TBD Meeting (3243-22)

Most hospitals in the United States have yet to transition from conventional to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, despite their greater sensitivity for myocardial injury, a new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) registry study indicates.

hs-cTn assays have been used in routine clinical practice in Europe, Canada, and Australia since 2010, but the first such assay did not gain approval in the United States until 2017. Although single-center studies have examined their efficacy and potential downstream consequences, few data exist on hs-cTn implementation nationally, explained study author Cian McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and will be presented Nov. 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For the study, Dr. McCarthy and colleagues examined 550 hospitals participating in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI registry from January 2019 through September 2021.

Of the 251,000 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 64 years; 41.5% female), 155,049 had a non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 15,989 had unstable angina, and 79,962 had low-risk chest pain.

The hs-cTn assays included Roche Diagnostic’s Elecsys Gen5 STAT troponin T assay (23%); Abbott’s ARCHITECT STAT (17%); Beckman Coulter’s ACCESS (21%); and Siemens’ Atellica IM (18%), Dimension VISTA (14%), Dimension EXL (4%), and ADVIA Centaur (2%) troponin I assays.

During the study period, 11.5% of patients were evaluated with hs-cTn assays and the remainder were evaluated with conventional troponin assays. These patients were slightly older (65.0 vs. 64.0 years), more commonly White (83.1% vs. 79.9%), less likely to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (8.9% vs. 10.0%), and less likely to be uninsured (6.8% vs. 8.3%; P for all < .001).

A slightly higher proportion of patients evaluated with hs-cTn assays were diagnosed with unstable angina (7.1% vs. 6.3%), a lower proportion with NSTEMI (61.1% vs. 61.9%), and a similar proportion with low-risk chest pain (31.8% vs. 31.9%) compared with those evaluated by conventional troponin assays.

Implementation, defined as at least 25% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn in each quarter, increased from 3.3% in the first quarter of 2019 to 32.6% in the third quarter of 2021 (P trend < .001).

Using higher implementation thresholds of at least 50% and 75% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn, the prevalence in 2021 was 28.9% and 24.7%, respectively.

“So still, the majority of the hospitals by the end of the third quarter 2021 were not using these assays,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Potential explanations for the slow uptake are that prospective comparative effectiveness trials of These assays have predominantly been in international populations and real-world data on U.S. implementation have been limited to integrated health networks at academic institutions.

Approval of several assays was also delayed and the study data cut off just before the October publication of the 2021 AHA/ACC Chest Pain guideline. “So, whether the chest pain guideline with the new class 1 recommendation for hs-cTn will lead to further uptake is something that will need to be looked at in the future,” he said.
 

Downstream testing

In adjusted analyses, hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with non-ST elevation–acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (82.4% vs. 75.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.73), but not among those with low-risk chest pain (19.7% vs. 19.4%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22) compared with conventional cTn assays.

Importantly, hs-cTn was not associated with a difference in stress testing or CT coronary angiography utilization.

Use of hs-cTn was associated with lower use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with low-risk chest pain (3.7% vs. 4.5%; OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use for NSTE-ACS (96.3% vs. 95.8%; OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82-1.19).

Among patients with NSTE-ACS, there also was no difference in revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52.7% vs. 52.3%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or coronary bypass graft surgery (9.4% vs. 9.1%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18).

PCI (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P = .05) and bypass graft surgery (both 0.1%) were uncommon among patients with low-risk chest pain.

In-hospital mortality was similar among patients with low-risk chest pain evaluated using hs-cTn assays vs. conventional troponin assays (0% vs. 0.02%; P = .16) and among patients with NSTE-ACS (2.8% vs. 3.2%; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.87-1.11).

Length of stay was slightly shorter with hs-cTn use for patients with low-risk chest pain (median, 5.8 vs. 6.2 hours; P < .001) and patients with NSTE-ACS (66.9 vs. 67.8 hours; P = .01).

“There was always a concern that maybe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin would dramatically increase testing and could even increase length of stay, but I think these data are reassuring, in that this study suggests high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is associated with a small reduction in length of stay and possibly more appropriate use of testing with echocardiography in STEMI and a reduction in invasive angiography in low-risk patients,” Dr. McCarthy said. “But the majority of hospitals haven’t implemented the assay.”

