The Hospitalist

Clinical question: Should patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism be anticoagulated?

Background: A recent CHEST clinical guideline suggests it is reasonable to withhold anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. This has been a topic of controversy given the lack of a systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: A comprehensive literature search was performed by a medical librarian in Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar.

Synopsis: After 1,512 papers were screened, 14 studies were included in the review and analysis. Primary outcomes were frequency of bleeding, venous thromboembolism recurrence, and death for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without treatment. Because of a lack of precision in pooled data and high heterogeneity of outcomes, no inferences could be made about benefit or harm with either approach.

The conclusions were limited because of the small numbers, imprecision, and lack of controlled trials. There is a need for a randomized controlled trial regarding subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

Bottom line: The decision to treat or not treat a patient with subsegmental pulmonary embolism should be done based on clinical judgment and a shared decision-making model with the patient.

Citation: Bariteau A et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1111/acem.13399.
 

Dr. Chadha is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Should patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism be anticoagulated?

Background: A recent CHEST clinical guideline suggests it is reasonable to withhold anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. This has been a topic of controversy given the lack of a systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: A comprehensive literature search was performed by a medical librarian in Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar.

Synopsis: After 1,512 papers were screened, 14 studies were included in the review and analysis. Primary outcomes were frequency of bleeding, venous thromboembolism recurrence, and death for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without treatment. Because of a lack of precision in pooled data and high heterogeneity of outcomes, no inferences could be made about benefit or harm with either approach.

The conclusions were limited because of the small numbers, imprecision, and lack of controlled trials. There is a need for a randomized controlled trial regarding subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

Bottom line: The decision to treat or not treat a patient with subsegmental pulmonary embolism should be done based on clinical judgment and a shared decision-making model with the patient.

Citation: Bariteau A et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1111/acem.13399.
 

Dr. Chadha is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Clinical question: Should patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism be anticoagulated?

Background: A recent CHEST clinical guideline suggests it is reasonable to withhold anticoagulation for subsegmental pulmonary embolism. This has been a topic of controversy given the lack of a systematic review.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: A comprehensive literature search was performed by a medical librarian in Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar.

Synopsis: After 1,512 papers were screened, 14 studies were included in the review and analysis. Primary outcomes were frequency of bleeding, venous thromboembolism recurrence, and death for patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without treatment. Because of a lack of precision in pooled data and high heterogeneity of outcomes, no inferences could be made about benefit or harm with either approach.

The conclusions were limited because of the small numbers, imprecision, and lack of controlled trials. There is a need for a randomized controlled trial regarding subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

Bottom line: The decision to treat or not treat a patient with subsegmental pulmonary embolism should be done based on clinical judgment and a shared decision-making model with the patient.

Citation: Bariteau A et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes of patients with subsegmental pulmonary embolism with and without anticoagulation treatment. Acad Emerg Med. 2018 Mar 2. doi: 10.1111/acem.13399.
 

Dr. Chadha is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

A hospital-wide infection control program (ICP) was found to be associated with reduced health care-associated severe sepsis/septic shock or death in the ICU, but it was not clear whether this decrease was a consequence of the ICP or because of a concomitant improvement in HAI case management, according to a the results of a prospective analysis.

In addition, there was no significant decrease in overall HAIs seen despite implementation of the program, according to the report published online in Clinical Microbiology and Infection (doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.010), according to Stefan Hagel, MD, of the Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena (Germany) University Hospital, and his colleagues.

They assessed two surveillance periods (September 2011 to August 2012 and May 2013 to August 2014). The ICP started in October 2012, and included hand-hygiene promotion and bundle implementation for common HAIs.

The data were analyzed by segmented mixed-effects Poisson regression and multi-state models and reported as adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 50 adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

In the first period, 62,154 patients were under surveillance, with 1,568 HAIs identified in 1,170 patients (4.3/100 admissions) and 2,336 HAIs identified in 1,711 patients (4.9/100 admissions) in the second surveillance period. No differences were found in the overall HAI incidence rates between the periods in the general wards and ICUs. There was only a slight decline in the incidence rate of HAIs in the ICUs (aIRR 0.98 [0.97, 1.00] per 1-week increment), compared with the general wards (aIRR 1.01 [1.00, 1.02]).

However, a reduction in severe HAIs (aIRR 0.13 [0.05, 0.32]) and a lower probability of HAI-associated in-hospital deaths (aHR 0.56 [0.31, 0.99]) were observed in the second period in the ICUs.

In attempting to explain the variance seen between the results for general wards and the ICU, an analysis of alcohol-based handrub solution consumption as a marker of hand-hygiene behavior indicated that a remarkable increase in consumption occurred in the ICUs while a less pronounced increase occurred in the general wards. “This finding might explain the observed decline in the HAI incidence after starting the campaign in the ICUs, which was not observed on the general wards.” Dr. Hagel and his colleagues suggested.

The authors discussed how several confounding factors that influenced the incidence of HAIs needed to be considered. As a consequence of the improvement in HAI management, the number of collected blood culture sets nearly doubled hospital-wide from 13,126 to 25,805 per year between 2011 and 2014, which likely undermined the study objective, they stated. The increase in cultures may have impacted the number of overall HAIs found.

“Although the primary aim of the study of reducing the overall incidence of HAIs was not achieved, the study demonstrated a decline of severe HAIs in patients in ICUs in the second surveillance period. Whether this result was a consequence of the ICP or a general improvement in HAI management remains unclear,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hagel S et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.010].

A hospital-wide infection control program (ICP) was found to be associated with reduced health care-associated severe sepsis/septic shock or death in the ICU, but it was not clear whether this decrease was a consequence of the ICP or because of a concomitant improvement in HAI case management, according to a the results of a prospective analysis.

In addition, there was no significant decrease in overall HAIs seen despite implementation of the program, according to the report published online in Clinical Microbiology and Infection (doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.010), according to Stefan Hagel, MD, of the Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena (Germany) University Hospital, and his colleagues.

They assessed two surveillance periods (September 2011 to August 2012 and May 2013 to August 2014). The ICP started in October 2012, and included hand-hygiene promotion and bundle implementation for common HAIs.

The data were analyzed by segmented mixed-effects Poisson regression and multi-state models and reported as adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 50 adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

In the first period, 62,154 patients were under surveillance, with 1,568 HAIs identified in 1,170 patients (4.3/100 admissions) and 2,336 HAIs identified in 1,711 patients (4.9/100 admissions) in the second surveillance period. No differences were found in the overall HAI incidence rates between the periods in the general wards and ICUs. There was only a slight decline in the incidence rate of HAIs in the ICUs (aIRR 0.98 [0.97, 1.00] per 1-week increment), compared with the general wards (aIRR 1.01 [1.00, 1.02]).

However, a reduction in severe HAIs (aIRR 0.13 [0.05, 0.32]) and a lower probability of HAI-associated in-hospital deaths (aHR 0.56 [0.31, 0.99]) were observed in the second period in the ICUs.

In attempting to explain the variance seen between the results for general wards and the ICU, an analysis of alcohol-based handrub solution consumption as a marker of hand-hygiene behavior indicated that a remarkable increase in consumption occurred in the ICUs while a less pronounced increase occurred in the general wards. “This finding might explain the observed decline in the HAI incidence after starting the campaign in the ICUs, which was not observed on the general wards.” Dr. Hagel and his colleagues suggested.

The authors discussed how several confounding factors that influenced the incidence of HAIs needed to be considered. As a consequence of the improvement in HAI management, the number of collected blood culture sets nearly doubled hospital-wide from 13,126 to 25,805 per year between 2011 and 2014, which likely undermined the study objective, they stated. The increase in cultures may have impacted the number of overall HAIs found.

“Although the primary aim of the study of reducing the overall incidence of HAIs was not achieved, the study demonstrated a decline of severe HAIs in patients in ICUs in the second surveillance period. Whether this result was a consequence of the ICP or a general improvement in HAI management remains unclear,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hagel S et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.010].

A hospital-wide infection control program (ICP) was found to be associated with reduced health care-associated severe sepsis/septic shock or death in the ICU, but it was not clear whether this decrease was a consequence of the ICP or because of a concomitant improvement in HAI case management, according to a the results of a prospective analysis.

In addition, there was no significant decrease in overall HAIs seen despite implementation of the program, according to the report published online in Clinical Microbiology and Infection (doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.010), according to Stefan Hagel, MD, of the Institute for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena (Germany) University Hospital, and his colleagues.

They assessed two surveillance periods (September 2011 to August 2012 and May 2013 to August 2014). The ICP started in October 2012, and included hand-hygiene promotion and bundle implementation for common HAIs.

