User login
New hypopnea criteria ID unique OSA patient subset
The latest recommended criteria for hypopnea define a distinct group of patients who report substantial daytime sleepiness but with no significant cardiovascular risk, investigators reported in a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.
The number of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnoses increased by nearly 13% when using the 2012 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal, instead of the 2007 criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation, according to investigators.
While cardiovascular disease risk did not appear to be elevated in those with an OSA diagnosis based on the newer, more inclusive criteria, reported lead author Christine H.J. Won, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her coinvestigators.
“Our findings suggest [that] a more inclusive hypopnea definition alters OSA severity categorization, identifies a new symptomatic group of patients with predominantly mild OSA without increased cardiovascular odds, and does not ameliorate the increased odds predicted by severe OSA for arrhythmias,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The analysis by Dr. Won and her colleagues included 1,400 veterans who had polysomnography for suspected sleep-disordered breathing. Of those veterans, two-thirds (932; 66%) had an OSA diagnosis based on the ≥ 4% desaturation criteria.
With the newer criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal, another 175 OSA diagnoses were captured out of the remaining 468 previously negative studies, meaning that more than 37% of those patients would be recategorized as having OSA, Dr. Won and her coauthors said.
Compared with individuals with OSA classified by the older, more restrictive criteria, the 175 individuals in this “new OSA” group were younger and less likely to be obese, though they were still more likely to be obese, compared with individuals with no OSA diagnosis, according to the authors.
The new OSA group had more disrupted sleep architecture, significantly worse oxygen saturations, and more self-reported sleepiness on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale as compared with those with no OSA, they added.
Adding in the new OSA group redistributed disease severity, with a relative increase of 21.4% for mild and 21.3% for moderate OSA, but just 15.3% for severe OSA. “Most of the [new OSA] category consisted of mild sleep-disordered breathing,” said Dr. Won and her coauthors in the report.
While there was a statistically significant increase in odds ratio for arrhythmias using the older criteria, reclassifying OSA severity using the newer definition meant that mild and moderate disease lost predictive value. However, severe OSA by the new criteria remained a significant predictor of arrhythmias, the authors said.
Odds ratios for ischemic heart disease and heart failure were numerically higher in the new OSA group versus the no OSA group, though no statistically significant differences were found, according to investigators.
This is thought to be the first study to describe a unique group of patients who escape OSA diagnosis based on the ≥ 4% desaturation criteria but are captured ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal criteria, Dr. Won and her coauthors said.
Further studies would be helpful to evaluate other polysomnographic features in this group to see how they affect cardiovascular or other health risks, they added.
“It would also be important to assess whether treatment in any of these groups leads to improved cardiovascular health, or whether treatment of the [new OSA] group leads to improved daytime sleepiness or quality of life,” they said in the report.
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest related to their work, which was performed at the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in West Haven, Conn.; Indianapolis; and Cleveland.
SOURCE: Won CHJ et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Dec 15;14[12]:1987-94.
The study by Won and colleagues provides a “useful perspective” on how hypopnea is defined by including outcome data based on the two different scoring criteria, according to Kenneth R. Casey, MD, MPH, and Rachna Tiwari, MBBS.
Results of the study suggest a rationale for using both the 2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine hypopnea criteria based on ≥ 4% desaturation, and the updated 2012 AASM criteria based on ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal in the evaluation of polysomnography results, Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari said in a commentary accompanying the study.
“This perspective may ultimately be the solution to the confusion caused by competing functional definitions of hypopnea,” they said in the commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The 2007 recommended criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation seemed reasonable based on available evidence at the time, but was not rigorously based by today’s standards, the authors said.
At that time, they also proposed the new alternative criteria based on ≥ 3% desaturation or an arousal, which in 2012 became elevated to a recommended rule. However, the previous recommended rule was kept to accommodate patients who required Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement, according to Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari.
Subsequent studies demonstrated “significant differences” in apnea-hypopnea index results, depending on which scoring criteria were used, they added.
“This confusing, vacillating definition has created a rather bizarre, and perhaps unsettling, situation wherein the severity of the diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing, and perhaps its presence or absence, is determined by the patient’s insurance coverage,” they said in the commentary.
Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari are with the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, both in Madison. They reported no conflicts of interest related to their editorial, which appears in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The study by Won and colleagues provides a “useful perspective” on how hypopnea is defined by including outcome data based on the two different scoring criteria, according to Kenneth R. Casey, MD, MPH, and Rachna Tiwari, MBBS.
Results of the study suggest a rationale for using both the 2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine hypopnea criteria based on ≥ 4% desaturation, and the updated 2012 AASM criteria based on ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal in the evaluation of polysomnography results, Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari said in a commentary accompanying the study.
“This perspective may ultimately be the solution to the confusion caused by competing functional definitions of hypopnea,” they said in the commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The 2007 recommended criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation seemed reasonable based on available evidence at the time, but was not rigorously based by today’s standards, the authors said.
At that time, they also proposed the new alternative criteria based on ≥ 3% desaturation or an arousal, which in 2012 became elevated to a recommended rule. However, the previous recommended rule was kept to accommodate patients who required Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement, according to Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari.
Subsequent studies demonstrated “significant differences” in apnea-hypopnea index results, depending on which scoring criteria were used, they added.
“This confusing, vacillating definition has created a rather bizarre, and perhaps unsettling, situation wherein the severity of the diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing, and perhaps its presence or absence, is determined by the patient’s insurance coverage,” they said in the commentary.
Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari are with the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, both in Madison. They reported no conflicts of interest related to their editorial, which appears in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The study by Won and colleagues provides a “useful perspective” on how hypopnea is defined by including outcome data based on the two different scoring criteria, according to Kenneth R. Casey, MD, MPH, and Rachna Tiwari, MBBS.
Results of the study suggest a rationale for using both the 2007 American Academy of Sleep Medicine hypopnea criteria based on ≥ 4% desaturation, and the updated 2012 AASM criteria based on ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal in the evaluation of polysomnography results, Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari said in a commentary accompanying the study.
“This perspective may ultimately be the solution to the confusion caused by competing functional definitions of hypopnea,” they said in the commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The 2007 recommended criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation seemed reasonable based on available evidence at the time, but was not rigorously based by today’s standards, the authors said.
At that time, they also proposed the new alternative criteria based on ≥ 3% desaturation or an arousal, which in 2012 became elevated to a recommended rule. However, the previous recommended rule was kept to accommodate patients who required Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursement, according to Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari.
Subsequent studies demonstrated “significant differences” in apnea-hypopnea index results, depending on which scoring criteria were used, they added.
“This confusing, vacillating definition has created a rather bizarre, and perhaps unsettling, situation wherein the severity of the diagnosis of sleep-disordered breathing, and perhaps its presence or absence, is determined by the patient’s insurance coverage,” they said in the commentary.
Dr. Casey and Dr. Tiwari are with the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, both in Madison. They reported no conflicts of interest related to their editorial, which appears in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The latest recommended criteria for hypopnea define a distinct group of patients who report substantial daytime sleepiness but with no significant cardiovascular risk, investigators reported in a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.
The number of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnoses increased by nearly 13% when using the 2012 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal, instead of the 2007 criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation, according to investigators.
While cardiovascular disease risk did not appear to be elevated in those with an OSA diagnosis based on the newer, more inclusive criteria, reported lead author Christine H.J. Won, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her coinvestigators.
“Our findings suggest [that] a more inclusive hypopnea definition alters OSA severity categorization, identifies a new symptomatic group of patients with predominantly mild OSA without increased cardiovascular odds, and does not ameliorate the increased odds predicted by severe OSA for arrhythmias,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The analysis by Dr. Won and her colleagues included 1,400 veterans who had polysomnography for suspected sleep-disordered breathing. Of those veterans, two-thirds (932; 66%) had an OSA diagnosis based on the ≥ 4% desaturation criteria.
With the newer criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal, another 175 OSA diagnoses were captured out of the remaining 468 previously negative studies, meaning that more than 37% of those patients would be recategorized as having OSA, Dr. Won and her coauthors said.
Compared with individuals with OSA classified by the older, more restrictive criteria, the 175 individuals in this “new OSA” group were younger and less likely to be obese, though they were still more likely to be obese, compared with individuals with no OSA diagnosis, according to the authors.
