Emergency Medicine

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

A West Virginia medical center is being sued by a man who claims that the hospital lied about removing his appendix, a story in the West Virginia Record reports.

On Nov. 1, 2020, Dallas Settle went to Plateau Medical Center, Oak Hill, W.Va., complaining of pain that was later described in court documents as being “in his right mid-abdomen migrating to his right lower abdomen.” Following a CT scan, Mr. Settle was diagnosed with diverticulitis resulting in pneumoperitoneum, which is the presence of air or other gas in the abdominal cavity. The patient, it was decided, required surgery to correct the problem, but Plateau Medical Center didn’t have the staff to perform the procedure.

Mr. Settle was then transferred to another West Virginia hospital, Charleston Area Medical Center (CAMC). Here, he was evaluated by doctors in the facility’s General Division, who initiated treatment with IV fluids and opiate analgesics. He was then placed under the care of a trauma surgeon, who initially decided to treat the patient nonoperatively. If that approach failed, the surgeon believed, Mr. Settle would probably require a laparotomy, bowel resection, and ostomy.

Another surgical team performed an exploratory laparotomy the following day. The team determined that Mr. Settle was suffering from a ruptured appendicitis and allegedly performed an appendectomy. But Mr. Settle’s condition continued to deteriorate the following day.

Another CT scan followed. It revealed various problems – multiple fluid collections, an ileus, distended loops of the patient’s small bowel, a left renal cyst, subcentimeter mesenteric, and retroperitoneal adenopathy. Additional CT scans conducted 4 days later indicated other problems, including fluid collections in the patient’s right- and left-lower quadrants.

Over the next few days, doctors performed further exploratory laparotomies. Finally, on Nov. 22, Mr. Settle was transferred out of the intensive care unit in preparation for his discharge the following day.

His pain continued to worsen, however, and he was readmitted to CAMC a day later. At this point, an examination revealed that his surgical incisions had become infected.

Worse news was on the horizon. On Nov. 28, the trauma surgeon who had first agreed to treat Mr. Settle informed him that, despite claims to the contrary, his appendix hadn’t been removed.

Eventually, Mr. Settle was referred to the Cleveland Clinic, where at press time he was still being treated.

Mr. Settle has hired the firm Calwell Luce diTrapano to sue CAMC, accusing it of medical malpractice, medical negligence, and other lapses in the standard of care. In his complaint, he accused the hospital and its staff of breaching their duty of care “by negligently and improperly treating him” and by failing “to exercise the degree of care, skill, and learning required and expected of reasonable health care providers.”

His suit seeks not only compensatory damages and other relief but also punitive damages.

The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.

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

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The homicide rate among children in the United States rose by more than 4% per year since 2013 but jumped nearly 28% from 2019 to 2020, new data show.

Although long-term trends varied by region and demographics, with some groups and areas seeing declines in killings, the increases were the highest among Black children and boys aged 11-17, according to the researchers, who attribute the surge in violent deaths to a recent rise in firearm-related killings in children. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, claiming what the American Academy of Pediatrics has equated to a classroomful of lives each day.

“There are troubling recent rate increases among several groups, warranting immediate attention, with some racial and ethnic disparities persisting for more than 20 years,” said Rebecca F. Wilson, PhD, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped conduct the study.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues, whose findings appear in JAMA Pediatrics, examined data on 38,362 homicide victims in the United States aged 0-17 years who were killed between 1999 and 2020.

The nation’s overall homicide rate for youth fell by 5.6% per year from 2007 to 2013 before reversing course. Between 2013 and 2020, the overall rate rose 4.3% annually.

The figures show that not all children are affected equally. The rate of child homicide has fallen significantly for girls, infants, and children ages 5 years and under – whose deaths often result from caregiver neglect or violence – as well as Asian or Pacific Islanders, Whites, and those living in the Northeast.

But the child homicide rate in the South increased 6.4% per year between 2013 and 2020, while that of children in both rural America and in cities is also rising after years of decline, according to the researchers.

The suspected perpetrator was known in about 64% of child killings. Nearly 80% of those perpetrators were male.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues also note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have precipitated a wave of gun-related violence among children – a link borne out by another recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics. (Recent data suggest that intentional firearm injuries are often misclassified as accidental.)

The study found that gun-related injuries in youth remained elevated through 2021, with non-Hispanic Black children and those with public insurance making up greater proportions of victims during the pandemic. The researchers identified 1,815 firearm injuries per month before the pandemic and 2,759 per month during the outbreak, a 52% increase.

Although the two studies look at different data, both show that Black children are most affected by gun violence, experts said.

“This demonstrates a critical issue for the medical, public health, and legal communities: While homicide is often presented as a criminal justice problem, it is increasingly a racial justice problem,” said Katherine E. Hoops, MD, of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

In an editorial about the homicide study, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the violent deaths “preventable and unacceptable.” Eliminating such deaths “must be among our first priorities,” they wrote.

The editorial authors also noted that researchers know relatively little about nonfatal violent injuries such as those involving firearms. “These injuries are important not only because they may have life-altering consequences for children and families but also because understanding only the most severe form of any health condition (death) will hamper our ability to design and evaluate prevention strategies,” they wrote.

Dr. Wilson’s group identified different causes of youth homicide for different age groups – and the potential interventions for each differ. Although the youngest children are more likely to die from abuse or neglect, those aged 6-10 years were most likely to die by firearm, often associated with abuse that ends in suicide. Meanwhile, adolescents aged 11-17 were more subject to peer violence.

For Dr. Hoops, “each of these differences has important policy implications, including the need for policies that address structural racism, poverty, and systematic disadvantage – but also firearm safe storage to prevent youth violence and suicide [and] reduction of access to lethal means, such as through extreme risk protective orders when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others.”

Dr. Wilson agreed. “We know child homicides are preventable,” she said. “The rate decrease for some groups is encouraging, yet more can be done to protect all children.”

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

The homicide rate among children in the United States rose by more than 4% per year since 2013 but jumped nearly 28% from 2019 to 2020, new data show.

Although long-term trends varied by region and demographics, with some groups and areas seeing declines in killings, the increases were the highest among Black children and boys aged 11-17, according to the researchers, who attribute the surge in violent deaths to a recent rise in firearm-related killings in children. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, claiming what the American Academy of Pediatrics has equated to a classroomful of lives each day.

