Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

CHICAGO – The severity of heart failure in the setting of acute myocardial infarction predicts long-term cardiovascular death risk, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPROVE IT Trial.

Among 11,185 individuals with MI and known Killip Classification who were part of that randomized, double-blind trial, those with Killip Class II or greater had more than double the risk of long-term cardiovascular death, compared with those with Killip Class I heart failure, Dr Michael G. Silverman, a cardiovascular medicine fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston and a research fellow at the Thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) Study Group reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

After adjusting for a number of factors, including age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), beta blocker and ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use at randomization, and percutaneous coronary intervention at the index event, the 7-year event rate was 14.5% among those with Killip Class II or higher vs. 5.7% those with Killip Class I heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9), Dr. Silverman reported on behalf of the TIMI Study Group.

The event rates from 30 days to 6 months were 4.85% and 1.25% in the groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96), and from 6 months to 7 years they were 1.52% and 0.61%, in the groups, respectively, (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85).

Further, the increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with Killip Class II or higher was also apparent among important subgroups, including those with ST Segment Elevation MI, those with non-STEMI, those with LVEF of 50 or greater, those with LVEF less than 50, those with diabetes, those without diabetes, men, and women (adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 1.6 to 2.1), Dr Silverman explained in an interview.

The severity of heart failure according to Killip Class is a strong independent predictor of mortality in the setting of acute MI, and the current findings demonstrate that it also predicts cardiovascular death for at least 7 years, suggesting a need for careful attention to the findings of the physical exam in AMI, as it can serve as an important biomarker of long-term cardiovascular death risk, he said.

“AMI patients with Killip Class II or greater warrant continued close medical follow-up and adherence to guideline -directed medial therapy beyond the acute hospitalization to prevent this potentially modifiable outcome,” he concluded.

Dr. Silverman reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – The severity of heart failure in the setting of acute myocardial infarction predicts long-term cardiovascular death risk, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPROVE IT Trial.

Among 11,185 individuals with MI and known Killip Classification who were part of that randomized, double-blind trial, those with Killip Class II or greater had more than double the risk of long-term cardiovascular death, compared with those with Killip Class I heart failure, Dr Michael G. Silverman, a cardiovascular medicine fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston and a research fellow at the Thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) Study Group reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

After adjusting for a number of factors, including age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), beta blocker and ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use at randomization, and percutaneous coronary intervention at the index event, the 7-year event rate was 14.5% among those with Killip Class II or higher vs. 5.7% those with Killip Class I heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9), Dr. Silverman reported on behalf of the TIMI Study Group.

The event rates from 30 days to 6 months were 4.85% and 1.25% in the groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96), and from 6 months to 7 years they were 1.52% and 0.61%, in the groups, respectively, (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85).

Further, the increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with Killip Class II or higher was also apparent among important subgroups, including those with ST Segment Elevation MI, those with non-STEMI, those with LVEF of 50 or greater, those with LVEF less than 50, those with diabetes, those without diabetes, men, and women (adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 1.6 to 2.1), Dr Silverman explained in an interview.

The severity of heart failure according to Killip Class is a strong independent predictor of mortality in the setting of acute MI, and the current findings demonstrate that it also predicts cardiovascular death for at least 7 years, suggesting a need for careful attention to the findings of the physical exam in AMI, as it can serve as an important biomarker of long-term cardiovascular death risk, he said.

“AMI patients with Killip Class II or greater warrant continued close medical follow-up and adherence to guideline -directed medial therapy beyond the acute hospitalization to prevent this potentially modifiable outcome,” he concluded.

Dr. Silverman reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – The severity of heart failure in the setting of acute myocardial infarction predicts long-term cardiovascular death risk, according to a post hoc analysis of data from the IMPROVE IT Trial.

Among 11,185 individuals with MI and known Killip Classification who were part of that randomized, double-blind trial, those with Killip Class II or greater had more than double the risk of long-term cardiovascular death, compared with those with Killip Class I heart failure, Dr Michael G. Silverman, a cardiovascular medicine fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston and a research fellow at the Thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) Study Group reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

After adjusting for a number of factors, including age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), beta blocker and ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use at randomization, and percutaneous coronary intervention at the index event, the 7-year event rate was 14.5% among those with Killip Class II or higher vs. 5.7% those with Killip Class I heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9), Dr. Silverman reported on behalf of the TIMI Study Group.

The event rates from 30 days to 6 months were 4.85% and 1.25% in the groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96), and from 6 months to 7 years they were 1.52% and 0.61%, in the groups, respectively, (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.85).

Further, the increased risk of cardiovascular death associated with Killip Class II or higher was also apparent among important subgroups, including those with ST Segment Elevation MI, those with non-STEMI, those with LVEF of 50 or greater, those with LVEF less than 50, those with diabetes, those without diabetes, men, and women (adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 1.6 to 2.1), Dr Silverman explained in an interview.

The severity of heart failure according to Killip Class is a strong independent predictor of mortality in the setting of acute MI, and the current findings demonstrate that it also predicts cardiovascular death for at least 7 years, suggesting a need for careful attention to the findings of the physical exam in AMI, as it can serve as an important biomarker of long-term cardiovascular death risk, he said.

“AMI patients with Killip Class II or greater warrant continued close medical follow-up and adherence to guideline -directed medial therapy beyond the acute hospitalization to prevent this potentially modifiable outcome,” he concluded.

Dr. Silverman reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

Women with suspected coronary artery disease had similar symptoms and more heart disease risk factors, compared with men, but were assessed as lower risk by their providers and on all standard risk scores, according to a secondary analysis of the PROMISE trial.

The results “highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to coronary artery disease evaluation and testing,” said Kshipra Hemal at Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C., and her associates. The findings will be presented April 3 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology and were published online March 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Imaging.

©Alexander Raths/Fotolia.com

The PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial is one of the largest contemporary trials of symptomatic, nonacute suspected CAD. The study included 10,003 stable outpatients, nearly half of whom were women. The researchers calculated the 2008 Framingham score, 2013 Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease score, 1979 Diamond and Forrester score, modified 2011 Diamond and Forrester score, and 2012 combined Diamond-Forrester and Coronary Artery Surgery Study scores for all patients. Patients also were randomly assigned to either anatomical testing with CT angiography or to functional testing with exercise electrocardiogram, stress nuclear imaging, or stress echocardiogram (J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2016 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.02.001).

Women in the study were an average of 3 years older than the men and were significantly more likely to be hypertensive (67% vs. 63%), dyslipidemic (69% vs. 66%), and to have a family history of premature CAD (35% vs. 29%; P less than .01 for all comparisons), the researchers reported. Nonetheless, all five risk scores characterized women as lower risk than men (P less than .001 for mean differences). Moreover, before testing, providers characterized 41% of women having a low (less than 30%) likelihood of CAD, compared with 34% of men (P less than .001).

Women were more likely than men to be referred for stress echocardiography or nuclear stress test, but only 9.7% had a positive noninvasive test, compared with 15% of men (P less than .001), the researchers also reported. “A number of characteristics predicted positive test results, and many characteristics were similar between the sexes,” they added. “However, in multivariable models, key predictors of test positivity were few and varied by sex.” Body mass index and Framingham risk score predicted a positive test for women, while both the Framingham and modified Diamond-Forrester risk scores predicted a positive test for men.

Chest pain was the most common primary symptom reported by nearly three-quarters of women and men and was described as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” 53% and 46% of the time, respectively (P less than .001). Dyspnea was the second most frequent primary symptom at 15% for both sexes. Women were more likely than men to describe back pain, neck or jaw pain, or palpitations, but only 0.6% to 2.7% of patients ranked these among their main symptoms.

“Further studies are warranted to examine the underlying pathophysiology and implications for clinical care of the sex-based clinical differences observed along the entire diagnostic pathway of suspected CAD, including risk factor burden, presenting symptoms, and testing results,” the researchers concluded.