The data were analyzed by segmented mixed-effects Poisson regression and multi-state models and reported as adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 50 adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

In the first period, 62,154 patients were under surveillance, with 1,568 HAIs identified in 1,170 patients (4.3/100 admissions) and 2,336 HAIs identified in 1,711 patients (4.9/100 admissions) in the second surveillance period. No differences were found in the overall HAI incidence rates between the periods in the general wards and ICUs. There was only a slight decline in the incidence rate of HAIs in the ICUs (aIRR 0.98 [0.97, 1.00] per 1-week increment), compared with the general wards (aIRR 1.01 [1.00, 1.02]).

However, a reduction in severe HAIs (aIRR 0.13 [0.05, 0.32]) and a lower probability of HAI-associated in-hospital deaths (aHR 0.56 [0.31, 0.99]) were observed in the second period in the ICUs.

In attempting to explain the variance seen between the results for general wards and the ICU, an analysis of alcohol-based handrub solution consumption as a marker of hand-hygiene behavior indicated that a remarkable increase in consumption occurred in the ICUs while a less pronounced increase occurred in the general wards. “This finding might explain the observed decline in the HAI incidence after starting the campaign in the ICUs, which was not observed on the general wards.” Dr. Hagel and his colleagues suggested.

The authors discussed how several confounding factors that influenced the incidence of HAIs needed to be considered. As a consequence of the improvement in HAI management, the number of collected blood culture sets nearly doubled hospital-wide from 13,126 to 25,805 per year between 2011 and 2014, which likely undermined the study objective, they stated. The increase in cultures may have impacted the number of overall HAIs found.

“Although the primary aim of the study of reducing the overall incidence of HAIs was not achieved, the study demonstrated a decline of severe HAIs in patients in ICUs in the second surveillance period. Whether this result was a consequence of the ICP or a general improvement in HAI management remains unclear,” the researchers concluded.

The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Hagel S et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2018.07.010].

Rapid declines in spirometric measures of lung function were associated with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, according to a recent analysis of a large, prospective cohort study.

Rapid declines in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) were associated with increased incidence of heart failure, stroke, and death in the analysis of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study.

The risk of incident heart failure among FEV₁ rapid decliners was particularly high, with a fourfold increase within 12 months. That suggests clinicians should carefully consider incipient heart failure in patients with rapid changes in FEV₁, investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Rapid declines in forced vital capacity (FVC) were also associated with higher incidences of heart failure and death in the analysis by Odilson M. Silvestre, MD, of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

The analysis included a total of 10,351 ARIC participants with a mean follow-up of 17 years. All had undergone spirometry at the first study visit between 1987 and 1989, and on the second visit between 1990 and 1992.

One-quarter of participants were classified as FEV₁ rapid decliners, defined by an FEV₁ decrease of at least 1.9% per year. Likewise, one-quarter of participants were classified as FVC rapid decliners, based on an FVC decrease of at least 2.1%.

Rapid decline in FEV₁ was associated with a higher risk of incident heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.33; P = .010), and was most prognostic in the first year of follow-up (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.34-13.26; P = .01), investigators said.

Rapid decline in FVC was likewise associated with a greater heart failure risk (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P less than .001).

Increased heart failure risk persisted after excluding patients with incident coronary heart disease in both the FEV₁ and FVC rapid decliners, the investigators said.

A rapid decline in FEV₁ was also associated with a higher stroke risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50; P = .015).

FEV₁ rapid decliners had a higher overall rate of incident cardiovascular disease than those without rapid decline, even after adjustment for baseline variables such as age, sex, race, body mass index, and heart rate (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P = .004), and FVC rapid decliners likewise had a 19% greater risk of the composite endpoint (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; P less than .001).

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and other sources supported the study. Dr. Silvestre reported having no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Silvestre OM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1109-22.

Rapid declines in spirometric measures of lung function were associated with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, according to a recent analysis of a large, prospective cohort study.

Rapid declines in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) were associated with increased incidence of heart failure, stroke, and death in the analysis of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study.

The risk of incident heart failure among FEV₁ rapid decliners was particularly high, with a fourfold increase within 12 months. That suggests clinicians should carefully consider incipient heart failure in patients with rapid changes in FEV₁, investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Rapid declines in forced vital capacity (FVC) were also associated with higher incidences of heart failure and death in the analysis by Odilson M. Silvestre, MD, of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

The analysis included a total of 10,351 ARIC participants with a mean follow-up of 17 years. All had undergone spirometry at the first study visit between 1987 and 1989, and on the second visit between 1990 and 1992.

One-quarter of participants were classified as FEV₁ rapid decliners, defined by an FEV₁ decrease of at least 1.9% per year. Likewise, one-quarter of participants were classified as FVC rapid decliners, based on an FVC decrease of at least 2.1%.

Rapid decline in FEV₁ was associated with a higher risk of incident heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.33; P = .010), and was most prognostic in the first year of follow-up (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.34-13.26; P = .01), investigators said.

Rapid decline in FVC was likewise associated with a greater heart failure risk (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P less than .001).

Increased heart failure risk persisted after excluding patients with incident coronary heart disease in both the FEV₁ and FVC rapid decliners, the investigators said.

A rapid decline in FEV₁ was also associated with a higher stroke risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50; P = .015).

FEV₁ rapid decliners had a higher overall rate of incident cardiovascular disease than those without rapid decline, even after adjustment for baseline variables such as age, sex, race, body mass index, and heart rate (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P = .004), and FVC rapid decliners likewise had a 19% greater risk of the composite endpoint (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; P less than .001).

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and other sources supported the study. Dr. Silvestre reported having no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Silvestre OM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1109-22.

Rapid declines in spirometric measures of lung function were associated with higher risks of cardiovascular disease, according to a recent analysis of a large, prospective cohort study.

Rapid declines in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) were associated with increased incidence of heart failure, stroke, and death in the analysis of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study.

The risk of incident heart failure among FEV₁ rapid decliners was particularly high, with a fourfold increase within 12 months. That suggests clinicians should carefully consider incipient heart failure in patients with rapid changes in FEV₁, investigators reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Rapid declines in forced vital capacity (FVC) were also associated with higher incidences of heart failure and death in the analysis by Odilson M. Silvestre, MD, of the division of cardiovascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

The analysis included a total of 10,351 ARIC participants with a mean follow-up of 17 years. All had undergone spirometry at the first study visit between 1987 and 1989, and on the second visit between 1990 and 1992.

One-quarter of participants were classified as FEV₁ rapid decliners, defined by an FEV₁ decrease of at least 1.9% per year. Likewise, one-quarter of participants were classified as FVC rapid decliners, based on an FVC decrease of at least 2.1%.

Rapid decline in FEV₁ was associated with a higher risk of incident heart failure (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.33; P = .010), and was most prognostic in the first year of follow-up (HR, 4.22; 95% CI, 1.34-13.26; P = .01), investigators said.

Rapid decline in FVC was likewise associated with a greater heart failure risk (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P less than .001).

Increased heart failure risk persisted after excluding patients with incident coronary heart disease in both the FEV₁ and FVC rapid decliners, the investigators said.

A rapid decline in FEV₁ was also associated with a higher stroke risk (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04-1.50; P = .015).

FEV₁ rapid decliners had a higher overall rate of incident cardiovascular disease than those without rapid decline, even after adjustment for baseline variables such as age, sex, race, body mass index, and heart rate (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P = .004), and FVC rapid decliners likewise had a 19% greater risk of the composite endpoint (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; P less than .001).

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, and other sources supported the study. Dr. Silvestre reported having no relevant conflicts.

SOURCE: Silvestre OM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Sep 4;72(10):1109-22.

Background: FTR is a quality measure defined as death after a serious, potentially preventable complication. Frailty incorporates different domains including physical performance, gait, mobility, nutritional status, mental health, and cognition. Although there are some studies linking frailty and FTR and postoperative morbidity, the degree and association with low-risk procedures is unclear.

Frailty assessment should be considered a part of the routine perioperative evaluation and should stimulate preoperative interventions aimed at reducing risk for postoperative complications.

Bottom line: This large retrospective study found an association between increasing frailty and both the number of complications and FTR for both low-risk and high-risk surgical procedures.

Citation: Shah R et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 21;153(5):e180214.

Dr. Canepa is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: FTR is a quality measure defined as death after a serious, potentially preventable complication. Frailty incorporates different domains including physical performance, gait, mobility, nutritional status, mental health, and cognition. Although there are some studies linking frailty and FTR and postoperative morbidity, the degree and association with low-risk procedures is unclear.

Frailty assessment should be considered a part of the routine perioperative evaluation and should stimulate preoperative interventions aimed at reducing risk for postoperative complications.