“There are troubling recent rate increases among several groups, warranting immediate attention, with some racial and ethnic disparities persisting for more than 20 years,” said Rebecca F. Wilson, PhD, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped conduct the study.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues, whose findings appear in JAMA Pediatrics, examined data on 38,362 homicide victims in the United States aged 0-17 years who were killed between 1999 and 2020.

The nation’s overall homicide rate for youth fell by 5.6% per year from 2007 to 2013 before reversing course. Between 2013 and 2020, the overall rate rose 4.3% annually.

The figures show that not all children are affected equally. The rate of child homicide has fallen significantly for girls, infants, and children ages 5 years and under – whose deaths often result from caregiver neglect or violence – as well as Asian or Pacific Islanders, Whites, and those living in the Northeast.

But the child homicide rate in the South increased 6.4% per year between 2013 and 2020, while that of children in both rural America and in cities is also rising after years of decline, according to the researchers.

The suspected perpetrator was known in about 64% of child killings. Nearly 80% of those perpetrators were male.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues also note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have precipitated a wave of gun-related violence among children – a link borne out by another recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics. (Recent data suggest that intentional firearm injuries are often misclassified as accidental.)

The study found that gun-related injuries in youth remained elevated through 2021, with non-Hispanic Black children and those with public insurance making up greater proportions of victims during the pandemic. The researchers identified 1,815 firearm injuries per month before the pandemic and 2,759 per month during the outbreak, a 52% increase.

Although the two studies look at different data, both show that Black children are most affected by gun violence, experts said.

“This demonstrates a critical issue for the medical, public health, and legal communities: While homicide is often presented as a criminal justice problem, it is increasingly a racial justice problem,” said Katherine E. Hoops, MD, of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

In an editorial about the homicide study, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the violent deaths “preventable and unacceptable.” Eliminating such deaths “must be among our first priorities,” they wrote.

The editorial authors also noted that researchers know relatively little about nonfatal violent injuries such as those involving firearms. “These injuries are important not only because they may have life-altering consequences for children and families but also because understanding only the most severe form of any health condition (death) will hamper our ability to design and evaluate prevention strategies,” they wrote.

Dr. Wilson’s group identified different causes of youth homicide for different age groups – and the potential interventions for each differ. Although the youngest children are more likely to die from abuse or neglect, those aged 6-10 years were most likely to die by firearm, often associated with abuse that ends in suicide. Meanwhile, adolescents aged 11-17 were more subject to peer violence.

For Dr. Hoops, “each of these differences has important policy implications, including the need for policies that address structural racism, poverty, and systematic disadvantage – but also firearm safe storage to prevent youth violence and suicide [and] reduction of access to lethal means, such as through extreme risk protective orders when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others.”

Dr. Wilson agreed. “We know child homicides are preventable,” she said. “The rate decrease for some groups is encouraging, yet more can be done to protect all children.”

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

The homicide rate among children in the United States rose by more than 4% per year since 2013 but jumped nearly 28% from 2019 to 2020, new data show.

Although long-term trends varied by region and demographics, with some groups and areas seeing declines in killings, the increases were the highest among Black children and boys aged 11-17, according to the researchers, who attribute the surge in violent deaths to a recent rise in firearm-related killings in children. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in the United States, claiming what the American Academy of Pediatrics has equated to a classroomful of lives each day.

“There are troubling recent rate increases among several groups, warranting immediate attention, with some racial and ethnic disparities persisting for more than 20 years,” said Rebecca F. Wilson, PhD, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who helped conduct the study.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues, whose findings appear in JAMA Pediatrics, examined data on 38,362 homicide victims in the United States aged 0-17 years who were killed between 1999 and 2020.

The nation’s overall homicide rate for youth fell by 5.6% per year from 2007 to 2013 before reversing course. Between 2013 and 2020, the overall rate rose 4.3% annually.

The figures show that not all children are affected equally. The rate of child homicide has fallen significantly for girls, infants, and children ages 5 years and under – whose deaths often result from caregiver neglect or violence – as well as Asian or Pacific Islanders, Whites, and those living in the Northeast.

But the child homicide rate in the South increased 6.4% per year between 2013 and 2020, while that of children in both rural America and in cities is also rising after years of decline, according to the researchers.

The suspected perpetrator was known in about 64% of child killings. Nearly 80% of those perpetrators were male.

Dr. Wilson and her colleagues also note that the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have precipitated a wave of gun-related violence among children – a link borne out by another recent paper in JAMA Pediatrics. (Recent data suggest that intentional firearm injuries are often misclassified as accidental.)

The study found that gun-related injuries in youth remained elevated through 2021, with non-Hispanic Black children and those with public insurance making up greater proportions of victims during the pandemic. The researchers identified 1,815 firearm injuries per month before the pandemic and 2,759 per month during the outbreak, a 52% increase.

Although the two studies look at different data, both show that Black children are most affected by gun violence, experts said.

“This demonstrates a critical issue for the medical, public health, and legal communities: While homicide is often presented as a criminal justice problem, it is increasingly a racial justice problem,” said Katherine E. Hoops, MD, of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore.

In an editorial about the homicide study, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the violent deaths “preventable and unacceptable.” Eliminating such deaths “must be among our first priorities,” they wrote.

The editorial authors also noted that researchers know relatively little about nonfatal violent injuries such as those involving firearms. “These injuries are important not only because they may have life-altering consequences for children and families but also because understanding only the most severe form of any health condition (death) will hamper our ability to design and evaluate prevention strategies,” they wrote.

Dr. Wilson’s group identified different causes of youth homicide for different age groups – and the potential interventions for each differ. Although the youngest children are more likely to die from abuse or neglect, those aged 6-10 years were most likely to die by firearm, often associated with abuse that ends in suicide. Meanwhile, adolescents aged 11-17 were more subject to peer violence.

For Dr. Hoops, “each of these differences has important policy implications, including the need for policies that address structural racism, poverty, and systematic disadvantage – but also firearm safe storage to prevent youth violence and suicide [and] reduction of access to lethal means, such as through extreme risk protective orders when someone is at risk of harming themselves or others.”

Dr. Wilson agreed. “We know child homicides are preventable,” she said. “The rate decrease for some groups is encouraging, yet more can be done to protect all children.”

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

In a new updated report, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges pediatricians to understand signs of exploitation and labor/sex trafficking and learn how to support children and adolescents who are targeted.

“It’s incredibly scary when you encounter someone you worry is a victim, and you don’t know how to help them, and they’re not saying what’s going on,” pediatrician and report coauthor Dana Kaplan, MD, of Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital, said in an interview. “Every case is so unique and different: There’s no algorithm of ‘If A, then B, then C.’ You have to approach each person as an individual, and it takes time to make sure you’re thinking things through about how to provide what’s needed.”

