations for both cardiac arrest survivors and caregivers during the recovery process: structured psychological assessment; multimodal rehabilitation assessment and treatment; and comprehensive, multidisciplinary discharge planning.

The recovery process is now part of all four Chains of Survival, which are specific to in-hospital and out-of-hospital arrest for adults and children.
 

New advice on opioid overdoses and bystander training

Among instances of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the committee noted that opioid overdoses are “sharply on the rise,” leading to new, scenario-specific recommendations. Among them, the committee encouraged lay rescuers and trained responders to activate emergency response systems immediately while awaiting improvements with naloxone and other interventions. They also suggested that, for individuals in known or suspected cardiac arrest, high-quality CPR, including compressions and ventilation, should be prioritized over naloxone administration.

In a broader discussion, the committee identified disparities in CPR training, which could explain lower rates of bystander CPR and poorer outcomes among certain demographics, such as black and Hispanic populations, as well as those with lower socioeconomic status.

“Targeting training efforts should consider barriers such as language, financial considerations, and poor access to information,” the committee wrote.

While low bystander CPR in these areas may be improved through mobile phone technology that alerts trained laypeople to individuals in need, the committee noted that this approach may be impacted by cultural and geographic factors. To date, use of mobile devices to improve bystander intervention rates has been demonstrated through “uniformly positive data,” but never in North America.

According to the guidelines, bystander intervention rates may also be improved through video-based learning, which is as effective as in-person, instructor-led training.

This led the AHA to create an online adaptive learning platform, which the organization describes as a “digital resuscitation portfolio” that connects programs and courses such as the Resuscitation Quality Improvement program and the HeartCode blended learning course.

“It will cover all of the guideline changes,” said Monica Sales, communications manager at the AHA. “It’s really groundbreaking because it’s the first time that we’re able to kind of close that gap between new science and new products.”

The online content also addresses CPR considerations for COVID-19, which were first addressed by interim CPR guidance published by the AHA in April.

According to Alexis Topjian, MD, coauthor of the present guidelines and pediatric critical care medicine physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, CPR awareness is more important now than ever.

“The major message [of the guidelines] is that high-quality CPR saves lives,” she said. “So push hard, and push fast. You have the power in your hands to make a difference, more so than ever during this pandemic.”

Concerning coronavirus precautions, Dr. Topjian noted that roughly 70% of out-of-hospital CPR events involve people who know each other, so most bystanders have already been exposed to the person in need, thereby reducing the concern of infection.

When asked about performing CPR on strangers, Dr. Topjian remained encouraging, though she noted that decision making may be informed by local coronavirus rates.

“It’s always a personal choice,” she said.
 

More for clinicians

For clinicians, Dr. Topjian highlighted several recommendations, including use of epinephrine as soon as possible during CPR, preferential use of a cuffed endotracheal tube, continuous EEG monitoring during and after cardiac arrest, and rapid intervention for clinical seizures and of nonconvulsive status epilepticus.

From a pediatric perspective, Dr. Topjian pointed out a change in breathing rate for infants and children who are receiving CPR or rescue breathing with a pulse, from 12-20 breaths/min to 20-30 breaths/min. While not a new recommendation, Dr. Topjian also pointed out the lifesaving benefit of early defibrillation among pediatric patients.

The guidelines were funded by the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with BTG Pharmaceuticals, Zoll Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and others.

SOURCE: American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20. Suppl 2.

Highlights of new updated guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care from the American Heart Association include management of opioid-related emergencies; discussion of health disparities; and a new emphasis on physical, social, and emotional recovery after resuscitation.

© American Heart Association, Inc.

The AHA is also exploring digital territory to improve CPR outcomes. The guidelines encourage use of mobile phone technology to summon trained laypeople to individuals requiring CPR, and an adaptive learning suite will be available online for personalized CPR instruction, with lessons catered to individual needs and knowledge levels.

These novel approaches reflect an ongoing effort by the AHA to ensure that the guidelines evolve rapidly with science and technology, reported Raina Merchant, MD, chair of the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues. In 2015, the committee shifted from 5-year updates to a continuous online review process, citing a need for more immediate implementation of practice-altering data, they wrote in Circulation.

And new approaches do appear to save lives, at least in a hospital setting.

Since 2004, in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes have been improving, but similar gains have yet to be realized for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“Much of the variation in survival rates is thought to be due to the strength of the Chain of Survival, the [five] critical actions that must occur in rapid succession to maximize the chance of survival from cardiac arrest,” the committee wrote.
 