Bottom line: This large retrospective study found an association between increasing frailty and both the number of complications and FTR for both low-risk and high-risk surgical procedures.

Citation: Shah R et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 21;153(5):e180214.

Dr. Canepa is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: FTR is a quality measure defined as death after a serious, potentially preventable complication. Frailty incorporates different domains including physical performance, gait, mobility, nutritional status, mental health, and cognition. Although there are some studies linking frailty and FTR and postoperative morbidity, the degree and association with low-risk procedures is unclear.

Frailty assessment should be considered a part of the routine perioperative evaluation and should stimulate preoperative interventions aimed at reducing risk for postoperative complications.

Bottom line: This large retrospective study found an association between increasing frailty and both the number of complications and FTR for both low-risk and high-risk surgical procedures.

Citation: Shah R et al. Association of frailty with failure to rescue after low-risk and high-risk inpatient surgery. JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 21;153(5):e180214.

Dr. Canepa is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

MUNICH – The worldwide cardiology community’s newly revised universal definition of an MI refines the way that cardiologists distinguish between myocardial infarction and myocardial injury, said Joseph S. Alpert, MD, one of the two chairs of the definition-writing panel.

“We had three previous definitions, but there is still a lot of confusion [about distinguishing] between injury and infarction. We definitely hope that this fourth definition will further help people distinguish the two and help people determine whether or not a patient has an MI,” said Dr. Alpert following a session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology that introduced some of the key elements of the new revision.

Days before the ESC congress, a task force formed by the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation released the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018) (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038), which follows the series of three prior MI definitions that these groups have issued since the first iteration came out in 2007 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50[22]:2173-95).

The new revision includes 5 “new concepts,” 14 updated concepts, and 6 new sections since the third universal definition from 2012. The change that topped Dr. Alpert’s list of key messages was the need to determine whether a rise in cardiac troponin, a key biomarker of cardiac damage, resulted from infarction or injury.

These two alternative diagnoses mean “a very different outlook for patients. Treatment is different, and their prognosis is different. It’s important to make the distinction,” said Dr. Alpert, professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The new changes to making an MI diagnosis will likely help drive a couple of important changes in the way U.S. patients with suspected myocardial injury or infarction get assessed, he said in an interview. The first change will be wide uptake of high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn) assays over the next 5 years or so, as the ability to measure this key diagnostic biomarker progresses from its initial Food and Drug Administration approval for the U.S. market in 2017 to “close to 100% of U.S. hospitals using it,” he predicted. A big issue that is currently slowing even quicker adoption of hscTn is that many hospitals, including the one where Dr. Alpert practices, still have laboratory contracts in place that tether them to older troponin-testing technologies and make it economically unfeasible to change until their contracts expire. The contract in place where Dr. Alpert practices runs out in 2019, and soon after that happens he expects to gain the ability to order a hscTn test.

The new, fourth definition says that hscTn is “recommended for routine clinical use,” but routine U.S. use “won’t be immediate because many hospitals will put in hscTn only when their old contract runs out,” he said.

Another practice-changing impact from the fourth definition may be expanded U.S. availability and use of MR imaging, which the fourth definition identified as the most informative and versatile of the several imaging options used to confirm or rule out an MI.

Cardiac MR “provides both functional and tissue characterization. It’s the technique with the most potential,” able to noninvasively identify “both the nature and extent of myocardial damage,” explained Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, MD, a cardiologist and imaging specialist at the Bristol (England) Heart Institute. A single cardiac MR scan “gives many answers,” said Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci, who also served on the fourth definition task force and spoke at the session about the document’s revised imaging recommendations.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the setting of acute MI, cardiac MR can also be used to assess the presence and extent of myocardium at risk (myocardial edema), myocardial salvage, microvascular obstruction, intramyocardial hemorrhage, and infarct size, all markers of myocardial injury that have prognostic value,” according to the fourth definition. “In patients with possible acute MI but unobstructed coronary arteries, cardiac MR can help to diagnose alternative conditions such as myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, embolic infarction, or MI with spontaneous recanalization.”

“What’s turning out is that, a large number of patients with chest pain have an infection and not an MI, and cardiac MR can distinguish inflammation and myocarditis from infarction. We’re now doing a lot more MRs,” Dr. Alpert said. Although MR capability is not as widely available today as other imaging methods, like echocardiography and CT, over the next 5 years that will likely change, he said. But Dr. Alpert cautioned that not every patient with a suspected MI needs MR assessment. It’s best focused for selected patients with an uncertain diagnosis based on the core indicators of disease: history, ECG, changes in hscTn levels over time, and a chest x-ray. “MR is for when there are questions,” he said. When patients present with classic MI signs and symptoms the diagnosis can depend just on the basics, perhaps supplemented with a more widely available imaging method like echocardiography to look for wall motion abnormalities, he said. “If echo shows good left ventricular function you probably don’t need MR.” he said.

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is another useful diagnostic tool, and right now is more widely available than MR. CTCA “may be used to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with an acute coronary syndrome event in the emergency department or chest pain unit, particularly in low- to intermediate-risk patients with normal hscTn at presentation,” said the fourth definition. But Dr. Alpert cited the radiation dose from CT as a limiting factor. “We have patients who get repeat CT scans, and we know that increases their cancer risk. There is no such thing as a totally safe dose of radiation.” Lack of radiation exposure is another feature that makes MR imaging attractive.

Dr. Alpert had no disclosures. Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci has had a financial relationship with Circle Cardiovascular Imaging.

[email protected]


 

MUNICH – The worldwide cardiology community’s newly revised universal definition of an MI refines the way that cardiologists distinguish between myocardial infarction and myocardial injury, said Joseph S. Alpert, MD, one of the two chairs of the definition-writing panel.

“We had three previous definitions, but there is still a lot of confusion [about distinguishing] between injury and infarction. We definitely hope that this fourth definition will further help people distinguish the two and help people determine whether or not a patient has an MI,” said Dr. Alpert following a session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology that introduced some of the key elements of the new revision.

Days before the ESC congress, a task force formed by the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation released the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018) (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038), which follows the series of three prior MI definitions that these groups have issued since the first iteration came out in 2007 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50[22]:2173-95).

The new revision includes 5 “new concepts,” 14 updated concepts, and 6 new sections since the third universal definition from 2012. The change that topped Dr. Alpert’s list of key messages was the need to determine whether a rise in cardiac troponin, a key biomarker of cardiac damage, resulted from infarction or injury.

These two alternative diagnoses mean “a very different outlook for patients. Treatment is different, and their prognosis is different. It’s important to make the distinction,” said Dr. Alpert, professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The new changes to making an MI diagnosis will likely help drive a couple of important changes in the way U.S. patients with suspected myocardial injury or infarction get assessed, he said in an interview. The first change will be wide uptake of high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn) assays over the next 5 years or so, as the ability to measure this key diagnostic biomarker progresses from its initial Food and Drug Administration approval for the U.S. market in 2017 to “close to 100% of U.S. hospitals using it,” he predicted. A big issue that is currently slowing even quicker adoption of hscTn is that many hospitals, including the one where Dr. Alpert practices, still have laboratory contracts in place that tether them to older troponin-testing technologies and make it economically unfeasible to change until their contracts expire. The contract in place where Dr. Alpert practices runs out in 2019, and soon after that happens he expects to gain the ability to order a hscTn test.

The new, fourth definition says that hscTn is “recommended for routine clinical use,” but routine U.S. use “won’t be immediate because many hospitals will put in hscTn only when their old contract runs out,” he said.

Another practice-changing impact from the fourth definition may be expanded U.S. availability and use of MR imaging, which the fourth definition identified as the most informative and versatile of the several imaging options used to confirm or rule out an MI.

Cardiac MR “provides both functional and tissue characterization. It’s the technique with the most potential,” able to noninvasively identify “both the nature and extent of myocardial damage,” explained Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, MD, a cardiologist and imaging specialist at the Bristol (England) Heart Institute. A single cardiac MR scan “gives many answers,” said Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci, who also served on the fourth definition task force and spoke at the session about the document’s revised imaging recommendations.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the setting of acute MI, cardiac MR can also be used to assess the presence and extent of myocardium at risk (myocardial edema), myocardial salvage, microvascular obstruction, intramyocardial hemorrhage, and infarct size, all markers of myocardial injury that have prognostic value,” according to the fourth definition. “In patients with possible acute MI but unobstructed coronary arteries, cardiac MR can help to diagnose alternative conditions such as myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, embolic infarction, or MI with spontaneous recanalization.”