The AAP published the clinical report, which is intended to provide guidance to pediatricians, in the January 2023 issue of Pediatrics. The organization previously tackled this topic in a 2017 clinical report, and Dr. Kaplan said the new report includes updated recommendations.

As the new report notes, there aren’t reliable estimates of exploited children in the United States, although millions are thought to be trafficked and subjected to forced labor around the world. “By virtue of their young age, children and adolescents are vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, because they have limited life experiences, a need for attachment and acceptance, an immature prefrontal cortex ... and limited options for action,” the report says.

Dr. Kaplan puts it this way: “By the nature of being a child, you’re vulnerable.”

Still, health care professionals often aren’t trained in regard to human trafficking, the report says, even though it’s clear that they “must remain alert for the possibility.”

Dr. Kaplan, who has special training in child abuse and often sees children at risk, cautioned that children usually don’t directly say that they need help. “That’s generally not the case. They don’t articulate what’s going on around them as unsafe, or concerning, or dangerous. If you go and see a doctor for 10 minutes, are you going to tell them everything?

Instead, clinicians must often rely on their own observations. The report lists multiple possible signs of exploitation.

• The patient is accompanied by a domineering adult who does not allow the child to answer questions or accompanied by an unrelated adult. Inconsistent information is provided by the patient or companion. There’s a delay in seeking medical care.
• The patient has multiple sexually transmitted infections, previous pregnancy or termination, and/or frequent visits for emergency contraception. There are signs of prior sexual abuse, assault, or other maltreatment.
• The patient is withdrawn, fearful, hostile, or has a suspicious demeanor. The patient is constantly checking his or her phone and appears anxious or afraid.

What should clinicians do if they suspect exploitation? The report recommends that health care organizations develop guidelines for workers to follow. For her part, Dr. Kaplan advises colleagues to let patients lead conversations and not dig too deeply into their lives.

“Don’t turn into an investigator. This is not [Law & Order] SVU,” she said. “Stay focused on what you’re trained to do – provide health care.”

That doesn’t mean clinicians should ignore signs of trouble. It’s crucial to develop trust with the patient over time, she said, and turn to a specialist in your community or institution if you have suspicions.

And be careful to not portray victims as perpetrators. The new report emphasizes that “it’s important for health care providers to emphasize to authorities that the patient is a victim of exploitation who needs services rather than a juvenile offender.”

The report also highlights the importance of creating an environment that supports clinicians themselves: “Self-care for the clinician is critical in preventing and addressing secondary traumatic stress. A work environment that fosters peer support, encourages open discussion of work-related stress, and implements reasonable work-life balance policies can help protect providers from secondary stress and its consequences.”

Resources for clinicians include the National Human Trafficking Hotline, the federal Office of Trafficking in Persons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s domestic refugee screening guidelines.

The study has no external funding. The authors report no disclosures.

In a new updated report, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges pediatricians to understand signs of exploitation and labor/sex trafficking and learn how to support children and adolescents who are targeted.

“It’s incredibly scary when you encounter someone you worry is a victim, and you don’t know how to help them, and they’re not saying what’s going on,” pediatrician and report coauthor Dana Kaplan, MD, of Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital, said in an interview. “Every case is so unique and different: There’s no algorithm of ‘If A, then B, then C.’ You have to approach each person as an individual, and it takes time to make sure you’re thinking things through about how to provide what’s needed.”

The AAP published the clinical report, which is intended to provide guidance to pediatricians, in the January 2023 issue of Pediatrics. The organization previously tackled this topic in a 2017 clinical report, and Dr. Kaplan said the new report includes updated recommendations.

As the new report notes, there aren’t reliable estimates of exploited children in the United States, although millions are thought to be trafficked and subjected to forced labor around the world. “By virtue of their young age, children and adolescents are vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, because they have limited life experiences, a need for attachment and acceptance, an immature prefrontal cortex ... and limited options for action,” the report says.

Dr. Kaplan puts it this way: “By the nature of being a child, you’re vulnerable.”

Still, health care professionals often aren’t trained in regard to human trafficking, the report says, even though it’s clear that they “must remain alert for the possibility.”

Dr. Kaplan, who has special training in child abuse and often sees children at risk, cautioned that children usually don’t directly say that they need help. “That’s generally not the case. They don’t articulate what’s going on around them as unsafe, or concerning, or dangerous. If you go and see a doctor for 10 minutes, are you going to tell them everything?

Instead, clinicians must often rely on their own observations. The report lists multiple possible signs of exploitation.

• The patient is accompanied by a domineering adult who does not allow the child to answer questions or accompanied by an unrelated adult. Inconsistent information is provided by the patient or companion. There’s a delay in seeking medical care.
• The patient has multiple sexually transmitted infections, previous pregnancy or termination, and/or frequent visits for emergency contraception. There are signs of prior sexual abuse, assault, or other maltreatment.
• The patient is withdrawn, fearful, hostile, or has a suspicious demeanor. The patient is constantly checking his or her phone and appears anxious or afraid.

What should clinicians do if they suspect exploitation? The report recommends that health care organizations develop guidelines for workers to follow. For her part, Dr. Kaplan advises colleagues to let patients lead conversations and not dig too deeply into their lives.

“Don’t turn into an investigator. This is not [Law & Order] SVU,” she said. “Stay focused on what you’re trained to do – provide health care.”

That doesn’t mean clinicians should ignore signs of trouble. It’s crucial to develop trust with the patient over time, she said, and turn to a specialist in your community or institution if you have suspicions.

And be careful to not portray victims as perpetrators. The new report emphasizes that “it’s important for health care providers to emphasize to authorities that the patient is a victim of exploitation who needs services rather than a juvenile offender.”

The report also highlights the importance of creating an environment that supports clinicians themselves: “Self-care for the clinician is critical in preventing and addressing secondary traumatic stress. A work environment that fosters peer support, encourages open discussion of work-related stress, and implements reasonable work-life balance policies can help protect providers from secondary stress and its consequences.”

Resources for clinicians include the National Human Trafficking Hotline, the federal Office of Trafficking in Persons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s domestic refugee screening guidelines.

The study has no external funding. The authors report no disclosures.

In a new updated report, the American Academy of Pediatrics urges pediatricians to understand signs of exploitation and labor/sex trafficking and learn how to support children and adolescents who are targeted.