The PROMISE study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Hemal had no disclosures. Senior author Dr. Pamela S. Douglas disclosed grant support from HeartFlow and having served on a data and safety monitoring board for General Electric Healthcare. Two of the other 15 coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with industry; the rest had no disclosures.

Women with suspected coronary artery disease had similar symptoms and more heart disease risk factors, compared with men, but were assessed as lower risk by their providers and on all standard risk scores, according to a secondary analysis of the PROMISE trial.

The results “highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to coronary artery disease evaluation and testing,” said Kshipra Hemal at Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C., and her associates. The findings will be presented April 3 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology and were published online March 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Imaging.

©Alexander Raths/Fotolia.com

The PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial is one of the largest contemporary trials of symptomatic, nonacute suspected CAD. The study included 10,003 stable outpatients, nearly half of whom were women. The researchers calculated the 2008 Framingham score, 2013 Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease score, 1979 Diamond and Forrester score, modified 2011 Diamond and Forrester score, and 2012 combined Diamond-Forrester and Coronary Artery Surgery Study scores for all patients. Patients also were randomly assigned to either anatomical testing with CT angiography or to functional testing with exercise electrocardiogram, stress nuclear imaging, or stress echocardiogram (J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2016 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.02.001).

Women in the study were an average of 3 years older than the men and were significantly more likely to be hypertensive (67% vs. 63%), dyslipidemic (69% vs. 66%), and to have a family history of premature CAD (35% vs. 29%; P less than .01 for all comparisons), the researchers reported. Nonetheless, all five risk scores characterized women as lower risk than men (P less than .001 for mean differences). Moreover, before testing, providers characterized 41% of women having a low (less than 30%) likelihood of CAD, compared with 34% of men (P less than .001).

Women were more likely than men to be referred for stress echocardiography or nuclear stress test, but only 9.7% had a positive noninvasive test, compared with 15% of men (P less than .001), the researchers also reported. “A number of characteristics predicted positive test results, and many characteristics were similar between the sexes,” they added. “However, in multivariable models, key predictors of test positivity were few and varied by sex.” Body mass index and Framingham risk score predicted a positive test for women, while both the Framingham and modified Diamond-Forrester risk scores predicted a positive test for men.

Chest pain was the most common primary symptom reported by nearly three-quarters of women and men and was described as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” 53% and 46% of the time, respectively (P less than .001). Dyspnea was the second most frequent primary symptom at 15% for both sexes. Women were more likely than men to describe back pain, neck or jaw pain, or palpitations, but only 0.6% to 2.7% of patients ranked these among their main symptoms.

“Further studies are warranted to examine the underlying pathophysiology and implications for clinical care of the sex-based clinical differences observed along the entire diagnostic pathway of suspected CAD, including risk factor burden, presenting symptoms, and testing results,” the researchers concluded.

The PROMISE study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Hemal had no disclosures. Senior author Dr. Pamela S. Douglas disclosed grant support from HeartFlow and having served on a data and safety monitoring board for General Electric Healthcare. Two of the other 15 coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with industry; the rest had no disclosures.

Women with suspected coronary artery disease had similar symptoms and more heart disease risk factors, compared with men, but were assessed as lower risk by their providers and on all standard risk scores, according to a secondary analysis of the PROMISE trial.

The results “highlight the need for sex-specific approaches to coronary artery disease evaluation and testing,” said Kshipra Hemal at Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C., and her associates. The findings will be presented April 3 at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology and were published online March 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Imaging.

©Alexander Raths/Fotolia.com

The PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for the Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial is one of the largest contemporary trials of symptomatic, nonacute suspected CAD. The study included 10,003 stable outpatients, nearly half of whom were women. The researchers calculated the 2008 Framingham score, 2013 Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease score, 1979 Diamond and Forrester score, modified 2011 Diamond and Forrester score, and 2012 combined Diamond-Forrester and Coronary Artery Surgery Study scores for all patients. Patients also were randomly assigned to either anatomical testing with CT angiography or to functional testing with exercise electrocardiogram, stress nuclear imaging, or stress echocardiogram (J Am Coll Cardiol Img. 2016 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.02.001).

Women in the study were an average of 3 years older than the men and were significantly more likely to be hypertensive (67% vs. 63%), dyslipidemic (69% vs. 66%), and to have a family history of premature CAD (35% vs. 29%; P less than .01 for all comparisons), the researchers reported. Nonetheless, all five risk scores characterized women as lower risk than men (P less than .001 for mean differences). Moreover, before testing, providers characterized 41% of women having a low (less than 30%) likelihood of CAD, compared with 34% of men (P less than .001).

Women were more likely than men to be referred for stress echocardiography or nuclear stress test, but only 9.7% had a positive noninvasive test, compared with 15% of men (P less than .001), the researchers also reported. “A number of characteristics predicted positive test results, and many characteristics were similar between the sexes,” they added. “However, in multivariable models, key predictors of test positivity were few and varied by sex.” Body mass index and Framingham risk score predicted a positive test for women, while both the Framingham and modified Diamond-Forrester risk scores predicted a positive test for men.

Chest pain was the most common primary symptom reported by nearly three-quarters of women and men and was described as “crushing/pressure/squeezing/tightness” 53% and 46% of the time, respectively (P less than .001). Dyspnea was the second most frequent primary symptom at 15% for both sexes. Women were more likely than men to describe back pain, neck or jaw pain, or palpitations, but only 0.6% to 2.7% of patients ranked these among their main symptoms.

“Further studies are warranted to examine the underlying pathophysiology and implications for clinical care of the sex-based clinical differences observed along the entire diagnostic pathway of suspected CAD, including risk factor burden, presenting symptoms, and testing results,” the researchers concluded.

The PROMISE study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Ms. Hemal had no disclosures. Senior author Dr. Pamela S. Douglas disclosed grant support from HeartFlow and having served on a data and safety monitoring board for General Electric Healthcare. Two of the other 15 coinvestigators also disclosed relationships with industry; the rest had no disclosures.

PHOENIX – A simple, five-element formula can help identify the patients undergoing heart surgery who face the greatest risk for a hospital readmission within 30 days following discharge from their index hospitalization.

The surgeons who developed this formula hope to use it in an investigational program that will target intensified management resources in postsurgical patients who face the highest readmission risk, to cut rehospitalizations and better improve their clinical status and quality of life.

The analysis that produced this formula also documented that the worst offender for triggering rehospitalizations following heart surgery is fluid overload, the proximate readmission cause for 23% of postsurgical patients, Dr. Arman Kilic said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The next most common cause was infection, which led to 20% of readmissions, followed by arrhythmias, responsible for 8% of readmissions, said Dr. Kilic, a thoracic surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Because fluid overload, often in the form of pleural effusion, is such an important driver of rehospitalizations, a more targeted management program would include better titration of diuretic treatment to patients following heart surgery, thoracentesis, and closer monitoring of clinical features that flag fluid overload such as weight.

“The volume overload issue is where the money is. If we can reduce that, it could really impact readmissions,” Dr. Kilic said in an interview.

An investigational program to target rehospitalization risk in heart surgery patients is planned at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where Dr. Kilic worked when he performed this analysis. Surgeons at Johns Hopkins are now in the process of getting funding for this pilot program, said Dr. John V. Conte Jr., professor of surgery and director of mechanical circulatory support at Johns Hopkins and a collaborator with Dr. Kilic on developing the risk formula.

“We’ll tailor postoperative follow-up. We’ll get high-risk patients back to the clinic sooner, and we’ll send nurse practitioners to see them to make sure they’re taking their medications and are getting weighed daily,” Dr. Conte said in an interview. “When a patient has heart surgery, they typically retain about 5-10 pounds of fluid. Patients with good renal function give up that fluid easily, but others are difficult to diurese. Many patients go home before they have been fully diuresed, and we need to follow these patients and transition them better to out-of-hospital care.”

He noted that other situations also come up that unnecessarily drive patients back to the hospital when an alternative and less expensive intervention might be equally effective. For example, some patients return to the hospital out of concern for how their chest wound is healing. Instead of being rehospitalized, such patients could be reassured by having them send a nurse a photo of their wound or by coming to an outpatient clinic.