The new OSA group had more disrupted sleep architecture, significantly worse oxygen saturations, and more self-reported sleepiness on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale as compared with those with no OSA, they added.
Adding in the new OSA group redistributed disease severity, with a relative increase of 21.4% for mild and 21.3% for moderate OSA, but just 15.3% for severe OSA. “Most of the [new OSA] category consisted of mild sleep-disordered breathing,” said Dr. Won and her coauthors in the report.
While there was a statistically significant increase in odds ratio for arrhythmias using the older criteria, reclassifying OSA severity using the newer definition meant that mild and moderate disease lost predictive value. However, severe OSA by the new criteria remained a significant predictor of arrhythmias, the authors said.
Odds ratios for ischemic heart disease and heart failure were numerically higher in the new OSA group versus the no OSA group, though no statistically significant differences were found, according to investigators.
This is thought to be the first study to describe a unique group of patients who escape OSA diagnosis based on the ≥ 4% desaturation criteria but are captured ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal criteria, Dr. Won and her coauthors said.
Further studies would be helpful to evaluate other polysomnographic features in this group to see how they affect cardiovascular or other health risks, they added.
“It would also be important to assess whether treatment in any of these groups leads to improved cardiovascular health, or whether treatment of the [new OSA] group leads to improved daytime sleepiness or quality of life,” they said in the report.
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest related to their work, which was performed at the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in West Haven, Conn.; Indianapolis; and Cleveland.
SOURCE: Won CHJ et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Dec 15;14[12]:1987-94.
The latest recommended criteria for hypopnea define a distinct group of patients who report substantial daytime sleepiness but with no significant cardiovascular risk, investigators reported in a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.
The number of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnoses increased by nearly 13% when using the 2012 American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal, instead of the 2007 criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation, according to investigators.
While cardiovascular disease risk did not appear to be elevated in those with an OSA diagnosis based on the newer, more inclusive criteria, reported lead author Christine H.J. Won, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and her coinvestigators.
“Our findings suggest [that] a more inclusive hypopnea definition alters OSA severity categorization, identifies a new symptomatic group of patients with predominantly mild OSA without increased cardiovascular odds, and does not ameliorate the increased odds predicted by severe OSA for arrhythmias,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.
The analysis by Dr. Won and her colleagues included 1,400 veterans who had polysomnography for suspected sleep-disordered breathing. Of those veterans, two-thirds (932; 66%) had an OSA diagnosis based on the ≥ 4% desaturation criteria.
With the newer criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal, another 175 OSA diagnoses were captured out of the remaining 468 previously negative studies, meaning that more than 37% of those patients would be recategorized as having OSA, Dr. Won and her coauthors said.
Compared with individuals with OSA classified by the older, more restrictive criteria, the 175 individuals in this “new OSA” group were younger and less likely to be obese, though they were still more likely to be obese, compared with individuals with no OSA diagnosis, according to the authors.
The new OSA group had more disrupted sleep architecture, significantly worse oxygen saturations, and more self-reported sleepiness on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale as compared with those with no OSA, they added.
Adding in the new OSA group redistributed disease severity, with a relative increase of 21.4% for mild and 21.3% for moderate OSA, but just 15.3% for severe OSA. “Most of the [new OSA] category consisted of mild sleep-disordered breathing,” said Dr. Won and her coauthors in the report.
While there was a statistically significant increase in odds ratio for arrhythmias using the older criteria, reclassifying OSA severity using the newer definition meant that mild and moderate disease lost predictive value. However, severe OSA by the new criteria remained a significant predictor of arrhythmias, the authors said.
Odds ratios for ischemic heart disease and heart failure were numerically higher in the new OSA group versus the no OSA group, though no statistically significant differences were found, according to investigators.
This is thought to be the first study to describe a unique group of patients who escape OSA diagnosis based on the ≥ 4% desaturation criteria but are captured ≥ 3% desaturation or arousal criteria, Dr. Won and her coauthors said.
Further studies would be helpful to evaluate other polysomnographic features in this group to see how they affect cardiovascular or other health risks, they added.
“It would also be important to assess whether treatment in any of these groups leads to improved cardiovascular health, or whether treatment of the [new OSA] group leads to improved daytime sleepiness or quality of life,” they said in the report.