“It’s incredibly scary when you encounter someone you worry is a victim, and you don’t know how to help them, and they’re not saying what’s going on,” pediatrician and report coauthor Dana Kaplan, MD, of Staten Island (N.Y.) University Hospital, said in an interview. “Every case is so unique and different: There’s no algorithm of ‘If A, then B, then C.’ You have to approach each person as an individual, and it takes time to make sure you’re thinking things through about how to provide what’s needed.”

The AAP published the clinical report, which is intended to provide guidance to pediatricians, in the January 2023 issue of Pediatrics. The organization previously tackled this topic in a 2017 clinical report, and Dr. Kaplan said the new report includes updated recommendations.

As the new report notes, there aren’t reliable estimates of exploited children in the United States, although millions are thought to be trafficked and subjected to forced labor around the world. “By virtue of their young age, children and adolescents are vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation, because they have limited life experiences, a need for attachment and acceptance, an immature prefrontal cortex ... and limited options for action,” the report says.

Dr. Kaplan puts it this way: “By the nature of being a child, you’re vulnerable.”

Still, health care professionals often aren’t trained in regard to human trafficking, the report says, even though it’s clear that they “must remain alert for the possibility.”

Dr. Kaplan, who has special training in child abuse and often sees children at risk, cautioned that children usually don’t directly say that they need help. “That’s generally not the case. They don’t articulate what’s going on around them as unsafe, or concerning, or dangerous. If you go and see a doctor for 10 minutes, are you going to tell them everything?

Instead, clinicians must often rely on their own observations. The report lists multiple possible signs of exploitation.

• The patient is accompanied by a domineering adult who does not allow the child to answer questions or accompanied by an unrelated adult. Inconsistent information is provided by the patient or companion. There’s a delay in seeking medical care.
• The patient has multiple sexually transmitted infections, previous pregnancy or termination, and/or frequent visits for emergency contraception. There are signs of prior sexual abuse, assault, or other maltreatment.
• The patient is withdrawn, fearful, hostile, or has a suspicious demeanor. The patient is constantly checking his or her phone and appears anxious or afraid.

What should clinicians do if they suspect exploitation? The report recommends that health care organizations develop guidelines for workers to follow. For her part, Dr. Kaplan advises colleagues to let patients lead conversations and not dig too deeply into their lives.

“Don’t turn into an investigator. This is not [Law & Order] SVU,” she said. “Stay focused on what you’re trained to do – provide health care.”

That doesn’t mean clinicians should ignore signs of trouble. It’s crucial to develop trust with the patient over time, she said, and turn to a specialist in your community or institution if you have suspicions.

And be careful to not portray victims as perpetrators. The new report emphasizes that “it’s important for health care providers to emphasize to authorities that the patient is a victim of exploitation who needs services rather than a juvenile offender.”

The report also highlights the importance of creating an environment that supports clinicians themselves: “Self-care for the clinician is critical in preventing and addressing secondary traumatic stress. A work environment that fosters peer support, encourages open discussion of work-related stress, and implements reasonable work-life balance policies can help protect providers from secondary stress and its consequences.”

Resources for clinicians include the National Human Trafficking Hotline, the federal Office of Trafficking in Persons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s domestic refugee screening guidelines.

The study has no external funding. The authors report no disclosures.

There are some benefits and potentially serious risks associated with complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) patients with heart failure (HF) may use to manage symptoms, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement on the topic.

For example, yoga and tai chi can be helpful for people with HF, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may also have benefits. However, there are safety concerns with other commonly used over-the-counter CAM therapies, including vitamin D, blue cohosh, and Lily of the Valley, the writing group said.

It’s estimated that roughly one in three patients with HF use CAM. But often patients don’t report their CAM use to their clinicians and clinicians may not routinely ask about CAM use or have the resources to evaluate CAM therapies, writing group chair Sheryl L. Chow, PharmD, told this news organization.

“This represents a major public health problem given that consumers are frequently purchasing these potentially dangerous and minimally regulated products without the knowledge or advice from a health care professional,” said Dr. Chow, of Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, Calif., and University of California, Irvine.

The 27-page statement was published online in Circulation.
 

CAM use common in HF

The statement defines CAM as medical practices, supplements, and approaches that do not conform to the standards of conventional, evidence-based practice guidelines. CAM products are available without prescriptions or medical guidance at pharmacies, health food stores, and online retailers.

“These agents are largely unregulated by the [Food and Drug Administration] and manufacturers do not need to demonstrate efficacy or safety. It is important that both health care professionals and consumers improve communication with respect to OTC therapies and are educated about potential efficacy and risk of harm so that shared and informed decision-making can occur,” Dr. Chow said.

The writing group reviewed research published before November 2021 on CAM among people with HF.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as fish oil, have the strongest evidence among CAM agents for clinical benefit in HF and may be used safely by patients in moderation and in consultation with their health care team, the writing group said.

Research has shown that omega-3 PUFAs are associated with a lower risk of developing HF as well as improvements in left ventricular systolic function in those with existing HF, they pointed out.

However, two clinical trials found a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with high-dose omega-3 PUFA administration. “This risk appears to be dose-related and increased when exceeding 2 g/d of fish oil,” the writing group said.

Research suggests that yoga and tai chi, when added to standard HF treatment, may help improve exercise tolerance and quality of life and decrease blood pressure.
 

Inconclusive or potentially harmful CAM therapies

Other CAM therapies for HF have been shown as ineffective based on current data, have mixed findings, or appear to be harmful. The writers highlighted the following examples:

• Overall evidence regarding the value of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HF remains “inconclusive” and may be harmful when taken with HF medications such as digoxin, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.
• Routine thiamine supplementation in patients with HF and without clinically significant thiamine deficiency may not be efficacious and should be avoided.
• Research on alcohol varies, with some data showing that drinking low-to-moderate amounts (one to two drinks per day) may help prevent HF, while habitual drinking or consuming higher amounts is known to contribute to HF.
• The literature is mixed on vitamin E. It may have some benefit in reducing the risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction but has also been associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization.
• Coenzyme Q10 (Co-Q10), commonly taken as a dietary supplement, may help improve HF class, symptoms, and quality of life, but it also may interact with antihypertensive and anticoagulant medication. Co-Q10 remains of “uncertain” value in HF at this time. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusion can be reached.
• Hawthorn, a flowering shrub, has been shown in some studies to increase exercise tolerance and improve HF symptoms such as fatigue. Yet it also has the potential to worsen HF, and there is conflicting research about whether it interacts with digoxin.
• The herbal supplement blue cohosh, from the root of a flowering plant found in hardwood forests, could cause tachycardia, high blood pressure, chest pain, and increased blood glucose. It may also decrease the effect of medications taken to treat high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, they noted.
• Lily of the Valley, the root, stems, and flower of which are used in supplements, has long been used in mild HF because it contains active chemicals similar to digoxin. But when taken with digoxin, it could lead to hypokalemia.