The authors pointed out that because registry entry of patients with low-risk chest pain and unstable angina is optional for participating sites, the percentage of patients with NSTEMI is higher than in typical chest pain analyses. This higher pretest probability for MI may thus affect post-test accuracy for a true positive result. “That stated, this is the exact scenario where higher sensitivity might be associated with favorable impact on utilization.”

Among other limitations: There was the potential for unmeasured confounders, the accuracy of diagnoses could not be confirmed, patients with type 2 MI were excluded from the registry, and post-discharge safety was not assessed.

“These data indicate further opportunities to more widely and effectively implement hs-cTn in the U.S. hospitals persist that could optimize care for patients with possible or definitive ACS,” Dr. McCarthy and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. McCarthy is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received consulting income from Abbott Laboratories.

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

Most hospitals in the United States have yet to transition from conventional to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, despite their greater sensitivity for myocardial injury, a new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) registry study indicates.

hs-cTn assays have been used in routine clinical practice in Europe, Canada, and Australia since 2010, but the first such assay did not gain approval in the United States until 2017. Although single-center studies have examined their efficacy and potential downstream consequences, few data exist on hs-cTn implementation nationally, explained study author Cian McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and will be presented Nov. 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For the study, Dr. McCarthy and colleagues examined 550 hospitals participating in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI registry from January 2019 through September 2021.

Of the 251,000 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 64 years; 41.5% female), 155,049 had a non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 15,989 had unstable angina, and 79,962 had low-risk chest pain.

The hs-cTn assays included Roche Diagnostic’s Elecsys Gen5 STAT troponin T assay (23%); Abbott’s ARCHITECT STAT (17%); Beckman Coulter’s ACCESS (21%); and Siemens’ Atellica IM (18%), Dimension VISTA (14%), Dimension EXL (4%), and ADVIA Centaur (2%) troponin I assays.

During the study period, 11.5% of patients were evaluated with hs-cTn assays and the remainder were evaluated with conventional troponin assays. These patients were slightly older (65.0 vs. 64.0 years), more commonly White (83.1% vs. 79.9%), less likely to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (8.9% vs. 10.0%), and less likely to be uninsured (6.8% vs. 8.3%; P for all < .001).

A slightly higher proportion of patients evaluated with hs-cTn assays were diagnosed with unstable angina (7.1% vs. 6.3%), a lower proportion with NSTEMI (61.1% vs. 61.9%), and a similar proportion with low-risk chest pain (31.8% vs. 31.9%) compared with those evaluated by conventional troponin assays.

Implementation, defined as at least 25% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn in each quarter, increased from 3.3% in the first quarter of 2019 to 32.6% in the third quarter of 2021 (P trend < .001).

Using higher implementation thresholds of at least 50% and 75% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn, the prevalence in 2021 was 28.9% and 24.7%, respectively.

“So still, the majority of the hospitals by the end of the third quarter 2021 were not using these assays,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Potential explanations for the slow uptake are that prospective comparative effectiveness trials of These assays have predominantly been in international populations and real-world data on U.S. implementation have been limited to integrated health networks at academic institutions.

Approval of several assays was also delayed and the study data cut off just before the October publication of the 2021 AHA/ACC Chest Pain guideline. “So, whether the chest pain guideline with the new class 1 recommendation for hs-cTn will lead to further uptake is something that will need to be looked at in the future,” he said.
 

Downstream testing

In adjusted analyses, hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with non-ST elevation–acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (82.4% vs. 75.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.73), but not among those with low-risk chest pain (19.7% vs. 19.4%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22) compared with conventional cTn assays.

Importantly, hs-cTn was not associated with a difference in stress testing or CT coronary angiography utilization.

Use of hs-cTn was associated with lower use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with low-risk chest pain (3.7% vs. 4.5%; OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use for NSTE-ACS (96.3% vs. 95.8%; OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82-1.19).

Among patients with NSTE-ACS, there also was no difference in revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52.7% vs. 52.3%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or coronary bypass graft surgery (9.4% vs. 9.1%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18).

PCI (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P = .05) and bypass graft surgery (both 0.1%) were uncommon among patients with low-risk chest pain.

In-hospital mortality was similar among patients with low-risk chest pain evaluated using hs-cTn assays vs. conventional troponin assays (0% vs. 0.02%; P = .16) and among patients with NSTE-ACS (2.8% vs. 3.2%; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.87-1.11).