The researchers reported no conflicts of interest related to their work, which was performed at the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System in West Haven, Conn.; Indianapolis; and Cleveland.
SOURCE: Won CHJ et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Dec 15;14[12]:1987-94.
FROM THE CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SLEEP MEDICINE
Key clinical point: The latest AASM criteria for hypopnea identify a subset of obstructive sleep apnea patients with substantial daytime sleepiness but no apparent significant increase in cardiovascular risk.
Major finding: The number of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) diagnoses increased by nearly 13% when using the 2012 AASM criteria of ≥ 3% desaturation or an arousal, instead of the 2007 criteria of ≥ 4% desaturation.
Study details: Retrospective, cross-sectional, observational study that includes 1,400 veterans evaluated for suspected sleep-disordered breathing.
Disclosures: Authors reported no conflicts of interest.
Source: Won CHJ et al. J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 Dec 15;14(12):1987-94.
RE-SPECT ESUS: Dabigatran matched aspirin for second stroke prevention
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
MONTREAL – For the second time in the past year, an anticoagulant failed to show superiority when it was compared with aspirin for preventing a second stroke in patients who had had an index embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). But the most recent results gave a tantalizing suggestion that the anticoagulant approach might be effective for older patients, those at least 75 years old, possibly because these patients have the highest incidence of atrial fibrillation.
“The fact that we saw a treatment benefit in patients 75 and older [in a post hoc, subgroup analysis] means that development of atrial fibrillation (AF) is probably the most important factor,” Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Another clue that incident AF drove a treatment benefit hidden in the new trial’s overall neutral result was that a post hoc, landmark analysis showed that, while the rate of second strokes was identical during the first year of follow-up in patients on either aspirin or the anticoagulant dabigatran (Pradaxa) after an index ESUS, patients on dabigatran had significantly fewer second strokes during subsequent follow-up.
More follow-up time was needed to see a benefit from anticoagulation because “it takes time for AF to develop, and then once a patient has AF, it takes time for a stroke to occur,” explained Dr. Diener, professor of neurology at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Essen, Germany.
The RE-SPECT ESUS (Dabigatran Etexilate for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial randomized 5,390 patients at more than 500 sites in 41 countries, including the United States, within 6 months of an index ESUS who had no history of AF and no severe renal impairment. All enrollees had to have less than 6 minutes of AF episodes during at least 20 hours of cardiac monitoring, and they had to be free of flow-limiting stenoses (50% or more) in arteries supplying their stroke region. Patients received either 150 mg or 110 mg of dabigatran twice daily depending on their age and renal function or 100 mg of aspirin daily. About a quarter of patients randomized to dabigatran received the lower dosage. The enrolled patients averaged 66 years old, almost two-thirds were men, and they started treatment a median of 44 days after their index stroke.
During a median 19 months’ follow-up, the incidence of a second stroke of any type was 4.1%/year among the patients on dabigatran and 4.8%/year among those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. However, the post hoc landmark analysis showed a significant reduction in second strokes with dabigatran treatment after the first year. In addition, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed that, among patients aged at least 75 years old, treatment with dabigatran linked with a statistically significant 37% reduction in second strokes, compared with treatment with aspirin, Dr. Diener reported.
The primary safety endpoint was major bleeds, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, which occurred in 1.7%/year of patients on dabigatran and 1.4%/year of those on aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. Patients on dabigatran had a significant excess of major bleeds combined with clinically significant nonmajor bleeds: 3.3%/year versus 2.3%/year among those on aspirin.
A little over 4 months before Dr. Diener’s report, a separate research group published primary results from the NAVIGATE ESUS (Rivaroxaban Versus Aspirin in Secondary Prevention of Stroke and Prevention of Systemic Embolism in Patients With Recent Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, which compared the anticoagulant rivaroxaban (Xarelto) with aspirin for prevention of a second stroke in 7,213 ESUS patients. The results showed no significant efficacy difference between rivaroxaban and aspirin (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2191-2201).
RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
SOURCE: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: A second stroke occurred at 4.1%/year with dabigatran and 4.8%/year with aspirin, not a statistically significant difference.
Study details: RE-SPECT ESUS, an international randomized trial with 5,390 ESUS patients.
Disclosures: RE-SPECT ESUS was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that markets dabigatran (Pradaxa). Dr. Diener has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as several other companies.