In an AHA news release, Dr. Chow said, “Overall, more quality research and well-powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the risks and benefits” of CAM therapies for HF.

“This scientific statement provides critical information to health care professionals who treat people with heart failure and may be used as a resource for consumers about the potential benefit and harm associated with complementary and alternative medicine products,” Dr. Chow added.

The writing group encourages health care professionals to routinely ask their HF patients about their use of CAM therapies. They also say pharmacists should be included in the multidisciplinary health care team to provide consultations about the use of CAM therapies for HF patients.

The scientific statement does not include cannabis or traditional Chinese medicine, which have also been used in HF.

In 2020, the AHA published a separate scientific statement on the use of medical marijuana and recreational cannabis on cardiovascular health, as reported previously by this news organization.

The scientific statement on CAM for HF was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Clinical Pharmacology Committee and Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

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

There are some benefits and potentially serious risks associated with complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) patients with heart failure (HF) may use to manage symptoms, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement on the topic.

For example, yoga and tai chi can be helpful for people with HF, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may also have benefits. However, there are safety concerns with other commonly used over-the-counter CAM therapies, including vitamin D, blue cohosh, and Lily of the Valley, the writing group said.

It’s estimated that roughly one in three patients with HF use CAM. But often patients don’t report their CAM use to their clinicians and clinicians may not routinely ask about CAM use or have the resources to evaluate CAM therapies, writing group chair Sheryl L. Chow, PharmD, told this news organization.

“This represents a major public health problem given that consumers are frequently purchasing these potentially dangerous and minimally regulated products without the knowledge or advice from a health care professional,” said Dr. Chow, of Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, Calif., and University of California, Irvine.

The 27-page statement was published online in Circulation.
 

CAM use common in HF

The statement defines CAM as medical practices, supplements, and approaches that do not conform to the standards of conventional, evidence-based practice guidelines. CAM products are available without prescriptions or medical guidance at pharmacies, health food stores, and online retailers.

“These agents are largely unregulated by the [Food and Drug Administration] and manufacturers do not need to demonstrate efficacy or safety. It is important that both health care professionals and consumers improve communication with respect to OTC therapies and are educated about potential efficacy and risk of harm so that shared and informed decision-making can occur,” Dr. Chow said.

The writing group reviewed research published before November 2021 on CAM among people with HF.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as fish oil, have the strongest evidence among CAM agents for clinical benefit in HF and may be used safely by patients in moderation and in consultation with their health care team, the writing group said.

Research has shown that omega-3 PUFAs are associated with a lower risk of developing HF as well as improvements in left ventricular systolic function in those with existing HF, they pointed out.

However, two clinical trials found a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with high-dose omega-3 PUFA administration. “This risk appears to be dose-related and increased when exceeding 2 g/d of fish oil,” the writing group said.

Research suggests that yoga and tai chi, when added to standard HF treatment, may help improve exercise tolerance and quality of life and decrease blood pressure.
 

Inconclusive or potentially harmful CAM therapies

Other CAM therapies for HF have been shown as ineffective based on current data, have mixed findings, or appear to be harmful. The writers highlighted the following examples:

• Overall evidence regarding the value of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HF remains “inconclusive” and may be harmful when taken with HF medications such as digoxin, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.
• Routine thiamine supplementation in patients with HF and without clinically significant thiamine deficiency may not be efficacious and should be avoided.
• Research on alcohol varies, with some data showing that drinking low-to-moderate amounts (one to two drinks per day) may help prevent HF, while habitual drinking or consuming higher amounts is known to contribute to HF.
• The literature is mixed on vitamin E. It may have some benefit in reducing the risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction but has also been associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization.
• Coenzyme Q10 (Co-Q10), commonly taken as a dietary supplement, may help improve HF class, symptoms, and quality of life, but it also may interact with antihypertensive and anticoagulant medication. Co-Q10 remains of “uncertain” value in HF at this time. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusion can be reached.
• Hawthorn, a flowering shrub, has been shown in some studies to increase exercise tolerance and improve HF symptoms such as fatigue. Yet it also has the potential to worsen HF, and there is conflicting research about whether it interacts with digoxin.
• The herbal supplement blue cohosh, from the root of a flowering plant found in hardwood forests, could cause tachycardia, high blood pressure, chest pain, and increased blood glucose. It may also decrease the effect of medications taken to treat high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, they noted.
• Lily of the Valley, the root, stems, and flower of which are used in supplements, has long been used in mild HF because it contains active chemicals similar to digoxin. But when taken with digoxin, it could lead to hypokalemia.

In an AHA news release, Dr. Chow said, “Overall, more quality research and well-powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the risks and benefits” of CAM therapies for HF.

“This scientific statement provides critical information to health care professionals who treat people with heart failure and may be used as a resource for consumers about the potential benefit and harm associated with complementary and alternative medicine products,” Dr. Chow added.

The writing group encourages health care professionals to routinely ask their HF patients about their use of CAM therapies. They also say pharmacists should be included in the multidisciplinary health care team to provide consultations about the use of CAM therapies for HF patients.

The scientific statement does not include cannabis or traditional Chinese medicine, which have also been used in HF.

In 2020, the AHA published a separate scientific statement on the use of medical marijuana and recreational cannabis on cardiovascular health, as reported previously by this news organization.

The scientific statement on CAM for HF was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Clinical Pharmacology Committee and Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

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

There are some benefits and potentially serious risks associated with complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) patients with heart failure (HF) may use to manage symptoms, the American Heart Association noted in a new scientific statement on the topic.

For example, yoga and tai chi can be helpful for people with HF, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids may also have benefits. However, there are safety concerns with other commonly used over-the-counter CAM therapies, including vitamin D, blue cohosh, and Lily of the Valley, the writing group said.

It’s estimated that roughly one in three patients with HF use CAM. But often patients don’t report their CAM use to their clinicians and clinicians may not routinely ask about CAM use or have the resources to evaluate CAM therapies, writing group chair Sheryl L. Chow, PharmD, told this news organization.