Length of stay was slightly shorter with hs-cTn use for patients with low-risk chest pain (median, 5.8 vs. 6.2 hours; P < .001) and patients with NSTE-ACS (66.9 vs. 67.8 hours; P = .01).

“There was always a concern that maybe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin would dramatically increase testing and could even increase length of stay, but I think these data are reassuring, in that this study suggests high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is associated with a small reduction in length of stay and possibly more appropriate use of testing with echocardiography in STEMI and a reduction in invasive angiography in low-risk patients,” Dr. McCarthy said. “But the majority of hospitals haven’t implemented the assay.”

The authors pointed out that because registry entry of patients with low-risk chest pain and unstable angina is optional for participating sites, the percentage of patients with NSTEMI is higher than in typical chest pain analyses. This higher pretest probability for MI may thus affect post-test accuracy for a true positive result. “That stated, this is the exact scenario where higher sensitivity might be associated with favorable impact on utilization.”

Among other limitations: There was the potential for unmeasured confounders, the accuracy of diagnoses could not be confirmed, patients with type 2 MI were excluded from the registry, and post-discharge safety was not assessed.

“These data indicate further opportunities to more widely and effectively implement hs-cTn in the U.S. hospitals persist that could optimize care for patients with possible or definitive ACS,” Dr. McCarthy and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. McCarthy is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received consulting income from Abbott Laboratories.

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

Most hospitals in the United States have yet to transition from conventional to high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays, despite their greater sensitivity for myocardial injury, a new National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) registry study indicates.

hs-cTn assays have been used in routine clinical practice in Europe, Canada, and Australia since 2010, but the first such assay did not gain approval in the United States until 2017. Although single-center studies have examined their efficacy and potential downstream consequences, few data exist on hs-cTn implementation nationally, explained study author Cian McCarthy, MB, BCh, BAO, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and will be presented Nov. 5 at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

For the study, Dr. McCarthy and colleagues examined 550 hospitals participating in the NCDR Chest Pain-MI registry from January 2019 through September 2021.

Of the 251,000 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 64 years; 41.5% female), 155,049 had a non–ST-segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 15,989 had unstable angina, and 79,962 had low-risk chest pain.

The hs-cTn assays included Roche Diagnostic’s Elecsys Gen5 STAT troponin T assay (23%); Abbott’s ARCHITECT STAT (17%); Beckman Coulter’s ACCESS (21%); and Siemens’ Atellica IM (18%), Dimension VISTA (14%), Dimension EXL (4%), and ADVIA Centaur (2%) troponin I assays.

During the study period, 11.5% of patients were evaluated with hs-cTn assays and the remainder were evaluated with conventional troponin assays. These patients were slightly older (65.0 vs. 64.0 years), more commonly White (83.1% vs. 79.9%), less likely to be of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (8.9% vs. 10.0%), and less likely to be uninsured (6.8% vs. 8.3%; P for all < .001).

A slightly higher proportion of patients evaluated with hs-cTn assays were diagnosed with unstable angina (7.1% vs. 6.3%), a lower proportion with NSTEMI (61.1% vs. 61.9%), and a similar proportion with low-risk chest pain (31.8% vs. 31.9%) compared with those evaluated by conventional troponin assays.

Implementation, defined as at least 25% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn in each quarter, increased from 3.3% in the first quarter of 2019 to 32.6% in the third quarter of 2021 (P trend < .001).

Using higher implementation thresholds of at least 50% and 75% of patients evaluated by hs-cTn, the prevalence in 2021 was 28.9% and 24.7%, respectively.

“So still, the majority of the hospitals by the end of the third quarter 2021 were not using these assays,” Dr. McCarthy said.

Potential explanations for the slow uptake are that prospective comparative effectiveness trials of These assays have predominantly been in international populations and real-world data on U.S. implementation have been limited to integrated health networks at academic institutions.

Approval of several assays was also delayed and the study data cut off just before the October publication of the 2021 AHA/ACC Chest Pain guideline. “So, whether the chest pain guideline with the new class 1 recommendation for hs-cTn will lead to further uptake is something that will need to be looked at in the future,” he said.
 

Downstream testing

In adjusted analyses, hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with non-ST elevation–acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) (82.4% vs. 75.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.73), but not among those with low-risk chest pain (19.7% vs. 19.4%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.22) compared with conventional cTn assays.