“What’s turning out is that, a large number of patients with chest pain have an infection and not an MI, and cardiac MR can distinguish inflammation and myocarditis from infarction. We’re now doing a lot more MRs,” Dr. Alpert said. Although MR capability is not as widely available today as other imaging methods, like echocardiography and CT, over the next 5 years that will likely change, he said. But Dr. Alpert cautioned that not every patient with a suspected MI needs MR assessment. It’s best focused for selected patients with an uncertain diagnosis based on the core indicators of disease: history, ECG, changes in hscTn levels over time, and a chest x-ray. “MR is for when there are questions,” he said. When patients present with classic MI signs and symptoms the diagnosis can depend just on the basics, perhaps supplemented with a more widely available imaging method like echocardiography to look for wall motion abnormalities, he said. “If echo shows good left ventricular function you probably don’t need MR.” he said.

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is another useful diagnostic tool, and right now is more widely available than MR. CTCA “may be used to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with an acute coronary syndrome event in the emergency department or chest pain unit, particularly in low- to intermediate-risk patients with normal hscTn at presentation,” said the fourth definition. But Dr. Alpert cited the radiation dose from CT as a limiting factor. “We have patients who get repeat CT scans, and we know that increases their cancer risk. There is no such thing as a totally safe dose of radiation.” Lack of radiation exposure is another feature that makes MR imaging attractive.

Dr. Alpert had no disclosures. Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci has had a financial relationship with Circle Cardiovascular Imaging.

[email protected]


 

MUNICH – The worldwide cardiology community’s newly revised universal definition of an MI refines the way that cardiologists distinguish between myocardial infarction and myocardial injury, said Joseph S. Alpert, MD, one of the two chairs of the definition-writing panel.

“We had three previous definitions, but there is still a lot of confusion [about distinguishing] between injury and infarction. We definitely hope that this fourth definition will further help people distinguish the two and help people determine whether or not a patient has an MI,” said Dr. Alpert following a session at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology that introduced some of the key elements of the new revision.

Days before the ESC congress, a task force formed by the European Society of Cardiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the World Heart Federation released the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018) (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 24. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.1038), which follows the series of three prior MI definitions that these groups have issued since the first iteration came out in 2007 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50[22]:2173-95).

The new revision includes 5 “new concepts,” 14 updated concepts, and 6 new sections since the third universal definition from 2012. The change that topped Dr. Alpert’s list of key messages was the need to determine whether a rise in cardiac troponin, a key biomarker of cardiac damage, resulted from infarction or injury.

These two alternative diagnoses mean “a very different outlook for patients. Treatment is different, and their prognosis is different. It’s important to make the distinction,” said Dr. Alpert, professor of medicine at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The new changes to making an MI diagnosis will likely help drive a couple of important changes in the way U.S. patients with suspected myocardial injury or infarction get assessed, he said in an interview. The first change will be wide uptake of high sensitivity cardiac troponin (hscTn) assays over the next 5 years or so, as the ability to measure this key diagnostic biomarker progresses from its initial Food and Drug Administration approval for the U.S. market in 2017 to “close to 100% of U.S. hospitals using it,” he predicted. A big issue that is currently slowing even quicker adoption of hscTn is that many hospitals, including the one where Dr. Alpert practices, still have laboratory contracts in place that tether them to older troponin-testing technologies and make it economically unfeasible to change until their contracts expire. The contract in place where Dr. Alpert practices runs out in 2019, and soon after that happens he expects to gain the ability to order a hscTn test.

The new, fourth definition says that hscTn is “recommended for routine clinical use,” but routine U.S. use “won’t be immediate because many hospitals will put in hscTn only when their old contract runs out,” he said.

Another practice-changing impact from the fourth definition may be expanded U.S. availability and use of MR imaging, which the fourth definition identified as the most informative and versatile of the several imaging options used to confirm or rule out an MI.

Cardiac MR “provides both functional and tissue characterization. It’s the technique with the most potential,” able to noninvasively identify “both the nature and extent of myocardial damage,” explained Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, MD, a cardiologist and imaging specialist at the Bristol (England) Heart Institute. A single cardiac MR scan “gives many answers,” said Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci, who also served on the fourth definition task force and spoke at the session about the document’s revised imaging recommendations.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the setting of acute MI, cardiac MR can also be used to assess the presence and extent of myocardium at risk (myocardial edema), myocardial salvage, microvascular obstruction, intramyocardial hemorrhage, and infarct size, all markers of myocardial injury that have prognostic value,” according to the fourth definition. “In patients with possible acute MI but unobstructed coronary arteries, cardiac MR can help to diagnose alternative conditions such as myocarditis, Takotsubo syndrome, embolic infarction, or MI with spontaneous recanalization.”

“What’s turning out is that, a large number of patients with chest pain have an infection and not an MI, and cardiac MR can distinguish inflammation and myocarditis from infarction. We’re now doing a lot more MRs,” Dr. Alpert said. Although MR capability is not as widely available today as other imaging methods, like echocardiography and CT, over the next 5 years that will likely change, he said. But Dr. Alpert cautioned that not every patient with a suspected MI needs MR assessment. It’s best focused for selected patients with an uncertain diagnosis based on the core indicators of disease: history, ECG, changes in hscTn levels over time, and a chest x-ray. “MR is for when there are questions,” he said. When patients present with classic MI signs and symptoms the diagnosis can depend just on the basics, perhaps supplemented with a more widely available imaging method like echocardiography to look for wall motion abnormalities, he said. “If echo shows good left ventricular function you probably don’t need MR.” he said.

CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is another useful diagnostic tool, and right now is more widely available than MR. CTCA “may be used to diagnose coronary artery disease in patients with an acute coronary syndrome event in the emergency department or chest pain unit, particularly in low- to intermediate-risk patients with normal hscTn at presentation,” said the fourth definition. But Dr. Alpert cited the radiation dose from CT as a limiting factor. “We have patients who get repeat CT scans, and we know that increases their cancer risk. There is no such thing as a totally safe dose of radiation.” Lack of radiation exposure is another feature that makes MR imaging attractive.

Dr. Alpert had no disclosures. Dr. Bucciarelli-Ducci has had a financial relationship with Circle Cardiovascular Imaging.

[email protected]


 

 A negative chest radiograph can be used to rule out the possibility of pneumonia in children suspected of having the disease, and therefore reduce antibiotic use, researchers say.

In a paper published in the September issue of Pediatrics, researchers report the results of a prospective cohort study in 683 children – with a median age of 3.1 years – presenting to emergency departments with suspected pneumonia.

Dr. Susan C. Lipsett, from the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital, and co-authors, wrote that the use of chest radiograph to diagnose pneumonia is thought to have limitations such as its inability to distinguish between bacteria and viral infection, and the possible absence of radiographic presentations early in the disease in patients with dehydration.

In this study, 457 (72.8%) of the children had negative chest radiographs. Of these, 44 were clinically diagnosed with pneumonia, despite the radiograph results, and prescribed antibiotics. These children were more likely to have rales or respiratory distress and less likely to have wheezing compared with the children with negative radiographs who were not initially diagnosed with pneumonia.

Among the remaining 411 children with negative radiographs – who were not prescribed antibiotics – five (1.2%) were subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia within 2 weeks of the radiograph. These five children were all under 3 years of age, but none had been treated with intravenous fluids for dehydration. Only one had radiographic findings of pneumonia on a follow-up visit.

Counting the 44 children diagnosed with pneumonia despite the negative x-ray, chest radiography showed a negative predictive value of 89.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.9%-91.9%). Without those children, the negative predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI, 97%-99.6%).

There were also 113 children (16.5%) with positive chest radiographs, and 72 (10.7%) with equivocal radiographs.

The authors said their results showed that most children with negative chest radiograph would recover fully without needing antibiotics, and argued there was a place for chest radiography in the diagnostic process, to rule out bacterial pneumonia.

“Most clinicians caring for children in the outpatient setting rely on clinical signs and symptoms to determine whether to prescribe an antibiotic for the treatment of pneumonia,” they wrote. “However, given recent literature in which the poor reliability and validity of physical examination findings are cited, reliance on physical examination alone may lead to the overdiagnosis of pneumonia.”

They acknowledged that the lack of a universally accepted gold standard for the diagnosis of pneumonia in children was a significant limitation of the research. In addition, the lack of systematic radiographs meant some children who initially had a negative result and recovered without antibiotics may have shown a positive result on a second scan.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lipsett S et al. Pediatrics 2018 142(3):e20180236.

 

 A negative chest radiograph can be used to rule out the possibility of pneumonia in children suspected of having the disease, and therefore reduce antibiotic use, researchers say.

In a paper published in the September issue of Pediatrics, researchers report the results of a prospective cohort study in 683 children – with a median age of 3.1 years – presenting to emergency departments with suspected pneumonia.

Dr. Susan C. Lipsett, from the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital, and co-authors, wrote that the use of chest radiograph to diagnose pneumonia is thought to have limitations such as its inability to distinguish between bacteria and viral infection, and the possible absence of radiographic presentations early in the disease in patients with dehydration.