“We need to engage more often with recently discharged patients,” Dr. Conte said in an interview. “Discharging them doesn’t mean separating them from the health care system; it should mean interacting with patients in a different way” that produces better outcomes and patient satisfaction for less money. Developing improved ways to manage recent heart surgery patients following discharge becomes even more critical later this year when, in July, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adds 30-day readmissions following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to its list of procedures that can generate a penalty to hospitals if they exceed U.S. norms for readmission rates.

The risk model developed by Dr. Kilic, Dr. Conte, and their associates used data collected from 5,360 heart surgery patients treated at Johns Hopkins during 2008-2013. Nearly half the patients underwent isolated CABG, and 20% had isolated valve surgery. Overall, 585 patients (11%) had a hospital readmission within 30 days of their index discharge. One limitation of the analysis was it used data only on readmissions back to Johns Hopkins Hospital.

The researchers used data from three-quarters of the database to derive the risk formula, and from the remaining 25% of the database to validate the formula. A multivariate analysis of demographic and clinical characteristics that significantly linked with an elevated risk for readmissions identified five factors that independently made a significant contribution to readmission risk. The researchers assigned each of these five factors points depending on its relative contribution to readmission risk in the adjusted model: Severe chronic lung disease received 6 points; placement of a ventricular assist device received 5 points, while other types of heart surgery that was not CABG or valve surgery received 4 points (isolated CABG, isolated valve, or combined CABG and valve surgery received 0 points); development of acute renal failure postoperatively but before index discharge received 4 points; an index length of stay beyond 7 days received 4 points; and African American race received 3 points. The maximum number of points a patient could receive was 22.

Patients with a score of 0 had a 6% rate of a 30-day readmission; those with a score of 22 had a 63% readmission rate. For simplicity, Dr. Kilic suggested dividing patients into three categories based on their readmission risk score: Low-risk patients with a score of 0 had a readmission risk of 6%, medium-risk patients with a score of 1-10 had a readmission risk of 12%, and high-risk patients with a score of 11 or more had a readmission risk of 31%. The researchers found a 96% correlation when comparing these predicted readmission risk rates based on the derivation-subgroup analysis with the actual readmission rates seen in the validation subgroup of their database. The targeted risk-management program planned by Dr. Conte would primarily focus on high-risk patients.

Dr. Kilic and Dr. Conte said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – A simple, five-element formula can help identify the patients undergoing heart surgery who face the greatest risk for a hospital readmission within 30 days following discharge from their index hospitalization.

The surgeons who developed this formula hope to use it in an investigational program that will target intensified management resources in postsurgical patients who face the highest readmission risk, to cut rehospitalizations and better improve their clinical status and quality of life.

The analysis that produced this formula also documented that the worst offender for triggering rehospitalizations following heart surgery is fluid overload, the proximate readmission cause for 23% of postsurgical patients, Dr. Arman Kilic said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The next most common cause was infection, which led to 20% of readmissions, followed by arrhythmias, responsible for 8% of readmissions, said Dr. Kilic, a thoracic surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Because fluid overload, often in the form of pleural effusion, is such an important driver of rehospitalizations, a more targeted management program would include better titration of diuretic treatment to patients following heart surgery, thoracentesis, and closer monitoring of clinical features that flag fluid overload such as weight.

“The volume overload issue is where the money is. If we can reduce that, it could really impact readmissions,” Dr. Kilic said in an interview.

An investigational program to target rehospitalization risk in heart surgery patients is planned at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where Dr. Kilic worked when he performed this analysis. Surgeons at Johns Hopkins are now in the process of getting funding for this pilot program, said Dr. John V. Conte Jr., professor of surgery and director of mechanical circulatory support at Johns Hopkins and a collaborator with Dr. Kilic on developing the risk formula.

“We’ll tailor postoperative follow-up. We’ll get high-risk patients back to the clinic sooner, and we’ll send nurse practitioners to see them to make sure they’re taking their medications and are getting weighed daily,” Dr. Conte said in an interview. “When a patient has heart surgery, they typically retain about 5-10 pounds of fluid. Patients with good renal function give up that fluid easily, but others are difficult to diurese. Many patients go home before they have been fully diuresed, and we need to follow these patients and transition them better to out-of-hospital care.”

He noted that other situations also come up that unnecessarily drive patients back to the hospital when an alternative and less expensive intervention might be equally effective. For example, some patients return to the hospital out of concern for how their chest wound is healing. Instead of being rehospitalized, such patients could be reassured by having them send a nurse a photo of their wound or by coming to an outpatient clinic.

“We need to engage more often with recently discharged patients,” Dr. Conte said in an interview. “Discharging them doesn’t mean separating them from the health care system; it should mean interacting with patients in a different way” that produces better outcomes and patient satisfaction for less money. Developing improved ways to manage recent heart surgery patients following discharge becomes even more critical later this year when, in July, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adds 30-day readmissions following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to its list of procedures that can generate a penalty to hospitals if they exceed U.S. norms for readmission rates.

The risk model developed by Dr. Kilic, Dr. Conte, and their associates used data collected from 5,360 heart surgery patients treated at Johns Hopkins during 2008-2013. Nearly half the patients underwent isolated CABG, and 20% had isolated valve surgery. Overall, 585 patients (11%) had a hospital readmission within 30 days of their index discharge. One limitation of the analysis was it used data only on readmissions back to Johns Hopkins Hospital.

The researchers used data from three-quarters of the database to derive the risk formula, and from the remaining 25% of the database to validate the formula. A multivariate analysis of demographic and clinical characteristics that significantly linked with an elevated risk for readmissions identified five factors that independently made a significant contribution to readmission risk. The researchers assigned each of these five factors points depending on its relative contribution to readmission risk in the adjusted model: Severe chronic lung disease received 6 points; placement of a ventricular assist device received 5 points, while other types of heart surgery that was not CABG or valve surgery received 4 points (isolated CABG, isolated valve, or combined CABG and valve surgery received 0 points); development of acute renal failure postoperatively but before index discharge received 4 points; an index length of stay beyond 7 days received 4 points; and African American race received 3 points. The maximum number of points a patient could receive was 22.

Patients with a score of 0 had a 6% rate of a 30-day readmission; those with a score of 22 had a 63% readmission rate. For simplicity, Dr. Kilic suggested dividing patients into three categories based on their readmission risk score: Low-risk patients with a score of 0 had a readmission risk of 6%, medium-risk patients with a score of 1-10 had a readmission risk of 12%, and high-risk patients with a score of 11 or more had a readmission risk of 31%. The researchers found a 96% correlation when comparing these predicted readmission risk rates based on the derivation-subgroup analysis with the actual readmission rates seen in the validation subgroup of their database. The targeted risk-management program planned by Dr. Conte would primarily focus on high-risk patients.

Dr. Kilic and Dr. Conte said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler

PHOENIX – A simple, five-element formula can help identify the patients undergoing heart surgery who face the greatest risk for a hospital readmission within 30 days following discharge from their index hospitalization.

The surgeons who developed this formula hope to use it in an investigational program that will target intensified management resources in postsurgical patients who face the highest readmission risk, to cut rehospitalizations and better improve their clinical status and quality of life.

The analysis that produced this formula also documented that the worst offender for triggering rehospitalizations following heart surgery is fluid overload, the proximate readmission cause for 23% of postsurgical patients, Dr. Arman Kilic said at the annual meeting of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The next most common cause was infection, which led to 20% of readmissions, followed by arrhythmias, responsible for 8% of readmissions, said Dr. Kilic, a thoracic surgeon at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Because fluid overload, often in the form of pleural effusion, is such an important driver of rehospitalizations, a more targeted management program would include better titration of diuretic treatment to patients following heart surgery, thoracentesis, and closer monitoring of clinical features that flag fluid overload such as weight.

“The volume overload issue is where the money is. If we can reduce that, it could really impact readmissions,” Dr. Kilic said in an interview.