Update adds sixth link to Chains of Survival: Recovery

“Recovery expectations and survivorship plans that address treatment, surveillance, and rehabilitation need to be provided to cardiac arrest survivors and their caregivers at hospital discharge to address the sequelae of cardiac arrest and optimize transitions of care to independent physical, social, emotional, and role function,” the committee wrote.

Dr. Merchant and colleagues identified three “critically important” recommendations for both cardiac arrest survivors and caregivers during the recovery process: structured psychological assessment; multimodal rehabilitation assessment and treatment; and comprehensive, multidisciplinary discharge planning.

The recovery process is now part of all four Chains of Survival, which are specific to in-hospital and out-of-hospital arrest for adults and children.
 

New advice on opioid overdoses and bystander training

Among instances of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the committee noted that opioid overdoses are “sharply on the rise,” leading to new, scenario-specific recommendations. Among them, the committee encouraged lay rescuers and trained responders to activate emergency response systems immediately while awaiting improvements with naloxone and other interventions. They also suggested that, for individuals in known or suspected cardiac arrest, high-quality CPR, including compressions and ventilation, should be prioritized over naloxone administration.

In a broader discussion, the committee identified disparities in CPR training, which could explain lower rates of bystander CPR and poorer outcomes among certain demographics, such as black and Hispanic populations, as well as those with lower socioeconomic status.

“Targeting training efforts should consider barriers such as language, financial considerations, and poor access to information,” the committee wrote.

While low bystander CPR in these areas may be improved through mobile phone technology that alerts trained laypeople to individuals in need, the committee noted that this approach may be impacted by cultural and geographic factors. To date, use of mobile devices to improve bystander intervention rates has been demonstrated through “uniformly positive data,” but never in North America.

According to the guidelines, bystander intervention rates may also be improved through video-based learning, which is as effective as in-person, instructor-led training.

This led the AHA to create an online adaptive learning platform, which the organization describes as a “digital resuscitation portfolio” that connects programs and courses such as the Resuscitation Quality Improvement program and the HeartCode blended learning course.

“It will cover all of the guideline changes,” said Monica Sales, communications manager at the AHA. “It’s really groundbreaking because it’s the first time that we’re able to kind of close that gap between new science and new products.”

The online content also addresses CPR considerations for COVID-19, which were first addressed by interim CPR guidance published by the AHA in April.

According to Alexis Topjian, MD, coauthor of the present guidelines and pediatric critical care medicine physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, CPR awareness is more important now than ever.

“The major message [of the guidelines] is that high-quality CPR saves lives,” she said. “So push hard, and push fast. You have the power in your hands to make a difference, more so than ever during this pandemic.”

Concerning coronavirus precautions, Dr. Topjian noted that roughly 70% of out-of-hospital CPR events involve people who know each other, so most bystanders have already been exposed to the person in need, thereby reducing the concern of infection.

When asked about performing CPR on strangers, Dr. Topjian remained encouraging, though she noted that decision making may be informed by local coronavirus rates.

“It’s always a personal choice,” she said.
 

More for clinicians

For clinicians, Dr. Topjian highlighted several recommendations, including use of epinephrine as soon as possible during CPR, preferential use of a cuffed endotracheal tube, continuous EEG monitoring during and after cardiac arrest, and rapid intervention for clinical seizures and of nonconvulsive status epilepticus.

From a pediatric perspective, Dr. Topjian pointed out a change in breathing rate for infants and children who are receiving CPR or rescue breathing with a pulse, from 12-20 breaths/min to 20-30 breaths/min. While not a new recommendation, Dr. Topjian also pointed out the lifesaving benefit of early defibrillation among pediatric patients.

The guidelines were funded by the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with BTG Pharmaceuticals, Zoll Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and others.

SOURCE: American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20. Suppl 2.

Highlights of new updated guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care from the American Heart Association include management of opioid-related emergencies; discussion of health disparities; and a new emphasis on physical, social, and emotional recovery after resuscitation.

© American Heart Association, Inc.

The AHA is also exploring digital territory to improve CPR outcomes. The guidelines encourage use of mobile phone technology to summon trained laypeople to individuals requiring CPR, and an adaptive learning suite will be available online for personalized CPR instruction, with lessons catered to individual needs and knowledge levels.