In this study, 457 (72.8%) of the children had negative chest radiographs. Of these, 44 were clinically diagnosed with pneumonia, despite the radiograph results, and prescribed antibiotics. These children were more likely to have rales or respiratory distress and less likely to have wheezing compared with the children with negative radiographs who were not initially diagnosed with pneumonia.

Among the remaining 411 children with negative radiographs – who were not prescribed antibiotics – five (1.2%) were subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia within 2 weeks of the radiograph. These five children were all under 3 years of age, but none had been treated with intravenous fluids for dehydration. Only one had radiographic findings of pneumonia on a follow-up visit.

Counting the 44 children diagnosed with pneumonia despite the negative x-ray, chest radiography showed a negative predictive value of 89.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.9%-91.9%). Without those children, the negative predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI, 97%-99.6%).

There were also 113 children (16.5%) with positive chest radiographs, and 72 (10.7%) with equivocal radiographs.

The authors said their results showed that most children with negative chest radiograph would recover fully without needing antibiotics, and argued there was a place for chest radiography in the diagnostic process, to rule out bacterial pneumonia.

“Most clinicians caring for children in the outpatient setting rely on clinical signs and symptoms to determine whether to prescribe an antibiotic for the treatment of pneumonia,” they wrote. “However, given recent literature in which the poor reliability and validity of physical examination findings are cited, reliance on physical examination alone may lead to the overdiagnosis of pneumonia.”

They acknowledged that the lack of a universally accepted gold standard for the diagnosis of pneumonia in children was a significant limitation of the research. In addition, the lack of systematic radiographs meant some children who initially had a negative result and recovered without antibiotics may have shown a positive result on a second scan.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lipsett S et al. Pediatrics 2018 142(3):e20180236.

 

 A negative chest radiograph can be used to rule out the possibility of pneumonia in children suspected of having the disease, and therefore reduce antibiotic use, researchers say.

In a paper published in the September issue of Pediatrics, researchers report the results of a prospective cohort study in 683 children – with a median age of 3.1 years – presenting to emergency departments with suspected pneumonia.

Dr. Susan C. Lipsett, from the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital, and co-authors, wrote that the use of chest radiograph to diagnose pneumonia is thought to have limitations such as its inability to distinguish between bacteria and viral infection, and the possible absence of radiographic presentations early in the disease in patients with dehydration.

In this study, 457 (72.8%) of the children had negative chest radiographs. Of these, 44 were clinically diagnosed with pneumonia, despite the radiograph results, and prescribed antibiotics. These children were more likely to have rales or respiratory distress and less likely to have wheezing compared with the children with negative radiographs who were not initially diagnosed with pneumonia.

Among the remaining 411 children with negative radiographs – who were not prescribed antibiotics – five (1.2%) were subsequently diagnosed with pneumonia within 2 weeks of the radiograph. These five children were all under 3 years of age, but none had been treated with intravenous fluids for dehydration. Only one had radiographic findings of pneumonia on a follow-up visit.

Counting the 44 children diagnosed with pneumonia despite the negative x-ray, chest radiography showed a negative predictive value of 89.2% (95% confidence interval, 85.9%-91.9%). Without those children, the negative predictive value was 98.8% (95% CI, 97%-99.6%).

There were also 113 children (16.5%) with positive chest radiographs, and 72 (10.7%) with equivocal radiographs.

The authors said their results showed that most children with negative chest radiograph would recover fully without needing antibiotics, and argued there was a place for chest radiography in the diagnostic process, to rule out bacterial pneumonia.

“Most clinicians caring for children in the outpatient setting rely on clinical signs and symptoms to determine whether to prescribe an antibiotic for the treatment of pneumonia,” they wrote. “However, given recent literature in which the poor reliability and validity of physical examination findings are cited, reliance on physical examination alone may lead to the overdiagnosis of pneumonia.”

They acknowledged that the lack of a universally accepted gold standard for the diagnosis of pneumonia in children was a significant limitation of the research. In addition, the lack of systematic radiographs meant some children who initially had a negative result and recovered without antibiotics may have shown a positive result on a second scan.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lipsett S et al. Pediatrics 2018 142(3):e20180236.

 

MUNICH – For patients with heart disease, coronary artery disease, and normal sinus rhythm, giving rivaroxaban does not significantly reduce risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, investigators in the COMMANDER trial said.

Rivaroxaban did not improve rehospitalization rates either, reported lead author Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from the University of Henri Poincaré in Nancy, France, and his co-investigators.

“After an episode of worsening chronic heart failure, rates of readmission to the hospital and of death are high, especially in the first few months,” they said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The report of the research was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Findings from previous research have suggested that, for patients with coronary artery disease, a combination of antiplatelet agents and low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) reduced incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors designed the COMMANDER trial to test a similar regimen in patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease without an arrhythmia. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The COMMANDER trial involved 5,022 patients with coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (less than or equal to 40%), worsening chronic heart failure (index event within past 21 days), and normal splasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of at least 200 ng per liter or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of at least 800 ng per liter.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 2,507) or placebo (n = 2,515). Treatment was given in addition to standard care for coronary disease or heart failure (single or dual antiplatelet therapy was allowed). Patients were assessed at week 4 and week 12, then every 12 weeks.

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization for heart failure, a composite of either, or rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of bleeding into a critical space with potential for permanent disability or fatal bleeding.

Death, myocardial failure, or stroke occurred in 626 patients (25%) in the rivaroxaban group compared with 658 patients (26.2%) in the placebo group (P = .27). Secondary efficacy outcomes were also highly similar between groups, differing at most by 0.9%. The principal safety outcome (fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space) occurred in 18 patients (0.7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 23 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group (P = .25). Again, no significant difference was found between groups.

These results suggest that while low-dose rivaroxaban may be safe, it also offers no treatment benefit. “The most likely reason for the failure … is that thrombin-mediated events are not the major driver of heart failure-related events in patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure,” the authors wrote.

“Whether a higher dose of rivaroxaban could have led to a more favorable outcome remains unknown,” they concluded.

The COMMANDER trial was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Authors reported compensation from Bayer, Servier, Novartis, Impulse Dynamics, and others.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zannad F et al. NEJM/ESC.

.

MUNICH – For patients with heart disease, coronary artery disease, and normal sinus rhythm, giving rivaroxaban does not significantly reduce risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, investigators in the COMMANDER trial said.

Rivaroxaban did not improve rehospitalization rates either, reported lead author Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from the University of Henri Poincaré in Nancy, France, and his co-investigators.

“After an episode of worsening chronic heart failure, rates of readmission to the hospital and of death are high, especially in the first few months,” they said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The report of the research was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Findings from previous research have suggested that, for patients with coronary artery disease, a combination of antiplatelet agents and low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) reduced incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors designed the COMMANDER trial to test a similar regimen in patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease without an arrhythmia. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The COMMANDER trial involved 5,022 patients with coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (less than or equal to 40%), worsening chronic heart failure (index event within past 21 days), and normal splasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of at least 200 ng per liter or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of at least 800 ng per liter.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 2,507) or placebo (n = 2,515). Treatment was given in addition to standard care for coronary disease or heart failure (single or dual antiplatelet therapy was allowed). Patients were assessed at week 4 and week 12, then every 12 weeks.

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization for heart failure, a composite of either, or rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of bleeding into a critical space with potential for permanent disability or fatal bleeding.

Death, myocardial failure, or stroke occurred in 626 patients (25%) in the rivaroxaban group compared with 658 patients (26.2%) in the placebo group (P = .27). Secondary efficacy outcomes were also highly similar between groups, differing at most by 0.9%. The principal safety outcome (fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space) occurred in 18 patients (0.7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 23 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group (P = .25). Again, no significant difference was found between groups.

These results suggest that while low-dose rivaroxaban may be safe, it also offers no treatment benefit. “The most likely reason for the failure … is that thrombin-mediated events are not the major driver of heart failure-related events in patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure,” the authors wrote.

“Whether a higher dose of rivaroxaban could have led to a more favorable outcome remains unknown,” they concluded.

The COMMANDER trial was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Authors reported compensation from Bayer, Servier, Novartis, Impulse Dynamics, and others.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zannad F et al. NEJM/ESC.

.

MUNICH – For patients with heart disease, coronary artery disease, and normal sinus rhythm, giving rivaroxaban does not significantly reduce risks of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, investigators in the COMMANDER trial said.

Rivaroxaban did not improve rehospitalization rates either, reported lead author Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from the University of Henri Poincaré in Nancy, France, and his co-investigators.