Importantly, hs-cTn was not associated with a difference in stress testing or CT coronary angiography utilization.

Use of hs-cTn was associated with lower use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with low-risk chest pain (3.7% vs. 4.5%; OR, 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use for NSTE-ACS (96.3% vs. 95.8%; OR, 0.99, 95% CI, 0.82-1.19).

Among patients with NSTE-ACS, there also was no difference in revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (52.7% vs. 52.3%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04) or coronary bypass graft surgery (9.4% vs. 9.1%; OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.18).

PCI (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P = .05) and bypass graft surgery (both 0.1%) were uncommon among patients with low-risk chest pain.

In-hospital mortality was similar among patients with low-risk chest pain evaluated using hs-cTn assays vs. conventional troponin assays (0% vs. 0.02%; P = .16) and among patients with NSTE-ACS (2.8% vs. 3.2%; OR, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.87-1.11).

Length of stay was slightly shorter with hs-cTn use for patients with low-risk chest pain (median, 5.8 vs. 6.2 hours; P < .001) and patients with NSTE-ACS (66.9 vs. 67.8 hours; P = .01).

“There was always a concern that maybe high-sensitivity cardiac troponin would dramatically increase testing and could even increase length of stay, but I think these data are reassuring, in that this study suggests high-sensitivity cardiac troponin is associated with a small reduction in length of stay and possibly more appropriate use of testing with echocardiography in STEMI and a reduction in invasive angiography in low-risk patients,” Dr. McCarthy said. “But the majority of hospitals haven’t implemented the assay.”

The authors pointed out that because registry entry of patients with low-risk chest pain and unstable angina is optional for participating sites, the percentage of patients with NSTEMI is higher than in typical chest pain analyses. This higher pretest probability for MI may thus affect post-test accuracy for a true positive result. “That stated, this is the exact scenario where higher sensitivity might be associated with favorable impact on utilization.”

Among other limitations: There was the potential for unmeasured confounders, the accuracy of diagnoses could not be confirmed, patients with type 2 MI were excluded from the registry, and post-discharge safety was not assessed.

“These data indicate further opportunities to more widely and effectively implement hs-cTn in the U.S. hospitals persist that could optimize care for patients with possible or definitive ACS,” Dr. McCarthy and colleagues concluded.

The study was funded by the American College of Cardiology’s National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Dr. McCarthy is supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and has received consulting income from Abbott Laboratories.

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

Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.

Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.

These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).

A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).

Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.

Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.

According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”

This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.

The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.

“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
 

Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?

Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.

However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.

The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.

VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.

In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.

The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.

Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.

The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).

At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.

Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.

In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.

Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.

The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”

“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.

The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.

Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.

These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).

A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).

Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.

Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.

According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”

This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.

The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.

“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
 

Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?

Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.

However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.

The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.

VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.

In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.

The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.

Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.

The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).

At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.

Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.

In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.

Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.

The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”

“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.

The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Severe marital stress was associated with worse recovery after myocardial infarction in a large U.S. cohort of married/partnered patients aged 55 years or younger.

Compared with patients who reported no or mild marital stress a month after their MI, patients who reported severe marital stress had worse physical and mental health, worse generic and cardiovascular quality of life, more frequent angina symptoms, and a greater likelihood of having a hospital readmission a year later.

These findings held true after adjusting for gender, age, race/ethnicity, and baseline health status (model 1) and after further adjusting for education and income levels and employment and insurance status (model 2).

A greater percentage of women than men reported having severe marital stress (39% vs. 30%; P = .001).

Cenjing Zhu, MPhil, a PhD candidate at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues will present this study at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The results show that “both patients and care providers should be aware that stress experienced in one’s everyday life, such as marital stress, can affect AMI [acute MI] recovery,” Ms. Zhu said in an email.

Health care providers should consider incorporating screening for everyday stress during follow-up patient visits to better spot people at high risk of a poor recovery and further hospitalizations, she added. When possible, they could guide patients to resources to help them manage and reduce their stress levels.

According to Ms. Zhu, the findings suggest that “managing personal stress may be as important as managing other clinical risk factors during the recovery process.”

This study in younger patients with MI “shows that high levels of marital stress impair heart attack recovery, and women have greater impairment in their heart attack recovery compared to men,” AHA spokesperson Nieca Goldberg, MD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization.