An investigational program to target rehospitalization risk in heart surgery patients is planned at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, where Dr. Kilic worked when he performed this analysis. Surgeons at Johns Hopkins are now in the process of getting funding for this pilot program, said Dr. John V. Conte Jr., professor of surgery and director of mechanical circulatory support at Johns Hopkins and a collaborator with Dr. Kilic on developing the risk formula.

“We’ll tailor postoperative follow-up. We’ll get high-risk patients back to the clinic sooner, and we’ll send nurse practitioners to see them to make sure they’re taking their medications and are getting weighed daily,” Dr. Conte said in an interview. “When a patient has heart surgery, they typically retain about 5-10 pounds of fluid. Patients with good renal function give up that fluid easily, but others are difficult to diurese. Many patients go home before they have been fully diuresed, and we need to follow these patients and transition them better to out-of-hospital care.”

He noted that other situations also come up that unnecessarily drive patients back to the hospital when an alternative and less expensive intervention might be equally effective. For example, some patients return to the hospital out of concern for how their chest wound is healing. Instead of being rehospitalized, such patients could be reassured by having them send a nurse a photo of their wound or by coming to an outpatient clinic.

“We need to engage more often with recently discharged patients,” Dr. Conte said in an interview. “Discharging them doesn’t mean separating them from the health care system; it should mean interacting with patients in a different way” that produces better outcomes and patient satisfaction for less money. Developing improved ways to manage recent heart surgery patients following discharge becomes even more critical later this year when, in July, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services adds 30-day readmissions following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to its list of procedures that can generate a penalty to hospitals if they exceed U.S. norms for readmission rates.

The risk model developed by Dr. Kilic, Dr. Conte, and their associates used data collected from 5,360 heart surgery patients treated at Johns Hopkins during 2008-2013. Nearly half the patients underwent isolated CABG, and 20% had isolated valve surgery. Overall, 585 patients (11%) had a hospital readmission within 30 days of their index discharge. One limitation of the analysis was it used data only on readmissions back to Johns Hopkins Hospital.

The researchers used data from three-quarters of the database to derive the risk formula, and from the remaining 25% of the database to validate the formula. A multivariate analysis of demographic and clinical characteristics that significantly linked with an elevated risk for readmissions identified five factors that independently made a significant contribution to readmission risk. The researchers assigned each of these five factors points depending on its relative contribution to readmission risk in the adjusted model: Severe chronic lung disease received 6 points; placement of a ventricular assist device received 5 points, while other types of heart surgery that was not CABG or valve surgery received 4 points (isolated CABG, isolated valve, or combined CABG and valve surgery received 0 points); development of acute renal failure postoperatively but before index discharge received 4 points; an index length of stay beyond 7 days received 4 points; and African American race received 3 points. The maximum number of points a patient could receive was 22.

Patients with a score of 0 had a 6% rate of a 30-day readmission; those with a score of 22 had a 63% readmission rate. For simplicity, Dr. Kilic suggested dividing patients into three categories based on their readmission risk score: Low-risk patients with a score of 0 had a readmission risk of 6%, medium-risk patients with a score of 1-10 had a readmission risk of 12%, and high-risk patients with a score of 11 or more had a readmission risk of 31%. The researchers found a 96% correlation when comparing these predicted readmission risk rates based on the derivation-subgroup analysis with the actual readmission rates seen in the validation subgroup of their database. The targeted risk-management program planned by Dr. Conte would primarily focus on high-risk patients.

Dr. Kilic and Dr. Conte said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Despite advances in the prevention and early detection of cardiovascular disease, heart attack patients are getting younger, fatter, and less health conscious.

A look at 10 years’ worth of patient data reveals these and other “alarming trends,” according to Dr. Samir R. Kapadia of the Cleveland Clinic.

“What we found was so very contradictory to what we expected,” he said at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “Amazingly, we saw that patients presenting with myocardial infarction were getting younger, and their body mass index was going up. There was more smoking, more hypertension, and more diabetes. And all of this despite our better understanding of cardiovascular risk factors.”

The findings seem to point to a serious gap between gathering scientific knowledge and putting that knowledge into practice.

“We have to extend our efforts and put a lot more into educating patients,” Dr. Kapadia said. “Maybe it’s not enough to just tell people to eat right and exercise – maybe we should also be providing them with a structured program. But this is not just the job of the cardiologist. Primary care physicians have to also have this insight, communicate it to the patients, and get them the resources they need to help prevent heart attacks.”

His retrospective study comprised 3,912 consecutive patients who were treated for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) from 1995 to 2014. Data were collected on age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, lipid levels, chronic renal impairment, and obesity. The group was divided into four epochs: 1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014. The researchers examined these factors both in the entire cohort and in a subset of 1,325 who had a diagnosis of coronary artery disease at the time of their MI.

Patients became significantly younger over the entire study period. In epoch 1, the mean age of the entire cohort was 63.6 years. By epoch 3, this had declined to 60.3 years – a significant drop. The change was also evident in the CAD subset; among these patients, mean age declined from 64.1 years in epoch 1 to 61.8 years in epoch 4.

Tobacco use increased significantly in both groups as well. In the overall cohort, the rate was 27.7% in epoch 1 and 45.4% in epoch 4. In the CAD subset, it rose from 24.6% to 42.7%.

Hypertension in the entire cohort increased from 56.7% to 77.3%. In the CAD subset, it increased from 60.9% to 89%.

Obesity increased in both cohorts in overlapping trends, from about 30% in epoch 1 to 40% in epoch 4.

Diabetes increased as well. In the entire cohort, it rose from 24.6% to 30.6%. In the CAD subset, it rose from 25.4% to 41.5%.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the proportion of patients with at least three major risk factors rose from 65% to 85%, and that the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased from 5% to 12%, although he didn’t break this trend down by group.

He had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Despite advances in the prevention and early detection of cardiovascular disease, heart attack patients are getting younger, fatter, and less health conscious.

A look at 10 years’ worth of patient data reveals these and other “alarming trends,” according to Dr. Samir R. Kapadia of the Cleveland Clinic.

“What we found was so very contradictory to what we expected,” he said at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “Amazingly, we saw that patients presenting with myocardial infarction were getting younger, and their body mass index was going up. There was more smoking, more hypertension, and more diabetes. And all of this despite our better understanding of cardiovascular risk factors.”

The findings seem to point to a serious gap between gathering scientific knowledge and putting that knowledge into practice.

“We have to extend our efforts and put a lot more into educating patients,” Dr. Kapadia said. “Maybe it’s not enough to just tell people to eat right and exercise – maybe we should also be providing them with a structured program. But this is not just the job of the cardiologist. Primary care physicians have to also have this insight, communicate it to the patients, and get them the resources they need to help prevent heart attacks.”

His retrospective study comprised 3,912 consecutive patients who were treated for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) from 1995 to 2014. Data were collected on age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, lipid levels, chronic renal impairment, and obesity. The group was divided into four epochs: 1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014. The researchers examined these factors both in the entire cohort and in a subset of 1,325 who had a diagnosis of coronary artery disease at the time of their MI.

Patients became significantly younger over the entire study period. In epoch 1, the mean age of the entire cohort was 63.6 years. By epoch 3, this had declined to 60.3 years – a significant drop. The change was also evident in the CAD subset; among these patients, mean age declined from 64.1 years in epoch 1 to 61.8 years in epoch 4.

Tobacco use increased significantly in both groups as well. In the overall cohort, the rate was 27.7% in epoch 1 and 45.4% in epoch 4. In the CAD subset, it rose from 24.6% to 42.7%.

Hypertension in the entire cohort increased from 56.7% to 77.3%. In the CAD subset, it increased from 60.9% to 89%.

Obesity increased in both cohorts in overlapping trends, from about 30% in epoch 1 to 40% in epoch 4.

Diabetes increased as well. In the entire cohort, it rose from 24.6% to 30.6%. In the CAD subset, it rose from 25.4% to 41.5%.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the proportion of patients with at least three major risk factors rose from 65% to 85%, and that the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased from 5% to 12%, although he didn’t break this trend down by group.