“After an episode of worsening chronic heart failure, rates of readmission to the hospital and of death are high, especially in the first few months,” they said in a presentation at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The report of the research was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Findings from previous research have suggested that, for patients with coronary artery disease, a combination of antiplatelet agents and low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) reduced incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The authors designed the COMMANDER trial to test a similar regimen in patients with chronic heart failure and coronary heart disease without an arrhythmia. Results were published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The COMMANDER trial involved 5,022 patients with coronary artery disease, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (less than or equal to 40%), worsening chronic heart failure (index event within past 21 days), and normal splasma concentration of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) of at least 200 ng per liter or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) of at least 800 ng per liter.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily (n = 2,507) or placebo (n = 2,515). Treatment was given in addition to standard care for coronary disease or heart failure (single or dual antiplatelet therapy was allowed). Patients were assessed at week 4 and week 12, then every 12 weeks.

The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization for heart failure, a composite of either, or rehospitalization for cardiovascular events. The principal safety outcome was a composite of bleeding into a critical space with potential for permanent disability or fatal bleeding.

Death, myocardial failure, or stroke occurred in 626 patients (25%) in the rivaroxaban group compared with 658 patients (26.2%) in the placebo group (P = .27). Secondary efficacy outcomes were also highly similar between groups, differing at most by 0.9%. The principal safety outcome (fatal bleeding or bleeding into a critical space) occurred in 18 patients (0.7%) in the rivaroxaban group and 23 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group (P = .25). Again, no significant difference was found between groups.

These results suggest that while low-dose rivaroxaban may be safe, it also offers no treatment benefit. “The most likely reason for the failure … is that thrombin-mediated events are not the major driver of heart failure-related events in patients with recent hospitalization for heart failure,” the authors wrote.

“Whether a higher dose of rivaroxaban could have led to a more favorable outcome remains unknown,” they concluded.

The COMMANDER trial was funded by Janssen Research and Development. Authors reported compensation from Bayer, Servier, Novartis, Impulse Dynamics, and others.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zannad F et al. NEJM/ESC.

.

For patients hospitalized for medical illness, giving rivaroxaban after discharge does not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism, investigators reported.

Previous research suggested that the risk of major bleeding from rivaroxaban outweighed its benefits; however, major bleeding was uncommon in the MARINER trial, reported lead author Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and his colleagues.

“Patients who are hospitalized for acute medical illnesses, such as heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, stroke, and infectious or inflammatory diseases, are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism,” they wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the increased risk of thromboembolism continues for at least 6 weeks after hospitalization, postdischarge anticoagulants, such as rivaroxaban, are controversial.

“Studies of extended thromboprophylaxis have shown either excess major bleeding or a benefit that is based mainly on reducing the risk of asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers aimed to clarify the benefits of rivaroxaban after hospitalization while modifying previous study regimens to limit major bleeding risk.

The double-blind MARINER study involved 12,019 patients who were hospitalized for medical illness and had an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Hospitalization lasted 3-10 consecutive days. Sufficient risk of thromboembolism was defined by a modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score of 4 or higher (range, 0-10), or an IMPROVE score of 2 or 3 with a plasma D-dimer measurement more than double the upper normal limit.

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 mg of rivaroxaban daily (n = 6,007) or placebo (n = 6,012) for 45 days after discharge. Patients with renal impairment had a reduced dose of 7.5 mg rivaroxaban.

A composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism was the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the safety benchmark.

Efficacy was similar in both groups. Symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism occurred in 50 patients (0.83%) in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 66 patients (1.10%) in the placebo group (P = .14). These findings suggest that rivaroxaban provides a minor and insignificant benefit.

Although major bleeding was slightly more common in patients receiving rivaroxaban, compared with patients receiving placebo (0.28% vs. 0.15%), the researchers suggested that, in large populations, the marginal benefit of rivaroxaban might outweigh the increased bleeding risk. Still, the authors noted that “the usefulness of extended thromboprophylaxis remains uncertain.”

“Future studies should more accurately identify deaths caused by thrombotic mechanisms and focus on the patients who are at highest risk and who may benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis,” the researchers wrote.

Funding was provided by Janssen Research and Development. Most of the study authors reported fees or grants from Janssen during the study, and relationships with other companies outside of the submitted work.

SOURCE : Spyropoulos AC et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805090.

For patients hospitalized for medical illness, giving rivaroxaban after discharge does not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism, investigators reported.

Previous research suggested that the risk of major bleeding from rivaroxaban outweighed its benefits; however, major bleeding was uncommon in the MARINER trial, reported lead author Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and his colleagues.

“Patients who are hospitalized for acute medical illnesses, such as heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, stroke, and infectious or inflammatory diseases, are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism,” they wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the increased risk of thromboembolism continues for at least 6 weeks after hospitalization, postdischarge anticoagulants, such as rivaroxaban, are controversial.

“Studies of extended thromboprophylaxis have shown either excess major bleeding or a benefit that is based mainly on reducing the risk of asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers aimed to clarify the benefits of rivaroxaban after hospitalization while modifying previous study regimens to limit major bleeding risk.

The double-blind MARINER study involved 12,019 patients who were hospitalized for medical illness and had an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Hospitalization lasted 3-10 consecutive days. Sufficient risk of thromboembolism was defined by a modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score of 4 or higher (range, 0-10), or an IMPROVE score of 2 or 3 with a plasma D-dimer measurement more than double the upper normal limit.

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 mg of rivaroxaban daily (n = 6,007) or placebo (n = 6,012) for 45 days after discharge. Patients with renal impairment had a reduced dose of 7.5 mg rivaroxaban.

A composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism was the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the safety benchmark.

Efficacy was similar in both groups. Symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism occurred in 50 patients (0.83%) in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 66 patients (1.10%) in the placebo group (P = .14). These findings suggest that rivaroxaban provides a minor and insignificant benefit.

Although major bleeding was slightly more common in patients receiving rivaroxaban, compared with patients receiving placebo (0.28% vs. 0.15%), the researchers suggested that, in large populations, the marginal benefit of rivaroxaban might outweigh the increased bleeding risk. Still, the authors noted that “the usefulness of extended thromboprophylaxis remains uncertain.”

“Future studies should more accurately identify deaths caused by thrombotic mechanisms and focus on the patients who are at highest risk and who may benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis,” the researchers wrote.

Funding was provided by Janssen Research and Development. Most of the study authors reported fees or grants from Janssen during the study, and relationships with other companies outside of the submitted work.

SOURCE : Spyropoulos AC et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805090.

For patients hospitalized for medical illness, giving rivaroxaban after discharge does not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolism, investigators reported.

Previous research suggested that the risk of major bleeding from rivaroxaban outweighed its benefits; however, major bleeding was uncommon in the MARINER trial, reported lead author Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and his colleagues.

“Patients who are hospitalized for acute medical illnesses, such as heart failure, respiratory insufficiency, stroke, and infectious or inflammatory diseases, are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism,” they wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. The results were also presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Although the increased risk of thromboembolism continues for at least 6 weeks after hospitalization, postdischarge anticoagulants, such as rivaroxaban, are controversial.

“Studies of extended thromboprophylaxis have shown either excess major bleeding or a benefit that is based mainly on reducing the risk of asymptomatic deep-vein thrombosis,” the investigators wrote.

The researchers aimed to clarify the benefits of rivaroxaban after hospitalization while modifying previous study regimens to limit major bleeding risk.

The double-blind MARINER study involved 12,019 patients who were hospitalized for medical illness and had an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. Hospitalization lasted 3-10 consecutive days. Sufficient risk of thromboembolism was defined by a modified International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) score of 4 or higher (range, 0-10), or an IMPROVE score of 2 or 3 with a plasma D-dimer measurement more than double the upper normal limit.

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 mg of rivaroxaban daily (n = 6,007) or placebo (n = 6,012) for 45 days after discharge. Patients with renal impairment had a reduced dose of 7.5 mg rivaroxaban.

A composite of symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism was the primary efficacy outcome. Major bleeding was the safety benchmark.

Efficacy was similar in both groups. Symptomatic or fatal venous thromboembolism occurred in 50 patients (0.83%) in the rivaroxaban group, compared with 66 patients (1.10%) in the placebo group (P = .14). These findings suggest that rivaroxaban provides a minor and insignificant benefit.

Although major bleeding was slightly more common in patients receiving rivaroxaban, compared with patients receiving placebo (0.28% vs. 0.15%), the researchers suggested that, in large populations, the marginal benefit of rivaroxaban might outweigh the increased bleeding risk. Still, the authors noted that “the usefulness of extended thromboprophylaxis remains uncertain.”