The study shows that “clinicians have to incorporate mental health as part of their assessment of all patients,” said Dr. Goldberg, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University and medical director of Atria New York City.

“Our mental health impacts our physical health,” she noted. “Questions about marital stress should be included as part of an overall assessment of mental health. This means assessing all patients for stress, anxiety, and depression.”

Patients who are experiencing marital stress should share the information with their doctor and discuss ways to be referred to therapists and cardiac rehabilitation providers, she said. “My final thought is, women have often been told that their cardiac symptoms are due to stress by doctors. Now we know stress impacts physical health and [is] no longer an excuse but a contributing factor to our physical health.”
 

Does marital stress affect young MI recovery?

Previous literature has linked psychological stress with worse cardiovascular outcomes, Ms. Zhu noted.

However, little is known about the prognostic impact of marital stress on 1-year health outcomes for younger people who survive an MI.

To investigate this, the researchers analyzed data from participants in the Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients (VIRGO) study.

The current study comprised 1,593 adults, including 1,020 female participants (64%), who were treated for MI at 103 hospitals in 30 U.S. states.

VIRGO enrolled participants in a 2:1 female-to-male ratio so as to enrich the inclusion of women, Ms. Zhu explained.

In the study, “partnered” participants were individuals who self-reported as “living as married/living with a partner.” There were 126 such patients (8%) in the current study.

The mean age of the patients was 47, and about 90% were 40-55 years old. Three quarters were White, 13% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic.

Marital stress was assessed on the basis of patients’ replies to 17 questions in the Stockholm Marital Stress Scale regarding the quality of their emotional and sexual relationships with their spouses/partners.

The researchers divided patients into three groups on the basis of their marital stress: mild or absent (lowest quartile), moderate (second quartile), and severe (upper two quartiles).

At 1 year after their MI, patients replied to questionnaires that assessed their health, quality of life, and depressive and angina symptoms. Hospital readmissions were determined on the basis of self-reports and medical records.

Compared to participants who reported no or mild marital stress, those who reported severe mental stress had significantly worse scores for physical and mental health and generic and cardiovascular quality of life, after adjusting for baseline health and demographics. They had worse scores for mental health and quality of life, after further adjusting for socioeconomic status.

In the fully adjusted model, patients who reported severe marital stress were significantly more likely to report more frequent chest pain/angina (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.10; P = .023) and to have been readmitted to hospital for any cause (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.04-2.00; P = .006), compared with the patients who reported no or mild marital stress.

Study limitations include the fact that the findings are based on self-reported questionnaire replies; they may not be generalizable to patients in other countries; and they do not extend beyond a period of 1 year.

The researchers call for further research “to understand this complex relationship and potential causal pathway associated with these findings.”

“Additional stressors beyond marital stress, such as financial strain or work stress, may also play a role in young adults’ recovery, and the interaction between these factors require further research,” Ms. Zhu noted in a press release from the AHA.

The study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The VIRGO study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Zhu and Dr. Goldberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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

That a bustling medical conference can have global reach as it unfolds is one of the COVID pandemic’s many lessons for science. Hybrid meetings such as the American Heart Association scientific sessions, getting underway Nov. 5 in Chicago and cyberspace, are one of its legacies.

The conference is set to recapture the magic of the in-person Scientific Sessions last experienced in Philadelphia in 2019. But planners are mindful of a special responsibility to younger clinicians and scientists who entered the field knowing only the virtual format and who may not know “what it’s like in a room when major science is presented or to present posters and have people come by for conversations,” Manesh R. Patel, MD, chair of the AHA 2022 Scientific Sessions program committee, told this news organization.

Still, the pandemic has underlined the value of live streaming for the great many who can’t attend in person, Dr. Patel said. At AHA 2022, virtual access doesn’t mean only late breaking and featured presentations; more than 70 full sessions will be streamed from Friday through Monday.

Overall, the conference has more than 800 sessions on the schedule, about a third are panels or invited lectures and two-thirds are original reports on the latest research. At the core of the research offerings, 78 studies and analyses are slated across 18 Late-Breaking Science (LBS) and Featured Science (FS) sessions from Saturday through Monday. At least 30 presentations and abstracts will enter the peer-reviewed literature right away with their simultaneous online publication, Dr. Patel said.