“This represents a major public health problem given that consumers are frequently purchasing these potentially dangerous and minimally regulated products without the knowledge or advice from a health care professional,” said Dr. Chow, of Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, Calif., and University of California, Irvine.

The 27-page statement was published online in Circulation.
 

CAM use common in HF

The statement defines CAM as medical practices, supplements, and approaches that do not conform to the standards of conventional, evidence-based practice guidelines. CAM products are available without prescriptions or medical guidance at pharmacies, health food stores, and online retailers.

“These agents are largely unregulated by the [Food and Drug Administration] and manufacturers do not need to demonstrate efficacy or safety. It is important that both health care professionals and consumers improve communication with respect to OTC therapies and are educated about potential efficacy and risk of harm so that shared and informed decision-making can occur,” Dr. Chow said.

The writing group reviewed research published before November 2021 on CAM among people with HF.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), such as fish oil, have the strongest evidence among CAM agents for clinical benefit in HF and may be used safely by patients in moderation and in consultation with their health care team, the writing group said.

Research has shown that omega-3 PUFAs are associated with a lower risk of developing HF as well as improvements in left ventricular systolic function in those with existing HF, they pointed out.

However, two clinical trials found a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with high-dose omega-3 PUFA administration. “This risk appears to be dose-related and increased when exceeding 2 g/d of fish oil,” the writing group said.

Research suggests that yoga and tai chi, when added to standard HF treatment, may help improve exercise tolerance and quality of life and decrease blood pressure.
 

Inconclusive or potentially harmful CAM therapies

Other CAM therapies for HF have been shown as ineffective based on current data, have mixed findings, or appear to be harmful. The writers highlighted the following examples:

• Overall evidence regarding the value of vitamin D supplementation in patients with HF remains “inconclusive” and may be harmful when taken with HF medications such as digoxin, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.
• Routine thiamine supplementation in patients with HF and without clinically significant thiamine deficiency may not be efficacious and should be avoided.
• Research on alcohol varies, with some data showing that drinking low-to-moderate amounts (one to two drinks per day) may help prevent HF, while habitual drinking or consuming higher amounts is known to contribute to HF.
• The literature is mixed on vitamin E. It may have some benefit in reducing the risk of HF with preserved ejection fraction but has also been associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalization.
• Coenzyme Q10 (Co-Q10), commonly taken as a dietary supplement, may help improve HF class, symptoms, and quality of life, but it also may interact with antihypertensive and anticoagulant medication. Co-Q10 remains of “uncertain” value in HF at this time. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusion can be reached.
• Hawthorn, a flowering shrub, has been shown in some studies to increase exercise tolerance and improve HF symptoms such as fatigue. Yet it also has the potential to worsen HF, and there is conflicting research about whether it interacts with digoxin.
• The herbal supplement blue cohosh, from the root of a flowering plant found in hardwood forests, could cause tachycardia, high blood pressure, chest pain, and increased blood glucose. It may also decrease the effect of medications taken to treat high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, they noted.
• Lily of the Valley, the root, stems, and flower of which are used in supplements, has long been used in mild HF because it contains active chemicals similar to digoxin. But when taken with digoxin, it could lead to hypokalemia.

In an AHA news release, Dr. Chow said, “Overall, more quality research and well-powered randomized controlled trials are needed to better understand the risks and benefits” of CAM therapies for HF.

“This scientific statement provides critical information to health care professionals who treat people with heart failure and may be used as a resource for consumers about the potential benefit and harm associated with complementary and alternative medicine products,” Dr. Chow added.

The writing group encourages health care professionals to routinely ask their HF patients about their use of CAM therapies. They also say pharmacists should be included in the multidisciplinary health care team to provide consultations about the use of CAM therapies for HF patients.

The scientific statement does not include cannabis or traditional Chinese medicine, which have also been used in HF.

In 2020, the AHA published a separate scientific statement on the use of medical marijuana and recreational cannabis on cardiovascular health, as reported previously by this news organization.

The scientific statement on CAM for HF was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Clinical Pharmacology Committee and Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

For the first time, the majority of people dying from COVID-19 in America have been vaccinated.

“We can no longer say this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated,” Kaiser Family Foundation Vice President Cynthia Cox, who conducted the analysis, told The Washington Post.

People who had been vaccinated or boosted made up 58% of COVID-19 deaths in August, the analysis showed. The rate has been on the rise: 23% of coronavirus deaths were among vaccinated people in September 2021, and the vaccinated made up 42% of deaths in January and February 2022, the Post reported.

Research continues to show that people who are vaccinated or boosted have a lower risk of death. The rise in deaths among the vaccinated is the result of three factors, Ms. Cox said.

• A large majority of people in the United States have been vaccinated (267 million people, the  said).
• People who are at the greatest risk of dying from COVID-19 are more likely to be vaccinated and boosted, such as the elderly.
• Vaccines lose their effectiveness over time; the virus changes to avoid vaccines; and people need to choose to get boosters to continue to be protected.

The case for the effectiveness of vaccines and boosters versus skipping the shots remains strong. People age 6 months and older who are unvaccinated are six times more likely to die of COVID-19, compared to those who got the primary series of shots, the Post reported. Survival rates were even better with additional booster shots, particularly among older people.

“I feel very confident that if people continue to get vaccinated at good numbers, if people get boosted, we can absolutely have a very safe and healthy holiday season,” Ashish Jha, White House coronavirus czar, said on Nov. 22.

The number of Americans who have gotten the most recent booster has been increasing ahead of the holidays. CDC data show that 12% of the U.S. population age 5 and older has received a booster.

A new study by a team of researchers from Harvard University and Yale University estimates that 94% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19 at least once, leaving just 1 in 20 people who have never had the virus.

“Despite these high exposure numbers, there is still substantial population susceptibility to infection with an Omicron variant,” the authors wrote.

They said that if all states achieved the vaccination levels of Vermont, where 55% of people had at least one booster and 22% got a second one, there would be “an appreciable improvement in population immunity, with greater relative impact for protection against infection versus severe disease. This additional protection results from both the recovery of immunity lost due to waning and the increased effectiveness of the bivalent booster against Omicron infections.”

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency medicine providers worry more about committing medical errors that harm patients than about triggering malpractice lawsuits, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open.

The cross-sectional study was conducted by researchers from Soroka University Medical Center, Israel; the University of Massachusetts, Worcester; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Harvard Medical School, Boston; and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Online survey responses were collected from 1,222 emergency department attending physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts from January to September 2020.