He had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Despite advances in the prevention and early detection of cardiovascular disease, heart attack patients are getting younger, fatter, and less health conscious.

A look at 10 years’ worth of patient data reveals these and other “alarming trends,” according to Dr. Samir R. Kapadia of the Cleveland Clinic.

“What we found was so very contradictory to what we expected,” he said at a press briefing held in advance of the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “Amazingly, we saw that patients presenting with myocardial infarction were getting younger, and their body mass index was going up. There was more smoking, more hypertension, and more diabetes. And all of this despite our better understanding of cardiovascular risk factors.”

The findings seem to point to a serious gap between gathering scientific knowledge and putting that knowledge into practice.

“We have to extend our efforts and put a lot more into educating patients,” Dr. Kapadia said. “Maybe it’s not enough to just tell people to eat right and exercise – maybe we should also be providing them with a structured program. But this is not just the job of the cardiologist. Primary care physicians have to also have this insight, communicate it to the patients, and get them the resources they need to help prevent heart attacks.”

His retrospective study comprised 3,912 consecutive patients who were treated for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) from 1995 to 2014. Data were collected on age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, smoking, lipid levels, chronic renal impairment, and obesity. The group was divided into four epochs: 1995-1999, 2000-2004, 2005-2009, and 2010-2014. The researchers examined these factors both in the entire cohort and in a subset of 1,325 who had a diagnosis of coronary artery disease at the time of their MI.

Patients became significantly younger over the entire study period. In epoch 1, the mean age of the entire cohort was 63.6 years. By epoch 3, this had declined to 60.3 years – a significant drop. The change was also evident in the CAD subset; among these patients, mean age declined from 64.1 years in epoch 1 to 61.8 years in epoch 4.

Tobacco use increased significantly in both groups as well. In the overall cohort, the rate was 27.7% in epoch 1 and 45.4% in epoch 4. In the CAD subset, it rose from 24.6% to 42.7%.

Hypertension in the entire cohort increased from 56.7% to 77.3%. In the CAD subset, it increased from 60.9% to 89%.

Obesity increased in both cohorts in overlapping trends, from about 30% in epoch 1 to 40% in epoch 4.

Diabetes increased as well. In the entire cohort, it rose from 24.6% to 30.6%. In the CAD subset, it rose from 25.4% to 41.5%.

Dr. Kapadia noted that the proportion of patients with at least three major risk factors rose from 65% to 85%, and that the incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased from 5% to 12%, although he didn’t break this trend down by group.

He had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

MONTREAL – Patients who stayed on antiplatelet therapy close to – or even up until – major surgery fared just as well as those who stopped their medication earlier in a retrospective, single-center study.

The study found no difference in blood product administration, adverse perioperative events, or all-cause 30-day mortality regardless of whether patients stopped clopidogrel (Plavix) the recommended 5 days before surgery.

“We believe that continuing clopidogrel in elective and emergent surgical situations appears to be safe, and may challenge the current recommendations,” said presenter Dr. David Strosberg.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News

The study addressed a thorny question for surgeons, Dr. Strosberg said. “As surgeons, we face a dilemma: Do we take the risk of thrombotic complications in stopping the antiplatelet drugs, or do we take the risk of increased surgical bleeding with continuing therapy?”

The package insert for clopidogrel advises discontinuation 5 days prior to surgery. However, manufacturer labeling also states that discontinuation of clopidogrel can lead to adverse cardiac events, said Dr. Strosberg, a general surgery resident at Ohio State University in Columbus.

The aim of the study, presented at the annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, was to ascertain whether continuing antiplatelet therapy increased the rate of adverse surgical outcomes in those undergoing major emergent or elective surgery.

Dr. Strosberg and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the record of patients over a 4-year period at a single institution and included those undergoing major general, thoracic, or vascular surgery who were taking clopidogrel at the time of presentation.

Data collected included patient characteristics, including demographic data and comorbidities, as well as transfusion requirements and perioperative events.

A total of 200 patients who had 205 qualifying procedures and were taking clopidogrel were included in the study. Of these, 116 patients (Group A) had their clopidogrel held for at least 5 days preoperatively. The remaining 89 patients (Group B) had their clopidogrel held for less than 5 days, or not at all.

Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Patients in Group A were more likely to have emergency surgery, to have peripheral stents placed, to have COPD or peripheral vascular disease, to have a malignancy, and to have received aspirin within five days of surgery (P less than .01 for all).

Blood product administration rates and volumes did not differ significantly between the two groups, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, or acute visceral or lower extremity ischemia.

Three patients in each group died within 30 days of the procedure, a nonsignificant difference. However, in the group that had clopidogrel held, three patients had perioperative myocardial infarctions, and two of these patients died. In discussing the study, Dr. Michael Dalsing said, “I think a lot of us would accept bleeding more over myocardial infarction.”

A subgroup analysis of the group who had clopidogrel held for fewer than 5 days compared outcomes for emergent vs. non-emergent surgery. The emergent surgery subgroup had a significantly higher rate of preoperative platelet transfusions, although numbers overall were small (2/17, 11.8%, vs. 0/72; P = .03).

Dr. Strosberg noted study limitations that included the retrospective, single-center nature of the study, and the fact that one variable, estimated blood loss, is notoriously subjective and inaccurate.

Dr. Dalsing, chief of vascular surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said that he “was surprised that not even one patient went back for postoperative bleeding in this high-risk group of patients,” and raised the question of potential selection bias. Dr. Strosberg replied that comorbidities were ascertained by the physician at the time of surgery planning; since no differences were seen between study groups, investigators didn’t go back and parse out details about comorbid conditions.

In discussion following the presentation, surgeons spoke to the real-world challenges of performing surgery on a patient with antiplatelet therapy on board.

“Overall, I think your data support kind of a bias I have. Since I’m a vascular surgeon, we almost always operate on clopidogrel, and I don’t know if our bleeding risk is worse or better. But it’s something we almost have to do to keep our grafts going,” Dr. Dalsing said.

Dr. Peter Henke, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “I’d be a little bit cautious with this. If you’ve ever done a big aortic procedure on someone on Plavix, I’ve seen them lose up to a couple of liters of blood just with oozing.”

“Those of us who do open aortic surgery know that very few things bleed like the back wall of an aortic anastomosis of a patient on Plavix,” echoed Dr. Peter Rossi, associate professor of vascular surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

MONTREAL – Patients who stayed on antiplatelet therapy close to – or even up until – major surgery fared just as well as those who stopped their medication earlier in a retrospective, single-center study.

The study found no difference in blood product administration, adverse perioperative events, or all-cause 30-day mortality regardless of whether patients stopped clopidogrel (Plavix) the recommended 5 days before surgery.

“We believe that continuing clopidogrel in elective and emergent surgical situations appears to be safe, and may challenge the current recommendations,” said presenter Dr. David Strosberg.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News

The study addressed a thorny question for surgeons, Dr. Strosberg said. “As surgeons, we face a dilemma: Do we take the risk of thrombotic complications in stopping the antiplatelet drugs, or do we take the risk of increased surgical bleeding with continuing therapy?”

The package insert for clopidogrel advises discontinuation 5 days prior to surgery. However, manufacturer labeling also states that discontinuation of clopidogrel can lead to adverse cardiac events, said Dr. Strosberg, a general surgery resident at Ohio State University in Columbus.

The aim of the study, presented at the annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, was to ascertain whether continuing antiplatelet therapy increased the rate of adverse surgical outcomes in those undergoing major emergent or elective surgery.

Dr. Strosberg and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the record of patients over a 4-year period at a single institution and included those undergoing major general, thoracic, or vascular surgery who were taking clopidogrel at the time of presentation.

Data collected included patient characteristics, including demographic data and comorbidities, as well as transfusion requirements and perioperative events.

A total of 200 patients who had 205 qualifying procedures and were taking clopidogrel were included in the study. Of these, 116 patients (Group A) had their clopidogrel held for at least 5 days preoperatively. The remaining 89 patients (Group B) had their clopidogrel held for less than 5 days, or not at all.

Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Patients in Group A were more likely to have emergency surgery, to have peripheral stents placed, to have COPD or peripheral vascular disease, to have a malignancy, and to have received aspirin within five days of surgery (P less than .01 for all).

Blood product administration rates and volumes did not differ significantly between the two groups, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, or acute visceral or lower extremity ischemia.

Three patients in each group died within 30 days of the procedure, a nonsignificant difference. However, in the group that had clopidogrel held, three patients had perioperative myocardial infarctions, and two of these patients died. In discussing the study, Dr. Michael Dalsing said, “I think a lot of us would accept bleeding more over myocardial infarction.”

A subgroup analysis of the group who had clopidogrel held for fewer than 5 days compared outcomes for emergent vs. non-emergent surgery. The emergent surgery subgroup had a significantly higher rate of preoperative platelet transfusions, although numbers overall were small (2/17, 11.8%, vs. 0/72; P = .03).

Dr. Strosberg noted study limitations that included the retrospective, single-center nature of the study, and the fact that one variable, estimated blood loss, is notoriously subjective and inaccurate.

Dr. Dalsing, chief of vascular surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said that he “was surprised that not even one patient went back for postoperative bleeding in this high-risk group of patients,” and raised the question of potential selection bias. Dr. Strosberg replied that comorbidities were ascertained by the physician at the time of surgery planning; since no differences were seen between study groups, investigators didn’t go back and parse out details about comorbid conditions.

In discussion following the presentation, surgeons spoke to the real-world challenges of performing surgery on a patient with antiplatelet therapy on board.

“Overall, I think your data support kind of a bias I have. Since I’m a vascular surgeon, we almost always operate on clopidogrel, and I don’t know if our bleeding risk is worse or better. But it’s something we almost have to do to keep our grafts going,” Dr. Dalsing said.

Dr. Peter Henke, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “I’d be a little bit cautious with this. If you’ve ever done a big aortic procedure on someone on Plavix, I’ve seen them lose up to a couple of liters of blood just with oozing.”

“Those of us who do open aortic surgery know that very few things bleed like the back wall of an aortic anastomosis of a patient on Plavix,” echoed Dr. Peter Rossi, associate professor of vascular surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

MONTREAL – Patients who stayed on antiplatelet therapy close to – or even up until – major surgery fared just as well as those who stopped their medication earlier in a retrospective, single-center study.

The study found no difference in blood product administration, adverse perioperative events, or all-cause 30-day mortality regardless of whether patients stopped clopidogrel (Plavix) the recommended 5 days before surgery.

“We believe that continuing clopidogrel in elective and emergent surgical situations appears to be safe, and may challenge the current recommendations,” said presenter Dr. David Strosberg.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News

The study addressed a thorny question for surgeons, Dr. Strosberg said. “As surgeons, we face a dilemma: Do we take the risk of thrombotic complications in stopping the antiplatelet drugs, or do we take the risk of increased surgical bleeding with continuing therapy?”

The package insert for clopidogrel advises discontinuation 5 days prior to surgery. However, manufacturer labeling also states that discontinuation of clopidogrel can lead to adverse cardiac events, said Dr. Strosberg, a general surgery resident at Ohio State University in Columbus.

The aim of the study, presented at the annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, was to ascertain whether continuing antiplatelet therapy increased the rate of adverse surgical outcomes in those undergoing major emergent or elective surgery.

Dr. Strosberg and his colleagues retrospectively reviewed the record of patients over a 4-year period at a single institution and included those undergoing major general, thoracic, or vascular surgery who were taking clopidogrel at the time of presentation.

Data collected included patient characteristics, including demographic data and comorbidities, as well as transfusion requirements and perioperative events.

A total of 200 patients who had 205 qualifying procedures and were taking clopidogrel were included in the study. Of these, 116 patients (Group A) had their clopidogrel held for at least 5 days preoperatively. The remaining 89 patients (Group B) had their clopidogrel held for less than 5 days, or not at all.

Patient demographics were similar between the two groups. Patients in Group A were more likely to have emergency surgery, to have peripheral stents placed, to have COPD or peripheral vascular disease, to have a malignancy, and to have received aspirin within five days of surgery (P less than .01 for all).

Blood product administration rates and volumes did not differ significantly between the two groups, and there was no difference between the groups in the incidence of myocardial infarctions, cerebrovascular events, or acute visceral or lower extremity ischemia.

Three patients in each group died within 30 days of the procedure, a nonsignificant difference. However, in the group that had clopidogrel held, three patients had perioperative myocardial infarctions, and two of these patients died. In discussing the study, Dr. Michael Dalsing said, “I think a lot of us would accept bleeding more over myocardial infarction.”

A subgroup analysis of the group who had clopidogrel held for fewer than 5 days compared outcomes for emergent vs. non-emergent surgery. The emergent surgery subgroup had a significantly higher rate of preoperative platelet transfusions, although numbers overall were small (2/17, 11.8%, vs. 0/72; P = .03).

Dr. Strosberg noted study limitations that included the retrospective, single-center nature of the study, and the fact that one variable, estimated blood loss, is notoriously subjective and inaccurate.

Dr. Dalsing, chief of vascular surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, said that he “was surprised that not even one patient went back for postoperative bleeding in this high-risk group of patients,” and raised the question of potential selection bias. Dr. Strosberg replied that comorbidities were ascertained by the physician at the time of surgery planning; since no differences were seen between study groups, investigators didn’t go back and parse out details about comorbid conditions.

In discussion following the presentation, surgeons spoke to the real-world challenges of performing surgery on a patient with antiplatelet therapy on board.

“Overall, I think your data support kind of a bias I have. Since I’m a vascular surgeon, we almost always operate on clopidogrel, and I don’t know if our bleeding risk is worse or better. But it’s something we almost have to do to keep our grafts going,” Dr. Dalsing said.

Dr. Peter Henke, professor of vascular surgery at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said, “I’d be a little bit cautious with this. If you’ve ever done a big aortic procedure on someone on Plavix, I’ve seen them lose up to a couple of liters of blood just with oozing.”

“Those of us who do open aortic surgery know that very few things bleed like the back wall of an aortic anastomosis of a patient on Plavix,” echoed Dr. Peter Rossi, associate professor of vascular surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

The study authors reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @karioakes

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents are improving rapidly but they are still associated with a higher risk of complications compared with drug-eluting metal stents, according to a meta-analysis of published studies presented at Cardiovascular Research Technologies 2016.

“Bioresorbable stents are clearly an attractive strategy, but our data suggest that physicians and patients should remain aware of the risks,” reported Dr. Alok Saurav of Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Neb.

The first bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) device, Synergy, was approved this past October, but this stent, despite bioresorbable struts, still has body parts that are not fully bioresorbable. However, several fully bioresorbable devices have reached late stages of testing and may receive regulatory approval this year.

In the meta-analysis, eight studies – five randomized trials, two studies with propensity matching, and an observational study –the primary goal was to compare BVS to drug eluting metal (DEM) stents for definite stent thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included subacute stent thrombosis within 30 days and within 1 year and cardiac death, all-cause death, MI, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Despite the fact that the mean age and gender distribution was the same when the 2,760 patients receiving BVS stents were compared to the 2,212 receiving DEM stents, and both received comparable antiplatelet regimens after the stent was placed, there was an 80% greater relative risk for definite stent thrombosis in the BVS group. Although this difference fell short of statistical significance (P = .06), Dr. Saurav called it a “strong trend.”

Several of the adverse events that were analyzed as secondary outcomes in this study were less frequent with the BVS, such as cardiac death (relative risk, 0.83) and all-cause death (RR, 0.74), but the statistics did not suggest a trend, so Dr. Saurav characterized these outcomes as similar. MI was an exception. This was more frequent in those received a BVS stent (RR, 1.35; P = .049), and this reached significance.