More a meet-and-greet than a presentation, the Puppy Snuggles Booth will make a return appearance in Chicago after earning rave reviews at the 2019 Sessions in Philadelphia. All are invited to take a breather from their schedules to pet, cuddle, and play with a passel of pups, all in need of homes and available for adoption. The experience’s favorable effect on blood pressure is almost guaranteed.
 

LBS and FS highlights

“It’s an amazing year for Late Breaking Science and Featured Science at the Scientific Sessions,” Dr. Patel said of the presentations selected for special attention after a rigorous review process. “We have science that is as broad and as deep as we’ve seen in years.”

Saturday’s two LBS sessions kick off the series with studies looking at agents long available in heart failure and hypertension but lacking solid supporting evidence, “pretty large randomized trials that are, we think, going to affect clinical practice as soon as they are presented,” Dr. Patel said.

They include TRANSFORM-HF, a comparison of the loop diuretics furosemide and torsemide in patients hospitalized with heart failure. And the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP), with more than 13,000 patients with hypertension assigned to the diuretics chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide, “is going to immediately impact how people think about blood pressure management,” Dr. Patel said.

Other highlights in the hypertension arena include the CRHCP trial, the MB-BP study, the Rich Life Project, and the polypill efficacy and safety trial QUARTET-USA, all in Sunday’s LBS-4; and the FRESH, PRECISION, and BrigHTN trials, all in LBS-9 on Monday.

Other heart failure trials joining TRANSFORM-HF in the line-up include IRONMAN, which revisited IV iron therapy in iron-deficient patients, in LBS-2 on Saturday and, in FS-4 on Monday, BETA3LVH and STRONG-HF, the latter a timely randomized test of pre- and post-discharge biomarker-driven uptitration of guideline-directed heart failure meds.

STRONG-HF was halted early, the trial’s nonprofit sponsor announced only weeks ago, after patients following the intensive uptitration strategy versus usual care showed a reduced risk of death or heart failure readmission; few other details were given.

Several sessions will be devoted to a rare breed of randomized trial, one that tests the efficacy of traditional herbal meds or nonprescription supplements against proven medications. “These are going to get a lot of people’s interest, one can imagine, because they are on common questions that patients bring to the clinic every day,” Dr. Patel said.

Such studies include CTS-AMI, which explored the traditional Chinese herbal medicine tongxinluo in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, in LBS-3 on Sunday, and SPORT in Sunday’s LBS-5, a small randomized comparison of low-dose rosuvastatin, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, an omega-3 fish-oil supplement, a plant sterol, red yeast rice, and placebo for any effects on LDL-C levels.

Other novel approaches to dyslipidemia management are to be covered in RESPECT-EPA and OCEAN(a)-DOSE, both in LBS-5 on Sunday, and all five presentations in Monday’s FS-9, including ARCHES-2, SHASTA-2, FOURIER-OLE, and ORION-3.

The interplay of antiplatelets and coronary interventions will be explored in presentations called OPTION, in LBS-6 on Sunday, and HOST-EXAM and TWILIGHT, in FS-6 on Monday.

Coronary and peripheral-vascular interventions are center stage in reports on RAPCO in LBS-3 and BRIGHT-4 in LBS-6, both on Sunday, and BEST-CLI in LBS-7 and the After-80 Study in FS-6, both on Monday.

Several Monday reports will cover comorbidities and complications associated with COVID-19, including PREVENT-HD in LBS-7, and PANAMO, FERMIN, COVID-NET, and a secondary analysis of the DELIVER trial in FS-5.
 

Rebroadcasts for the Pacific Rim

The sessions will also feature several evening rebroadcasts of earlier LBS sessions that meeting planners scored highly for scientific merit and potential clinical impact but also for their “regional pull,” primarily for our colleagues in Asia, Dr. Patel said.

The first two LBS sessions presented live during the day in Chicago will be rebroadcast that evening as, for example, Sunday morning and afternoon fare in Tokyo and Singapore. And LBS-5 live Sunday afternoon will rebroadcast that night as a Monday mid-morning session in, say, Hong Kong or Seoul.

This year’s AHA meeting spans the range of cardiovascular care, from precision therapies, such as gene editing or specific drugs, to broad strategies that consider, for example, social determinants of health, Dr. Patel said. “I think people, when they leave the Scientific Sessions, will feel very engaged in the larger conversation about how you impact very common conditions globally.”

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