Source: Diener H-C et al. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2_suppl):27. Abstract 100.
Digital alerts reduced AF-related stroke, MI rates
CHICAGO – and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”
The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.
Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).
“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.
The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).
One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.
Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.
Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.
“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”
Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.
CHICAGO – and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”
The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.
Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).
“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.
The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).
One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.
Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.
Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.
“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”
Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.
CHICAGO – and had significantly lower rates of death and other cardiovascular events, compared with patients on a standard admissions protocol, according to results of a randomized, controlled trial presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions.
“Alert-based computerized decision support [CDS] increased the prescription of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation during hospitalization, at discharge, and at 90 days after randomization in high-risk patients,” said Gregory Piazza, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in presenting results of the AF-ALERT trial. “The reductions in major cardiovascular events was attributable to reductions in MI and stroke/transient ischemic attack at 90 days in patients whose physicians received the alert.”
The trial evaluated 458 patients hospitalized for AF or flutter and with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1-8 randomly assigned to the alert (n = 258) or no-alert (n = 210) groups.
Dr. Piazza explained that for those in the alert group, the CDS system notified physicians when the patient’s CHA2DS2-VASc score increased. From there, the physician could choose to open an order template to prescribe evidence-based medications to prevent stroke, to elect to review evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, or to continue with the admissions order with an acknowledged reason for omitting anticoagulation (such as high bleeding risk, low stroke risk, high risk for falls, or patient refusal of anticoagulation).
“In patients for whom their providers were alerted, 35% elected to open the stroke-prevention order set, a very tiny percentage elected to read the AF guidelines, and about 64% exited but provided a rationale for omitting anticoagulation,” Dr. Piazza noted.
The alert group was far more likely to be prescribed anticoagulation during the hospitalization (25.8% vs. 9.5%; P less than .0001), at discharge (23.8% vs. 12.9%; P = .003), and at 90 days (27.7% vs. 17.1%; P = .007) than the control group. The alert resulted in a 55% relative risk reduction in a composite outcome of death, MI, cerebrovascular event, and systemic embolic event at 90 days (11.3% vs. 21.9%; P = .002). The alert group had an 87% lower incidence of MI at 90 days (1.2% vs. 8.6%, P = .0002) and 88% lower incidence of cerebrovascular events or systemic embolism at 90 days (0% vs. 2.4%; P = .02). Death at 90 days occurred in 10.1% in the alert group and 14.8% in the control group (P = .13).
One of the limitations of the study, Dr. Piazza noted, was that the most dramatic finding – reduction of major cardiovascular events – was a secondary, not a primary, endpoint. “CDS has the potential to be a powerful tool in prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation.”
Moderator Mintu Turakhia, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, questioned the low rate of anticoagulation in the study’s control arm – 9.5% – much lower than medians reported in many registries. He also asked Dr. Piazza to describe the mechanism of action for prescribing anticoagulation in these patients.
Dr. Piazza noted the study population was hospitalized patients whose providers had decided prior to their admissions not to prescribe anticoagulation; hence, the rate of anticoagulation in these patients was actually higher than expected.
Regarding the mechanism of action, “the electronic alert seems to preferentially increase the prescription of [direct oral anticoagulants] over warfarin, and that may have been one of the mechanisms,” Dr. Piazza said. Another explanation he offered were “off-target” effects whereby, if providers have a better idea of a patient’s risk for a stroke or MI, they’ll be more aggressive about managing other risk factors.
“There are a number of interventions that could be triggered if the alert prompted the provider to have a conversation with patients about their risk of stroke from AF,” he said. “This may have impact beyond what we can tell from this simple [Best Practice Advisory in the Epic EHR system]. I think we don’t have a great understanding of the full mechanisms of CDS.”
Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo funded the trial. Dr. Turakhia reported relationships with Apple, Janssen, AstraZeneca, VA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiva Medical, Medtronic, Abbott, Precision Health Economics, iBeat, iRhythm, MyoKardia, Biotronik, and an ownership Interest in AliveCor.
REPORTING FROM AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: A digital alert system led to improved outcomes in atrial fibrillation patients.
Major finding: Anticoagulation rates were 25.8% in the alert group versus 9.5% for controls.