Most of the studies included in this analysis were conducted with the everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS device, which many are predicting will be the first fully bioresorbable stent to receive regulatory approval.

It is notable that another meta-analysis including some of the same studies and published just weeks prior to the CRT meeting drew the same conclusion about the increased risk of stent thrombosis with BVS relative to DEM stents (Lancet 2016;387:537-44). This meta-analysis was restricted to six trials with 3,738 randomized patients. Unlike the meta-analysis presented at CRT, this study compared the two types of stents for both definite and probable stent thrombosis. For BVS relative to DEM stents, the relative risk for this outcome was 1.99 (P = .05).

“We think our restriction to definite stent thrombosis provides a stricter endpoint, but it’s notable that the results were relatively consistent,” Dr. Saurav reported.

Acknowledging that the increased risk of stent thrombosis appears to be modest for BVS relative to DEM stents, Dr. Saurav emphasized that these data should not discourage further development of bioresorbable stents, which are conceptually attractive.

“We cannot take these bioresorbable devices off the table,” he said. “But we do need more data to evaluate their risks relative to the conventional devices that are now available.”

The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center. Dr. Saurav reported no conflicts of interest.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents are improving rapidly but they are still associated with a higher risk of complications compared with drug-eluting metal stents, according to a meta-analysis of published studies presented at Cardiovascular Research Technologies 2016.

“Bioresorbable stents are clearly an attractive strategy, but our data suggest that physicians and patients should remain aware of the risks,” reported Dr. Alok Saurav of Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Neb.

The first bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) device, Synergy, was approved this past October, but this stent, despite bioresorbable struts, still has body parts that are not fully bioresorbable. However, several fully bioresorbable devices have reached late stages of testing and may receive regulatory approval this year.

In the meta-analysis, eight studies – five randomized trials, two studies with propensity matching, and an observational study –the primary goal was to compare BVS to drug eluting metal (DEM) stents for definite stent thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included subacute stent thrombosis within 30 days and within 1 year and cardiac death, all-cause death, MI, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Despite the fact that the mean age and gender distribution was the same when the 2,760 patients receiving BVS stents were compared to the 2,212 receiving DEM stents, and both received comparable antiplatelet regimens after the stent was placed, there was an 80% greater relative risk for definite stent thrombosis in the BVS group. Although this difference fell short of statistical significance (P = .06), Dr. Saurav called it a “strong trend.”

Several of the adverse events that were analyzed as secondary outcomes in this study were less frequent with the BVS, such as cardiac death (relative risk, 0.83) and all-cause death (RR, 0.74), but the statistics did not suggest a trend, so Dr. Saurav characterized these outcomes as similar. MI was an exception. This was more frequent in those received a BVS stent (RR, 1.35; P = .049), and this reached significance.

Most of the studies included in this analysis were conducted with the everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS device, which many are predicting will be the first fully bioresorbable stent to receive regulatory approval.

It is notable that another meta-analysis including some of the same studies and published just weeks prior to the CRT meeting drew the same conclusion about the increased risk of stent thrombosis with BVS relative to DEM stents (Lancet 2016;387:537-44). This meta-analysis was restricted to six trials with 3,738 randomized patients. Unlike the meta-analysis presented at CRT, this study compared the two types of stents for both definite and probable stent thrombosis. For BVS relative to DEM stents, the relative risk for this outcome was 1.99 (P = .05).

“We think our restriction to definite stent thrombosis provides a stricter endpoint, but it’s notable that the results were relatively consistent,” Dr. Saurav reported.

Acknowledging that the increased risk of stent thrombosis appears to be modest for BVS relative to DEM stents, Dr. Saurav emphasized that these data should not discourage further development of bioresorbable stents, which are conceptually attractive.

“We cannot take these bioresorbable devices off the table,” he said. “But we do need more data to evaluate their risks relative to the conventional devices that are now available.”

The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center. Dr. Saurav reported no conflicts of interest.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents are improving rapidly but they are still associated with a higher risk of complications compared with drug-eluting metal stents, according to a meta-analysis of published studies presented at Cardiovascular Research Technologies 2016.

“Bioresorbable stents are clearly an attractive strategy, but our data suggest that physicians and patients should remain aware of the risks,” reported Dr. Alok Saurav of Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Neb.

The first bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) device, Synergy, was approved this past October, but this stent, despite bioresorbable struts, still has body parts that are not fully bioresorbable. However, several fully bioresorbable devices have reached late stages of testing and may receive regulatory approval this year.

In the meta-analysis, eight studies – five randomized trials, two studies with propensity matching, and an observational study –the primary goal was to compare BVS to drug eluting metal (DEM) stents for definite stent thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included subacute stent thrombosis within 30 days and within 1 year and cardiac death, all-cause death, MI, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Despite the fact that the mean age and gender distribution was the same when the 2,760 patients receiving BVS stents were compared to the 2,212 receiving DEM stents, and both received comparable antiplatelet regimens after the stent was placed, there was an 80% greater relative risk for definite stent thrombosis in the BVS group. Although this difference fell short of statistical significance (P = .06), Dr. Saurav called it a “strong trend.”

Several of the adverse events that were analyzed as secondary outcomes in this study were less frequent with the BVS, such as cardiac death (relative risk, 0.83) and all-cause death (RR, 0.74), but the statistics did not suggest a trend, so Dr. Saurav characterized these outcomes as similar. MI was an exception. This was more frequent in those received a BVS stent (RR, 1.35; P = .049), and this reached significance.

Most of the studies included in this analysis were conducted with the everolimus-eluting Absorb BVS device, which many are predicting will be the first fully bioresorbable stent to receive regulatory approval.

It is notable that another meta-analysis including some of the same studies and published just weeks prior to the CRT meeting drew the same conclusion about the increased risk of stent thrombosis with BVS relative to DEM stents (Lancet 2016;387:537-44). This meta-analysis was restricted to six trials with 3,738 randomized patients. Unlike the meta-analysis presented at CRT, this study compared the two types of stents for both definite and probable stent thrombosis. For BVS relative to DEM stents, the relative risk for this outcome was 1.99 (P = .05).

“We think our restriction to definite stent thrombosis provides a stricter endpoint, but it’s notable that the results were relatively consistent,” Dr. Saurav reported.

Acknowledging that the increased risk of stent thrombosis appears to be modest for BVS relative to DEM stents, Dr. Saurav emphasized that these data should not discourage further development of bioresorbable stents, which are conceptually attractive.

“We cannot take these bioresorbable devices off the table,” he said. “But we do need more data to evaluate their risks relative to the conventional devices that are now available.”

The meeting was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center. Dr. Saurav reported no conflicts of interest.

For the first time, cardiologists have characterized the adaptive cardiac remodeling in a large cohort of National Basketball Association players, which establishes a normative database and allows physicians to distinguish it from occult pathologic changes that may precipitate sudden cardiac death, according to an imaging study.

“We hope that the present data will help to focus decision making and improve clinical acumen for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiac emergencies in U.S. basketball players and in the athletic community at large,” said Dr. David J. Engel and his associates of Columbia University, New York.

©Fuse/Thinkstock

Until now, most of the literature concerning the structural features of the athletic heart has been based on European studies, where comprehensive cardiac screening of all elite athletes is mandatory. The typical sports activities and the demographics of athletes in the U.S. are different, and their cardiologic profiles have not been well studied because detailed cardiac examinations are not compulsory. But the NBA recently mandated that all athletes undergo annual preseason medical evaluations including stress echocardiograms, and allowed the division of cardiology at Columbia to assess the results each year.

“A detailed understanding of normal and expected cardiac remodeling in U.S. basketball players has significant clinical importance given that the incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death in the U.S. is highest among basketball players and that the most common cause ... in this population is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,” the investigators noted.

Their analysis of all 526 ECGs performed on NBA players during a 1-year period “will provide an invaluable frame of reference to enhance player safety for the large group of U.S. basketball players in training at all skill levels, and in the athletic community at large,” they said.

The study participants were aged 18-39 years (mean age, 25.7 years). Roughly 77% were African American, 20% were white, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian or other ethnicities. The mean height was 200.2 cm (6’7”).