Participants were asked to rank their level of agreement – from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” – with two statements: “In my day-to-day practice, I am fearful of making a mistake which results in [1] harm to the patient” (fear of harm) and [2] “being sued” (fear of suit).

The average age of the participants was about 44 years; 54.2% were men, 45.1% were women, and 0.7% were of other gender. Approximately 70% of responses were from MDs or DOs, and the remainder were from nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Participants had between 5 and 19 years of experience (median, 10 years).

The study found that the mean score was greater with regard to fear of harm than to fear of suit, regardless of clinician type, experience, or sex and whether the survey was completed before or after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in mean scores regarding fear of suit before the pandemic and after it.

“Our data show a significantly greater fear of harming a patient than a fear of a malpractice suit,” Linda Isbell, PhD, professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who is one of the study’s authors, told this news organization. “There is a genuine concern and fear of harming patients and a desire to provide the best care for the patient’s well-being.”

In general, fear-of-harm and fear-of-suit scores decreased as providers gained experience. Those with less than 5 years of experience reported the highest levels of both.

“Although our data do not specifically provide reasons why age may impact [fear] levels, it is possible that with more practice experience ... providers have a better sense of the likelihood of patient harm and malpractice and how to manage such outcomes should they happen,” says Dr. Isbell. She noted that a longitudinal study is necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

One exception was female APCs, whose fear-of-harm scores remained relatively steady across all experience levels. Among male APCs, fear of causing patient harm decreased among those with 5-14 years of experience but increased slightly at 14-44 years of experience.

While previous research typically focused on fear of malpractice as a significant driver of defensive medicine, such as testing excessively, this study examined providers’ fear of harming patients because of a medical error.

The findings suggest “that fear of harm should be considered with, and may be more consequential than, fear of suit in medical decision-making,” the authors note.

“[F]ear can motivate people to engage in more careful and thorough information processing, which can drive behaviors in systematic ways,” says Dr. Isbell. “It is possible that one’s fear of harming a patient is triggering a high level of vigilance, reflected in the practice of defensive medicine across different types of patients – some of whom may be better off with less testing and referrals.”

Rade B. Vukmir, MD, JD, FACEP, an emergency medicine physician and spokesman for the American College of Emergency Physicians, says defensive medicine is common in the specialty and that it occurs 20%-40% of the time.

“Early in practice, the proverbial worst sin is missing a diagnosis, so that’s where the overtesting mentality comes from,” he says. In addition, “there are cities where you can’t drive a mile without seeing a half dozen legal advertisements. That imposes a cost burden on the system, [adding] roughly 20% to the cost of overall care.”

Emergency medicine providers attempt to minimize testing, but between their role as “America’s safety net” and the difficult circumstances they often face when treating patients, it takes a while to strike a balance, Dr. Vukmir acknowledges.

“There’s a training correlation, which showed up [in this study]; as people got further advanced in training, they felt more comfortable and felt the need to do it less,” says Dr. Vukmir.

The study was funded by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Isbell reports no conflicts of interest. Dr. Vukmir has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Chronic lack of exercise – dubbed “exercise deficiency” – is associated with cardiac atrophy, reduced cardiac output and chamber size, and diminished cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in a subgroup of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), researchers say.

Increasing the physical activity levels of these sedentary individuals could be an effective preventive strategy, particularly for those who are younger and middle-aged, they suggest.

Thinking of HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome leading to a small heart “flies in the face of decades of cardiovascular teaching, because traditionally, we’ve thought of heart failure as the big floppy heart,” Andre La Gerche, MBBS, PhD, of the Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, told this news organization.

“While it is true that some people with HFpEF have thick, stiff hearts, we propose that another subset has a normal heart, except it’s small because it’s been underexercised,” he said.

The article, published online  as part of a Focus Seminar series in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, has “gone viral on social media,” Jason C. Kovacic, MBBS, PhD, of the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Darlinghurst, Australia, told this news organization.

Dr. Kovacic is a JACC section editor and the coordinating and senior author of the series, which covers other issues surrounding physical activity, both in athletes and the general public.
 

‘Coin-dropping moment’

To support their hypothesis that HFpEF is an exercise deficiency in certain patients, Dr. La Gerche and colleagues conducted a literature review that highlights the following points:

• There is a strong association between physical activity and both CRF and heart function.
• Exercise deficiency is a major risk factor for HFpEF in a subset of patients.
• Increasing physical activity is associated with greater cardiac mass, stroke volumes, cardiac output, and peak oxygen consumption.
• Physical inactivity leads to loss of heart muscle, reduced output and chamber size, and less ability to improve cardiac performance with exercise.
• Aging results in a smaller, stiffer heart; however, this effect is mitigated by regular exercise.
• Individuals who are sedentary throughout life cannot attenuate age-related reductions in heart size and have increasing chamber stiffness.

“When we explain it, it’s like a coin-dropping moment, because it’s actually a really simple concept,” Dr. La Gerche said. “A small heart has a small stroke volume. A patient with a small heart with a maximal stroke volume of 60 mL can generate a cardiac output of 9 L/min at a heart rate of 150 beats/min during exercise – an output that just isn’t enough. It’s like trying to drive a truck with a 50cc motorbike engine.”

“Plus,” Dr. La Gerche added, “exercise deficiency also sets the stage for comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, all of which can ultimately lead to HFpEF.”

Considering HFpEF as an exercise deficiency syndrome has two clinical implications, Dr. La Gerche said. “First, it helps us understand the condition and diagnose more cases. For example, I think practitioners will start to recognize that breathlessness in some of their patients is associated with a small heart.”

“Second,” he said, “if it’s an exercise deficiency syndrome, the treatment is exercise. For most people, that means exercising regularly before the age of 60 to prevent HFpEF, because studies have found that after the age of 60, the heart is a bit fixed and harder to remodel. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try after 60 or that you won’t get benefit. But the real sweet spot is in middle age and younger.”
 

The bigger picture

The JACC Focus Seminar series starts with an article that underscores the benefits of regular physical activity. “The key is getting our patients to meet the guidelines: 150 to 300 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week, or 75 to 250 minutes of vigorous activity per week,” Dr. Kovacic emphasized.

“Yes, we can give a statin to lower cholesterol. Yes, we can give a blood pressure medication to lower blood pressure. But when you prescribe exercise, you impact patients’ blood pressure, their cholesterol, their weight, their sense of well-being,” he said. “It cuts across so many different aspects of people’s lives that it’s important to underscore the value of exercise to everybody.”