Study details: AF-ALERT was a randomized, controlled trial of 458 high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter.
Disclosures: Dr. Piazza reported financial relationships with BTG, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Portola, and Bayer. Daiichi Sankyo provided funding for the study.
Extended Holter screening finds A-fib faster after ischemic strokes
MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.
“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.
Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.
FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.
The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).
The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.
During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.
FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.
“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.
Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.
FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.
The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).
The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.
During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.
FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
MONTREAL – Enhanced and prolonged rhythm monitoring for atrial fibrillation in patients with a recent acute ischemic stroke did not find more arrhythmias, it just found them faster, in a randomized study with 398 German patients.
“Prolonged and enhanced monitoring identified atrial fibrillation cases that otherwise were detected years later,” Rolf Wachter, MD, said at the World Stroke Congress. Enhanced and prolonged monitoring (EPM) “should be considered for all stroke patients, regardless of the suspected stroke etiology, if detection of atrial fibrillation is of clinical relevance,” said Dr. Wachter, a cardiologist and professor at the University Clinic in Leipzig, Germany.
Based on 3-year follow-up of patients enrolled in the FIND-AF study, which randomized patients within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke to either EPM for atrial fibrillation (AF) or standard work-up and follow-up, Dr. Wachter calculated that every six such patients who underwent EMP for AF yielded one added patient who could receive anticoagulant prophylaxis for 1 year, an effect that should result in fewer incident strokes and deaths. The data he reported showed after 3 years a “favorable trend” toward fewer strokes and deaths among patients who underwent EPM.
FIND-AF RANDOMISED (A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Study to Determine the Detection of Atrial Fibrillation by Prolonged and Enhanced Holter Monitoring as Compared to Usual Care in Stroke Patients) ran at four German centers during May 2013–August 2014. It enrolled 398 patients aged 60 years or older within 7 days of an acute ischemic stroke who were in sinus rhythm and had no AF history. Enrolled patients could have any type of suspected stroke etiology, but the study excluded patients with severe stenosis in their ipsilateral carotid or intracranial arteries. The study randomized patients to received EPM or a standard work-up. The “enhanced” part of EPM meant review of Holter monitor recordings by a single, dedicated core laboratory. The “prolonged” part meant routinely screening patients for an atrial arrhythmia using a Holter monitor worn for 10 consecutive days on three occasions: at entry into the study, 3 months later, and 6 months later.
The study’s primary endpoint was the number of patients diagnosed with AF after 6 months, which was 27 of 200 patients (13.5%) in the EPM arm and 9 of 198 patients (4.5%) in the control arm, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Wachter and his associates reported in Lancet Neurology (2017 Apr 1;16[4]:282-90).
The additional 30 months of follow-up included in the new report by Dr. Wachter resulted in identification of 3 more patients with AF in the EPM group and 13 more patients in the control arm, which brought the total number of patients with AF identified over 3 years to 30 in the EPM group (15%), and 22 in the control group (11%), a difference that was not statistically significant. In other words, both approaches found roughly the same percentage of patients with AF, but the EPM method found them quicker.
During the extended 36-month follow-up, 12 patients in the EPM group had an ischemic stroke and 9 patients died, with a combined stroke and death rate of about 8%. In the control group, 19 patients had a second ischemic stroke and 13 died, with a combined rate of about 15%. A statistical test of the difference between the combined stroke and death rates in these two groups produced a P value of .08.
FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
SOURCE: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress, Abstract.
REPORTING FROM THE WORLD STROKE CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Enhanced and prolonged monitoring for atrial fibrillation did not find more arrhythmias, but it did find them faster.
Major finding: Every six patients who underwent extended arrhythmia screening produced one additional patient eligible for a year of anticoagulant prophylaxis.
Study details: Three-year follow-up of FIND-AF, a multicenter, German study with 398 patients.
Disclosures: FIND-AF was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Wachter has been a speaker on behalf of and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, and he has also been a speaker on behalf of Bayer, BMS/Pfizer, and Daiichi Sankyo.
Source: Wachter R et al. World Stroke Congress.
Phone app diagnoses STEMI nearly as well as ECG
CHICAGO – A novel smartphone app performed nearly as well as a standard 12-lead ECG for diagnosis of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in patients presenting with chest pain in ST LEUIS, an international, multicenter study.