These novel approaches reflect an ongoing effort by the AHA to ensure that the guidelines evolve rapidly with science and technology, reported Raina Merchant, MD, chair of the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues. In 2015, the committee shifted from 5-year updates to a continuous online review process, citing a need for more immediate implementation of practice-altering data, they wrote in Circulation.

And new approaches do appear to save lives, at least in a hospital setting.

Since 2004, in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes have been improving, but similar gains have yet to be realized for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“Much of the variation in survival rates is thought to be due to the strength of the Chain of Survival, the [five] critical actions that must occur in rapid succession to maximize the chance of survival from cardiac arrest,” the committee wrote.
 

Update adds sixth link to Chains of Survival: Recovery

“Recovery expectations and survivorship plans that address treatment, surveillance, and rehabilitation need to be provided to cardiac arrest survivors and their caregivers at hospital discharge to address the sequelae of cardiac arrest and optimize transitions of care to independent physical, social, emotional, and role function,” the committee wrote.

Dr. Merchant and colleagues identified three “critically important” recommendations for both cardiac arrest survivors and caregivers during the recovery process: structured psychological assessment; multimodal rehabilitation assessment and treatment; and comprehensive, multidisciplinary discharge planning.

The recovery process is now part of all four Chains of Survival, which are specific to in-hospital and out-of-hospital arrest for adults and children.
 

New advice on opioid overdoses and bystander training

Among instances of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the committee noted that opioid overdoses are “sharply on the rise,” leading to new, scenario-specific recommendations. Among them, the committee encouraged lay rescuers and trained responders to activate emergency response systems immediately while awaiting improvements with naloxone and other interventions. They also suggested that, for individuals in known or suspected cardiac arrest, high-quality CPR, including compressions and ventilation, should be prioritized over naloxone administration.

In a broader discussion, the committee identified disparities in CPR training, which could explain lower rates of bystander CPR and poorer outcomes among certain demographics, such as black and Hispanic populations, as well as those with lower socioeconomic status.

“Targeting training efforts should consider barriers such as language, financial considerations, and poor access to information,” the committee wrote.

While low bystander CPR in these areas may be improved through mobile phone technology that alerts trained laypeople to individuals in need, the committee noted that this approach may be impacted by cultural and geographic factors. To date, use of mobile devices to improve bystander intervention rates has been demonstrated through “uniformly positive data,” but never in North America.

According to the guidelines, bystander intervention rates may also be improved through video-based learning, which is as effective as in-person, instructor-led training.

This led the AHA to create an online adaptive learning platform, which the organization describes as a “digital resuscitation portfolio” that connects programs and courses such as the Resuscitation Quality Improvement program and the HeartCode blended learning course.

“It will cover all of the guideline changes,” said Monica Sales, communications manager at the AHA. “It’s really groundbreaking because it’s the first time that we’re able to kind of close that gap between new science and new products.”

The online content also addresses CPR considerations for COVID-19, which were first addressed by interim CPR guidance published by the AHA in April.

According to Alexis Topjian, MD, coauthor of the present guidelines and pediatric critical care medicine physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, CPR awareness is more important now than ever.

“The major message [of the guidelines] is that high-quality CPR saves lives,” she said. “So push hard, and push fast. You have the power in your hands to make a difference, more so than ever during this pandemic.”

Concerning coronavirus precautions, Dr. Topjian noted that roughly 70% of out-of-hospital CPR events involve people who know each other, so most bystanders have already been exposed to the person in need, thereby reducing the concern of infection.

When asked about performing CPR on strangers, Dr. Topjian remained encouraging, though she noted that decision making may be informed by local coronavirus rates.

“It’s always a personal choice,” she said.
 

More for clinicians

For clinicians, Dr. Topjian highlighted several recommendations, including use of epinephrine as soon as possible during CPR, preferential use of a cuffed endotracheal tube, continuous EEG monitoring during and after cardiac arrest, and rapid intervention for clinical seizures and of nonconvulsive status epilepticus.

From a pediatric perspective, Dr. Topjian pointed out a change in breathing rate for infants and children who are receiving CPR or rescue breathing with a pulse, from 12-20 breaths/min to 20-30 breaths/min. While not a new recommendation, Dr. Topjian also pointed out the lifesaving benefit of early defibrillation among pediatric patients.

The guidelines were funded by the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with BTG Pharmaceuticals, Zoll Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and others.

SOURCE: American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020 Oct 20. Suppl 2.

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]

COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.

“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).

“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”

He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.

The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.

“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.

“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.

The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.

“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.

Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.

Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.

Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”

[email protected]