“Future studies should more accurately identify deaths caused by thrombotic mechanisms and focus on the patients who are at highest risk and who may benefit from anticoagulant prophylaxis,” the researchers wrote.

Funding was provided by Janssen Research and Development. Most of the study authors reported fees or grants from Janssen during the study, and relationships with other companies outside of the submitted work.

SOURCE : Spyropoulos AC et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805090.

Unlike some children who wanted be firefighters or astronauts when they grew up, ever since Raj Sehgal, MD, FHM, was a boy, he dreamed of being a doctor.

Since earning his medical degree, Dr. Sehgal has kept himself involved in a wide variety of projects, driven by the desire to diversify his expertise.

Currently a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and University of Texas Health San Antonio, Dr. Sehgal has found his place as an educator as well as a clinician, earning the Division of Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2016.

As a member of the The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory board, Dr. Sehgal enjoys helping to educate and inform fellow hospitalists. He spoke with The Hospitalist to tell us more about himself.
 

How did you get into medicine?

I don’t know how old I was when I decided I was going to be a doctor, but it was at a very young age and I never really wavered in that desire. I guess I also would have wanted to be a baseball player or a musician, but I never had the talents for those, so it was doctor. That’s always what I was thinking of doing, straight through high school and college, and then after college I took a year off and joined AmeriCorps. I spent a year there and then went to medical school in Dallas at UT Southwestern. After medical school, I thought I should go somewhere as different from Dallas as possible, so I went to Portland, Ore., for my residency and then a fellowship in general internal medicine.

How did you end up in hospital medicine?

When I was doing my residency, I always enjoyed being a generalist. A lot of different areas of medicine interested me, but I like the breadth of things you encounter as a generalist, so I could never picture myself being a subspecialist, doing the same things every day, seeing the same things. I knew I wanted to keep practicing general internal medicine, so I took a fellowship where I was working both inpatient and outpatient, and when I was looking for a job, I sought out things that involved some inpatient and some outpatient work. It turned out hospital medicine was the best fit.

What would you say is your favorite part of hospital medicine?

My favorite part of the job is getting to teach, working with medical students and residents. I also like the variety of what I do as a hospitalist, so I’m about 50% clinical and the rest of the time I perform a variety of tasks, both administrative and educational.

What about your least favorite part of hospitalist work?

Sometimes, particularly if you’re doing clinical, educational, and administrative work, it can be a little overwhelming to try and do a little bit of everything. I think generally that’s a good thing, but sometimes it can feel like a little too much.

What is some of the best advice you have received regarding how to handle the stresses of hospital medicine?

Feel free to say no to things. When hospitalists are starting their careers, and particularly when they are new to a job and trying to express their desire to get involved, sometimes they can have too much thrown at them at once. People can get overloaded very quickly, so I think feeling like you’re able to say no to some requests, or to take some time to think before you accept an additional role. The other piece of advice I remember from my fellowship, is that, when you do something, make it count twice. For example, if you’re involved in a project, you get the practical clinical or educational benefits of whatever the project was. But also think about how you might write about your experience for research purposes, such as for a poster, article, or other presentation.

What is the worst advice you have been given?

I think it’s not necessarily bad advice, but I guess it’s advice that I haven’t really followed. Since I work in academic medicine, I’ve found that the people in academics fall into one of two categories: There are the people who find their niche and remain on that path, and they’re very clear about it and don’t really stray from it; and there are people who don’t find that niche right away. I think the advice I received when starting out was to try to find that niche, and if you’re building an academic career it is very helpful to have these things in which you have become the expert. But I’ve just tried to go where the job takes me. I don’t necessarily have a single academic niche or something that I spend all my time doing, but I do have my hand in a lot of different things. To me, that’s a lot more interesting because it adds to the variety of what you’re doing. Every day is a little different.

What else do you do professionally outside of hospital medicine?

I actually practice a little outpatient medicine. When I first started here, I wanted to keep some outpatient experience, and so I actually created my own clinic. It’s a procedure clinic where I do paracentesis on people who have cirrhosis. Then on the educational side, I sit on the admission committees for the medical school here, so I get to look through the applicants and choose who we interview, and then once we interview candidates, I help choose how we rank students for admission.

Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

I’ve never been one who looks at a particular job and says ‘Okay, I want to be the dean or have this position.’ I guess I just hope I’m better at the things I’m currently doing. I hope in 10 years that I’m a better teacher, that I’ll have learned more strategies to help more people, and that I have a better handle on the administrative side of the work. I hope I’ve progressed to a point in my career where I’m doing an even better job than I am now.

What are your goals as a member of the editorial board?

I have an interest not only in medicine but also in writing; I’ve gotten to do some writing both medical and nonmedical in the past. I’ve published a few articles in The Hospitalist, and hopefully, I can do more of that because writing is just another part of education.

Unlike some children who wanted be firefighters or astronauts when they grew up, ever since Raj Sehgal, MD, FHM, was a boy, he dreamed of being a doctor.

Since earning his medical degree, Dr. Sehgal has kept himself involved in a wide variety of projects, driven by the desire to diversify his expertise.

Currently a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and University of Texas Health San Antonio, Dr. Sehgal has found his place as an educator as well as a clinician, earning the Division of Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2016.

As a member of the The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory board, Dr. Sehgal enjoys helping to educate and inform fellow hospitalists. He spoke with The Hospitalist to tell us more about himself.
 

How did you get into medicine?

I don’t know how old I was when I decided I was going to be a doctor, but it was at a very young age and I never really wavered in that desire. I guess I also would have wanted to be a baseball player or a musician, but I never had the talents for those, so it was doctor. That’s always what I was thinking of doing, straight through high school and college, and then after college I took a year off and joined AmeriCorps. I spent a year there and then went to medical school in Dallas at UT Southwestern. After medical school, I thought I should go somewhere as different from Dallas as possible, so I went to Portland, Ore., for my residency and then a fellowship in general internal medicine.

How did you end up in hospital medicine?

When I was doing my residency, I always enjoyed being a generalist. A lot of different areas of medicine interested me, but I like the breadth of things you encounter as a generalist, so I could never picture myself being a subspecialist, doing the same things every day, seeing the same things. I knew I wanted to keep practicing general internal medicine, so I took a fellowship where I was working both inpatient and outpatient, and when I was looking for a job, I sought out things that involved some inpatient and some outpatient work. It turned out hospital medicine was the best fit.

What would you say is your favorite part of hospital medicine?

My favorite part of the job is getting to teach, working with medical students and residents. I also like the variety of what I do as a hospitalist, so I’m about 50% clinical and the rest of the time I perform a variety of tasks, both administrative and educational.

What about your least favorite part of hospitalist work?

Sometimes, particularly if you’re doing clinical, educational, and administrative work, it can be a little overwhelming to try and do a little bit of everything. I think generally that’s a good thing, but sometimes it can feel like a little too much.

What is some of the best advice you have received regarding how to handle the stresses of hospital medicine?

Feel free to say no to things. When hospitalists are starting their careers, and particularly when they are new to a job and trying to express their desire to get involved, sometimes they can have too much thrown at them at once. People can get overloaded very quickly, so I think feeling like you’re able to say no to some requests, or to take some time to think before you accept an additional role. The other piece of advice I remember from my fellowship, is that, when you do something, make it count twice. For example, if you’re involved in a project, you get the practical clinical or educational benefits of whatever the project was. But also think about how you might write about your experience for research purposes, such as for a poster, article, or other presentation.

What is the worst advice you have been given?

I think it’s not necessarily bad advice, but I guess it’s advice that I haven’t really followed. Since I work in academic medicine, I’ve found that the people in academics fall into one of two categories: There are the people who find their niche and remain on that path, and they’re very clear about it and don’t really stray from it; and there are people who don’t find that niche right away. I think the advice I received when starting out was to try to find that niche, and if you’re building an academic career it is very helpful to have these things in which you have become the expert. But I’ve just tried to go where the job takes me. I don’t necessarily have a single academic niche or something that I spend all my time doing, but I do have my hand in a lot of different things. To me, that’s a lot more interesting because it adds to the variety of what you’re doing. Every day is a little different.

What else do you do professionally outside of hospital medicine?

I actually practice a little outpatient medicine. When I first started here, I wanted to keep some outpatient experience, and so I actually created my own clinic. It’s a procedure clinic where I do paracentesis on people who have cirrhosis. Then on the educational side, I sit on the admission committees for the medical school here, so I get to look through the applicants and choose who we interview, and then once we interview candidates, I help choose how we rank students for admission.

Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

I’ve never been one who looks at a particular job and says ‘Okay, I want to be the dean or have this position.’ I guess I just hope I’m better at the things I’m currently doing. I hope in 10 years that I’m a better teacher, that I’ll have learned more strategies to help more people, and that I have a better handle on the administrative side of the work. I hope I’ve progressed to a point in my career where I’m doing an even better job than I am now.