“This study demonstrates that a 12-lead-equivalent ECG obtained using a smartphone coupled with a software application and inexpensive two-wire attachment can identify STEMI versus non-STEMI with an excellent correlation to a traditional 12-lead ECG. This technology holds substantial promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enabling more rapid diagnosis and treatment anywhere in the world for inexpensive cost,” J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, said while presenting the ST LEUIS results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This technology could provide a long-sought breakthrough in overcoming patient denial and motivating hard-headed individuals with a life-threatening MI to get to the hospital more quickly after symptom onset, instead of initially shrugging off the matter as indigestion or another nuisance. If individuals can use their handy cell phone or smartwatch to quickly obtain an ECG that shows they’re having a STEMI, they’re going to seek medical attention much sooner, with resultant greater salvage of heart muscle, noted Dr. Muhlestein of Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City.
ST LEUIS tested whether a smartphone ECG app developed by AliveCor can accurately diagnose STEMI in patients with chest pain. The study, which took place at Intermountain Medical Center and a handful of other sites associated with the Duke University Cooperative Cardiovascular Society, included 204 patients who presented to EDs with chest pain. They simultaneously received both a standard 12-lead ECG and an ECG obtained using the AliveCor smartphone app. The matched ECG pairs were evaluated separately, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by a blinded panel of experienced cardiologists and classified as STEMI, left bundle branch block, non-STEMI, or uninterpretable. The study population included 92 patients with chest pain and activation of a STEMI protocol and 112 who came through the ED chest pain protocol.
Side-by-side ECG comparisons weren’t attempted in 14 pairs deemed not interpretable. In 13 cases this was because of technical problems with the smartphone ECG, and in the 14th because of ventricular pacing in the standard 12-lead ECG.
STEMI was diagnosed in 22.5% of the study population by 12-lead ECG and in 29.4% by smartphone app. The discrepancy was explained by small voltage differences in the ST-segment elevation which met criteria for STEMI by smartphone but not standard 12-lead ECG in 15 cases.
“It appears that the ST elevation was a little bit more obvious in the smartphone ECG,” Dr. Muhlestein observed.
Left bundle branch block was identified in 5.4% of patients by both methods.
The key performance numbers: The smartphone ECG had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosis of STEMI or left bundle branch block. The positive predictive value was diminished by the increased likelihood that the smartphone would call STEMI in discordant cases.
Dr. Muhlestein said that, despite the AliveCor device’s very good correlation with the standard 12-lead ECG, the system needs further tweaking.
“We definitely think this is not ready for prime time. Further refinements of the software and hardware may improve on our study results and broaden potential applications through increased ease of use and reliability. I’m sure smart engineers can make a much more simple, really user-friendly device now that we know it’s actually feasible. I envision a time when you turn it on and it speaks loud and tells you what to do and how to do it – like an AED [automated external defibrillator] – then uploads the ECG to the cloud, interprets it, and tells you whether you should go to the emergency department or not,” Dr. Muhlestein said.
This is a device that’s going to be a boon not only in the United States but also in developing countries, where even people living without electricity or running water often have cell phones, the cardiologist noted.
Dr. Muhlestein reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
CHICAGO – A novel smartphone app performed nearly as well as a standard 12-lead ECG for diagnosis of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in patients presenting with chest pain in ST LEUIS, an international, multicenter study.
“This study demonstrates that a 12-lead-equivalent ECG obtained using a smartphone coupled with a software application and inexpensive two-wire attachment can identify STEMI versus non-STEMI with an excellent correlation to a traditional 12-lead ECG. This technology holds substantial promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enabling more rapid diagnosis and treatment anywhere in the world for inexpensive cost,” J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, said while presenting the ST LEUIS results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This technology could provide a long-sought breakthrough in overcoming patient denial and motivating hard-headed individuals with a life-threatening MI to get to the hospital more quickly after symptom onset, instead of initially shrugging off the matter as indigestion or another nuisance. If individuals can use their handy cell phone or smartwatch to quickly obtain an ECG that shows they’re having a STEMI, they’re going to seek medical attention much sooner, with resultant greater salvage of heart muscle, noted Dr. Muhlestein of Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City.