Left ventricular cavity size was larger than that in the general population, but LV size was proportional to the athletes’ large body size. “Scaling LV size to body size is vitally important in the cardiac evaluation of basketball players, whose heights extend to 218 cm and body surface areas to 2.8 m²,” Dr. Engel and his associates said (JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0252).

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was identified in only 27% of the athletes. African Americans had increased indices of LVH, compared with whites, and had a higher incidence of nondilated concentric hypertrophy, while whites showed predominantly eccentric dilated hypertrophy. These findings should help clinicians recognize genuine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is a contraindication to participating in all but the most low-intensity competitive sports.

Most of the participants had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and all showed normal augmentation of LV systolic function with exercise.

Aortic root diameter was larger than that in the general population but similar to that in other elite athletes. Surprisingly, aortic root diameter increased with increasing body size only to a certain point, reaching a plateau at 31-35 mm. Fewer than 5% of the participants had an aortic root diameter of 40 mm or more, and the maximal diameter was 42 mm. “These data have important implications in the evaluation of exceptionally large athletes and question the applicability in individuals with significantly increased biometrics of the traditional formula to estimate aortic root diameter that assumes a linear association between [it] and body surface area,” they noted.

“We hope that the results of this study will assist recognition of cardiac pathologic change and provide a framework to help avoid unnecessary exclusions of athletes from competition. We believe that these data have additional applicability to other sports that preselect for athletes with height, such as volleyball, rowing, and track and field,” Dr. Engel and his associates added.

This study was supported by the National Basketball Association as part of a medical services agreement with Columbia University. Dr. Engel and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

For the first time, cardiologists have characterized the adaptive cardiac remodeling in a large cohort of National Basketball Association players, which establishes a normative database and allows physicians to distinguish it from occult pathologic changes that may precipitate sudden cardiac death, according to an imaging study.

“We hope that the present data will help to focus decision making and improve clinical acumen for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiac emergencies in U.S. basketball players and in the athletic community at large,” said Dr. David J. Engel and his associates of Columbia University, New York.

©Fuse/Thinkstock

Until now, most of the literature concerning the structural features of the athletic heart has been based on European studies, where comprehensive cardiac screening of all elite athletes is mandatory. The typical sports activities and the demographics of athletes in the U.S. are different, and their cardiologic profiles have not been well studied because detailed cardiac examinations are not compulsory. But the NBA recently mandated that all athletes undergo annual preseason medical evaluations including stress echocardiograms, and allowed the division of cardiology at Columbia to assess the results each year.

“A detailed understanding of normal and expected cardiac remodeling in U.S. basketball players has significant clinical importance given that the incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death in the U.S. is highest among basketball players and that the most common cause ... in this population is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,” the investigators noted.

Their analysis of all 526 ECGs performed on NBA players during a 1-year period “will provide an invaluable frame of reference to enhance player safety for the large group of U.S. basketball players in training at all skill levels, and in the athletic community at large,” they said.

The study participants were aged 18-39 years (mean age, 25.7 years). Roughly 77% were African American, 20% were white, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian or other ethnicities. The mean height was 200.2 cm (6’7”).

Left ventricular cavity size was larger than that in the general population, but LV size was proportional to the athletes’ large body size. “Scaling LV size to body size is vitally important in the cardiac evaluation of basketball players, whose heights extend to 218 cm and body surface areas to 2.8 m²,” Dr. Engel and his associates said (JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0252).

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was identified in only 27% of the athletes. African Americans had increased indices of LVH, compared with whites, and had a higher incidence of nondilated concentric hypertrophy, while whites showed predominantly eccentric dilated hypertrophy. These findings should help clinicians recognize genuine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is a contraindication to participating in all but the most low-intensity competitive sports.

Most of the participants had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and all showed normal augmentation of LV systolic function with exercise.

Aortic root diameter was larger than that in the general population but similar to that in other elite athletes. Surprisingly, aortic root diameter increased with increasing body size only to a certain point, reaching a plateau at 31-35 mm. Fewer than 5% of the participants had an aortic root diameter of 40 mm or more, and the maximal diameter was 42 mm. “These data have important implications in the evaluation of exceptionally large athletes and question the applicability in individuals with significantly increased biometrics of the traditional formula to estimate aortic root diameter that assumes a linear association between [it] and body surface area,” they noted.

“We hope that the results of this study will assist recognition of cardiac pathologic change and provide a framework to help avoid unnecessary exclusions of athletes from competition. We believe that these data have additional applicability to other sports that preselect for athletes with height, such as volleyball, rowing, and track and field,” Dr. Engel and his associates added.

This study was supported by the National Basketball Association as part of a medical services agreement with Columbia University. Dr. Engel and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

For the first time, cardiologists have characterized the adaptive cardiac remodeling in a large cohort of National Basketball Association players, which establishes a normative database and allows physicians to distinguish it from occult pathologic changes that may precipitate sudden cardiac death, according to an imaging study.

“We hope that the present data will help to focus decision making and improve clinical acumen for the purpose of primary prevention of cardiac emergencies in U.S. basketball players and in the athletic community at large,” said Dr. David J. Engel and his associates of Columbia University, New York.

©Fuse/Thinkstock

Until now, most of the literature concerning the structural features of the athletic heart has been based on European studies, where comprehensive cardiac screening of all elite athletes is mandatory. The typical sports activities and the demographics of athletes in the U.S. are different, and their cardiologic profiles have not been well studied because detailed cardiac examinations are not compulsory. But the NBA recently mandated that all athletes undergo annual preseason medical evaluations including stress echocardiograms, and allowed the division of cardiology at Columbia to assess the results each year.

“A detailed understanding of normal and expected cardiac remodeling in U.S. basketball players has significant clinical importance given that the incidence of sports-related sudden cardiac death in the U.S. is highest among basketball players and that the most common cause ... in this population is hypertrophic cardiomyopathy,” the investigators noted.

Their analysis of all 526 ECGs performed on NBA players during a 1-year period “will provide an invaluable frame of reference to enhance player safety for the large group of U.S. basketball players in training at all skill levels, and in the athletic community at large,” they said.

The study participants were aged 18-39 years (mean age, 25.7 years). Roughly 77% were African American, 20% were white, 2% were Hispanic, and 1% were Asian or other ethnicities. The mean height was 200.2 cm (6’7”).

Left ventricular cavity size was larger than that in the general population, but LV size was proportional to the athletes’ large body size. “Scaling LV size to body size is vitally important in the cardiac evaluation of basketball players, whose heights extend to 218 cm and body surface areas to 2.8 m²,” Dr. Engel and his associates said (JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Feb 24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0252).

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was identified in only 27% of the athletes. African Americans had increased indices of LVH, compared with whites, and had a higher incidence of nondilated concentric hypertrophy, while whites showed predominantly eccentric dilated hypertrophy. These findings should help clinicians recognize genuine hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, which is a contraindication to participating in all but the most low-intensity competitive sports.

Most of the participants had a normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and all showed normal augmentation of LV systolic function with exercise.

Aortic root diameter was larger than that in the general population but similar to that in other elite athletes. Surprisingly, aortic root diameter increased with increasing body size only to a certain point, reaching a plateau at 31-35 mm. Fewer than 5% of the participants had an aortic root diameter of 40 mm or more, and the maximal diameter was 42 mm. “These data have important implications in the evaluation of exceptionally large athletes and question the applicability in individuals with significantly increased biometrics of the traditional formula to estimate aortic root diameter that assumes a linear association between [it] and body surface area,” they noted.

“We hope that the results of this study will assist recognition of cardiac pathologic change and provide a framework to help avoid unnecessary exclusions of athletes from competition. We believe that these data have additional applicability to other sports that preselect for athletes with height, such as volleyball, rowing, and track and field,” Dr. Engel and his associates added.

This study was supported by the National Basketball Association as part of a medical services agreement with Columbia University. Dr. Engel and his associates reported having no relevant financial disclosures.