What are your goals as a member of the editorial board?

I have an interest not only in medicine but also in writing; I’ve gotten to do some writing both medical and nonmedical in the past. I’ve published a few articles in The Hospitalist, and hopefully, I can do more of that because writing is just another part of education.

Unlike some children who wanted be firefighters or astronauts when they grew up, ever since Raj Sehgal, MD, FHM, was a boy, he dreamed of being a doctor.

Since earning his medical degree, Dr. Sehgal has kept himself involved in a wide variety of projects, driven by the desire to diversify his expertise.

Currently a clinical associate professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, and University of Texas Health San Antonio, Dr. Sehgal has found his place as an educator as well as a clinician, earning the Division of Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2016.

As a member of the The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory board, Dr. Sehgal enjoys helping to educate and inform fellow hospitalists. He spoke with The Hospitalist to tell us more about himself.
 

How did you get into medicine?

I don’t know how old I was when I decided I was going to be a doctor, but it was at a very young age and I never really wavered in that desire. I guess I also would have wanted to be a baseball player or a musician, but I never had the talents for those, so it was doctor. That’s always what I was thinking of doing, straight through high school and college, and then after college I took a year off and joined AmeriCorps. I spent a year there and then went to medical school in Dallas at UT Southwestern. After medical school, I thought I should go somewhere as different from Dallas as possible, so I went to Portland, Ore., for my residency and then a fellowship in general internal medicine.

How did you end up in hospital medicine?

When I was doing my residency, I always enjoyed being a generalist. A lot of different areas of medicine interested me, but I like the breadth of things you encounter as a generalist, so I could never picture myself being a subspecialist, doing the same things every day, seeing the same things. I knew I wanted to keep practicing general internal medicine, so I took a fellowship where I was working both inpatient and outpatient, and when I was looking for a job, I sought out things that involved some inpatient and some outpatient work. It turned out hospital medicine was the best fit.

What would you say is your favorite part of hospital medicine?

My favorite part of the job is getting to teach, working with medical students and residents. I also like the variety of what I do as a hospitalist, so I’m about 50% clinical and the rest of the time I perform a variety of tasks, both administrative and educational.

What about your least favorite part of hospitalist work?

Sometimes, particularly if you’re doing clinical, educational, and administrative work, it can be a little overwhelming to try and do a little bit of everything. I think generally that’s a good thing, but sometimes it can feel like a little too much.

What is some of the best advice you have received regarding how to handle the stresses of hospital medicine?

Feel free to say no to things. When hospitalists are starting their careers, and particularly when they are new to a job and trying to express their desire to get involved, sometimes they can have too much thrown at them at once. People can get overloaded very quickly, so I think feeling like you’re able to say no to some requests, or to take some time to think before you accept an additional role. The other piece of advice I remember from my fellowship, is that, when you do something, make it count twice. For example, if you’re involved in a project, you get the practical clinical or educational benefits of whatever the project was. But also think about how you might write about your experience for research purposes, such as for a poster, article, or other presentation.

What is the worst advice you have been given?

I think it’s not necessarily bad advice, but I guess it’s advice that I haven’t really followed. Since I work in academic medicine, I’ve found that the people in academics fall into one of two categories: There are the people who find their niche and remain on that path, and they’re very clear about it and don’t really stray from it; and there are people who don’t find that niche right away. I think the advice I received when starting out was to try to find that niche, and if you’re building an academic career it is very helpful to have these things in which you have become the expert. But I’ve just tried to go where the job takes me. I don’t necessarily have a single academic niche or something that I spend all my time doing, but I do have my hand in a lot of different things. To me, that’s a lot more interesting because it adds to the variety of what you’re doing. Every day is a little different.

What else do you do professionally outside of hospital medicine?

I actually practice a little outpatient medicine. When I first started here, I wanted to keep some outpatient experience, and so I actually created my own clinic. It’s a procedure clinic where I do paracentesis on people who have cirrhosis. Then on the educational side, I sit on the admission committees for the medical school here, so I get to look through the applicants and choose who we interview, and then once we interview candidates, I help choose how we rank students for admission.

Where do you see yourself in the next 10 years?

I’ve never been one who looks at a particular job and says ‘Okay, I want to be the dean or have this position.’ I guess I just hope I’m better at the things I’m currently doing. I hope in 10 years that I’m a better teacher, that I’ll have learned more strategies to help more people, and that I have a better handle on the administrative side of the work. I hope I’ve progressed to a point in my career where I’m doing an even better job than I am now.

What are your goals as a member of the editorial board?

I have an interest not only in medicine but also in writing; I’ve gotten to do some writing both medical and nonmedical in the past. I’ve published a few articles in The Hospitalist, and hopefully, I can do more of that because writing is just another part of education.

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced the appointment of Eric Howell, MD, MHM, to the position of chief operating officer (COO).

“Having been involved with SHM in many capacities since first joining, I am honored to now transition to chief operating officer,” Dr. Howell said. “I always tell everyone that my goal is to make the world a better place, and I know that SHM’s staff will be able to do just that through the development and deployment of a variety of products, tools, and services to help hospitalists improve patient care.”

In his new role as COO at SHM, Dr. Howell will lead senior management’s strategic planning as well as define organizational goals to drive extensive, sustainable growth. In addition to serving as SHM’s COO, Dr. Howell will continue his role as director of the hospital medicine division of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also in Baltimore. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and now oversees more than 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals.

“Eric has the perfect background to take SHM, its staff, and its membership to the next level,” said Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “His foundational leadership in the hospital medicine movement makes him the ideal person to lead SHM forward in its quest to provide hospitalists with the tools necessary to make a noteworthy difference in their institutions and in the lives of their patients.”

Dr. Howell is also a past president of SHM, the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies, and most recently, served as the senior physician advisor to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, which conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. He received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, which he said has served as an instrumental piece of his background for managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput, and patient outcomes.




 

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced the appointment of Eric Howell, MD, MHM, to the position of chief operating officer (COO).

“Having been involved with SHM in many capacities since first joining, I am honored to now transition to chief operating officer,” Dr. Howell said. “I always tell everyone that my goal is to make the world a better place, and I know that SHM’s staff will be able to do just that through the development and deployment of a variety of products, tools, and services to help hospitalists improve patient care.”

In his new role as COO at SHM, Dr. Howell will lead senior management’s strategic planning as well as define organizational goals to drive extensive, sustainable growth. In addition to serving as SHM’s COO, Dr. Howell will continue his role as director of the hospital medicine division of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also in Baltimore. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and now oversees more than 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals.

“Eric has the perfect background to take SHM, its staff, and its membership to the next level,” said Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “His foundational leadership in the hospital medicine movement makes him the ideal person to lead SHM forward in its quest to provide hospitalists with the tools necessary to make a noteworthy difference in their institutions and in the lives of their patients.”

Dr. Howell is also a past president of SHM, the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies, and most recently, served as the senior physician advisor to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, which conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. He received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, which he said has served as an instrumental piece of his background for managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput, and patient outcomes.




 

The Society of Hospital Medicine has announced the appointment of Eric Howell, MD, MHM, to the position of chief operating officer (COO).

“Having been involved with SHM in many capacities since first joining, I am honored to now transition to chief operating officer,” Dr. Howell said. “I always tell everyone that my goal is to make the world a better place, and I know that SHM’s staff will be able to do just that through the development and deployment of a variety of products, tools, and services to help hospitalists improve patient care.”

In his new role as COO at SHM, Dr. Howell will lead senior management’s strategic planning as well as define organizational goals to drive extensive, sustainable growth. In addition to serving as SHM’s COO, Dr. Howell will continue his role as director of the hospital medicine division of Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and professor of medicine in the department of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, also in Baltimore. Dr. Howell joined the Johns Hopkins Bayview hospitalist program in 2000, began the Howard County (Md.) General Hospital hospitalist program in 2010, and now oversees more than 200 physicians and clinical staff providing patient care in three hospitals.

“Eric has the perfect background to take SHM, its staff, and its membership to the next level,” said Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of SHM. “His foundational leadership in the hospital medicine movement makes him the ideal person to lead SHM forward in its quest to provide hospitalists with the tools necessary to make a noteworthy difference in their institutions and in the lives of their patients.”

Dr. Howell is also a past president of SHM, the course director for the SHM Leadership Academies, and most recently, served as the senior physician advisor to SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement, which conducts quality improvement programs for hospitalist teams. He received his electrical engineering degree from the University of Maryland, which he said has served as an instrumental piece of his background for managing and implementing change in the hospital. His research has focused on the relationship between the emergency department and medicine floors, improving communication, throughput, and patient outcomes.