That includes physicians, he affirmed. “It behooves all physicians to be leading by example. I would encourage those who are overweight or aren’t exercising as much as they should be to make the time to be healthy and to exercise. If you don’t, then bad health will force you to make the time to deal with bad health issues.”

Other articles in the series deal with the athlete’s heart. Christopher Semsarian, MBBS, PhD, MPH, University of Sydney, and colleagues discuss emerging data on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and other genetic cardiovascular diseases, with the conclusion that it is probably okay for more athletes with these conditions to participate in recreational and competitive sports than was previously thought – another paradigm shift, according to Dr. Kovacic.

The final article addresses some of the challenges and controversies related to the athlete’s heart, including whether extreme exercise is associated with vulnerability to atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, and the impact of gender on the cardiac response to exercise, which can’t be determined now because of a paucity of data on women in sports.

Overall, Dr. Kovacic said, the series makes for “compelling” reading that should encourage readers to embark on their own studies to add to the data and support exercise prescription across the board.

No commercial funding or relevant conflicts of interest were reported.

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

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Unvaccinated people may be 10 times more likely than fully vaccinated people to be hospitalized for the Omicron variant of COVID-19, suggests a large study conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.

“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).

To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.

Study shows power of the booster

A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.

“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.

The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)

“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.

New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential

While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.

A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.

In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.

“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”

The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.

Integra is recalling the CereLink Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitor after reports that the device may display incorrect ICP values and out-of-range pressure readings.

The recall includes 388 monitors, with model numbers 826820 and 826820P. The devices were distributed between June 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The monitor is used in patients with head injuries and stroke as well as in surgical and postoperative neurosurgical patients and those with other conditions.

The device’s sensor is implanted in the brain and connected by a wire to an external monitor that displays ICP readings, which are used to both monitor and guide treatment.

If the CereLink ICP Monitor fails to function properly, the patient may have to undergo additional brain surgeries to replace it, which involves the risks for infection, bleeding, and damage to tissue. A malfunctioning device also creates a risk for serious injury or death, the MedWatch notes.

Global complaints

As of July 31, Integra has received 105 global complaints associated with this recall.

In addition, as of Aug. 24, the FDA is aware of at least 68 medical device reports (MDRs) associated with this problem, including reports of patient injury and one patient death.

According to the FDA, the patient death report in the MDR described a malfunctioning CereLink ICP Monitor during use in a critically injured patient, which was mitigated by replacing the ICP sensor.

“The cause of patient death was determined by Integra to be unrelated to the CereLink ICP Monitor malfunction,” the FDA said.

The manufacturer has sent a letter to customers advising them to stop using the recalled monitors “as soon as clinically possible.”

The letter states that continued use of a monitor already in place should be determined only by an individualized risk-benefit analysis by the attending clinician.

For any new patients, the company advises switching to an alternate patient-monitoring system.

Customers with questions or concerns about this recall should contact their Integra account manager, clinical specialist, or customer service by phone at 800-654-2873 or by email at [email protected].

Problems related to the CereLink ICP Monitor should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Integra is recalling the CereLink Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitor after reports that the device may display incorrect ICP values and out-of-range pressure readings.

The recall includes 388 monitors, with model numbers 826820 and 826820P. The devices were distributed between June 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The monitor is used in patients with head injuries and stroke as well as in surgical and postoperative neurosurgical patients and those with other conditions.

The device’s sensor is implanted in the brain and connected by a wire to an external monitor that displays ICP readings, which are used to both monitor and guide treatment.

If the CereLink ICP Monitor fails to function properly, the patient may have to undergo additional brain surgeries to replace it, which involves the risks for infection, bleeding, and damage to tissue. A malfunctioning device also creates a risk for serious injury or death, the MedWatch notes.

Global complaints

As of July 31, Integra has received 105 global complaints associated with this recall.

In addition, as of Aug. 24, the FDA is aware of at least 68 medical device reports (MDRs) associated with this problem, including reports of patient injury and one patient death.

According to the FDA, the patient death report in the MDR described a malfunctioning CereLink ICP Monitor during use in a critically injured patient, which was mitigated by replacing the ICP sensor.

“The cause of patient death was determined by Integra to be unrelated to the CereLink ICP Monitor malfunction,” the FDA said.

The manufacturer has sent a letter to customers advising them to stop using the recalled monitors “as soon as clinically possible.”

The letter states that continued use of a monitor already in place should be determined only by an individualized risk-benefit analysis by the attending clinician.

For any new patients, the company advises switching to an alternate patient-monitoring system.

Customers with questions or concerns about this recall should contact their Integra account manager, clinical specialist, or customer service by phone at 800-654-2873 or by email at [email protected].

Problems related to the CereLink ICP Monitor should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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

Integra is recalling the CereLink Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Monitor after reports that the device may display incorrect ICP values and out-of-range pressure readings.

The recall includes 388 monitors, with model numbers 826820 and 826820P. The devices were distributed between June 1, 2021 and May 31, 2022.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The monitor is used in patients with head injuries and stroke as well as in surgical and postoperative neurosurgical patients and those with other conditions.

The device’s sensor is implanted in the brain and connected by a wire to an external monitor that displays ICP readings, which are used to both monitor and guide treatment.

If the CereLink ICP Monitor fails to function properly, the patient may have to undergo additional brain surgeries to replace it, which involves the risks for infection, bleeding, and damage to tissue. A malfunctioning device also creates a risk for serious injury or death, the MedWatch notes.

Global complaints

As of July 31, Integra has received 105 global complaints associated with this recall.

In addition, as of Aug. 24, the FDA is aware of at least 68 medical device reports (MDRs) associated with this problem, including reports of patient injury and one patient death.

According to the FDA, the patient death report in the MDR described a malfunctioning CereLink ICP Monitor during use in a critically injured patient, which was mitigated by replacing the ICP sensor.

“The cause of patient death was determined by Integra to be unrelated to the CereLink ICP Monitor malfunction,” the FDA said.

The manufacturer has sent a letter to customers advising them to stop using the recalled monitors “as soon as clinically possible.”

The letter states that continued use of a monitor already in place should be determined only by an individualized risk-benefit analysis by the attending clinician.

For any new patients, the company advises switching to an alternate patient-monitoring system.

Customers with questions or concerns about this recall should contact their Integra account manager, clinical specialist, or customer service by phone at 800-654-2873 or by email at [email protected].

Problems related to the CereLink ICP Monitor should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.

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