ST LEUIS tested whether a smartphone ECG app developed by AliveCor can accurately diagnose STEMI in patients with chest pain. The study, which took place at Intermountain Medical Center and a handful of other sites associated with the Duke University Cooperative Cardiovascular Society, included 204 patients who presented to EDs with chest pain. They simultaneously received both a standard 12-lead ECG and an ECG obtained using the AliveCor smartphone app. The matched ECG pairs were evaluated separately, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by a blinded panel of experienced cardiologists and classified as STEMI, left bundle branch block, non-STEMI, or uninterpretable. The study population included 92 patients with chest pain and activation of a STEMI protocol and 112 who came through the ED chest pain protocol.
Side-by-side ECG comparisons weren’t attempted in 14 pairs deemed not interpretable. In 13 cases this was because of technical problems with the smartphone ECG, and in the 14th because of ventricular pacing in the standard 12-lead ECG.
STEMI was diagnosed in 22.5% of the study population by 12-lead ECG and in 29.4% by smartphone app. The discrepancy was explained by small voltage differences in the ST-segment elevation which met criteria for STEMI by smartphone but not standard 12-lead ECG in 15 cases.
“It appears that the ST elevation was a little bit more obvious in the smartphone ECG,” Dr. Muhlestein observed.
Left bundle branch block was identified in 5.4% of patients by both methods.
The key performance numbers: The smartphone ECG had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosis of STEMI or left bundle branch block. The positive predictive value was diminished by the increased likelihood that the smartphone would call STEMI in discordant cases.
Dr. Muhlestein said that, despite the AliveCor device’s very good correlation with the standard 12-lead ECG, the system needs further tweaking.
“We definitely think this is not ready for prime time. Further refinements of the software and hardware may improve on our study results and broaden potential applications through increased ease of use and reliability. I’m sure smart engineers can make a much more simple, really user-friendly device now that we know it’s actually feasible. I envision a time when you turn it on and it speaks loud and tells you what to do and how to do it – like an AED [automated external defibrillator] – then uploads the ECG to the cloud, interprets it, and tells you whether you should go to the emergency department or not,” Dr. Muhlestein said.
This is a device that’s going to be a boon not only in the United States but also in developing countries, where even people living without electricity or running water often have cell phones, the cardiologist noted.
Dr. Muhlestein reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
CHICAGO – A novel smartphone app performed nearly as well as a standard 12-lead ECG for diagnosis of ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) in patients presenting with chest pain in ST LEUIS, an international, multicenter study.
“This study demonstrates that a 12-lead-equivalent ECG obtained using a smartphone coupled with a software application and inexpensive two-wire attachment can identify STEMI versus non-STEMI with an excellent correlation to a traditional 12-lead ECG. This technology holds substantial promise to improve outcomes in STEMI by enabling more rapid diagnosis and treatment anywhere in the world for inexpensive cost,” J. Brent Muhlestein, MD, said while presenting the ST LEUIS results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
This technology could provide a long-sought breakthrough in overcoming patient denial and motivating hard-headed individuals with a life-threatening MI to get to the hospital more quickly after symptom onset, instead of initially shrugging off the matter as indigestion or another nuisance. If individuals can use their handy cell phone or smartwatch to quickly obtain an ECG that shows they’re having a STEMI, they’re going to seek medical attention much sooner, with resultant greater salvage of heart muscle, noted Dr. Muhlestein of Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City.
ST LEUIS tested whether a smartphone ECG app developed by AliveCor can accurately diagnose STEMI in patients with chest pain. The study, which took place at Intermountain Medical Center and a handful of other sites associated with the Duke University Cooperative Cardiovascular Society, included 204 patients who presented to EDs with chest pain. They simultaneously received both a standard 12-lead ECG and an ECG obtained using the AliveCor smartphone app. The matched ECG pairs were evaluated separately, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by a blinded panel of experienced cardiologists and classified as STEMI, left bundle branch block, non-STEMI, or uninterpretable. The study population included 92 patients with chest pain and activation of a STEMI protocol and 112 who came through the ED chest pain protocol.
Side-by-side ECG comparisons weren’t attempted in 14 pairs deemed not interpretable. In 13 cases this was because of technical problems with the smartphone ECG, and in the 14th because of ventricular pacing in the standard 12-lead ECG.
STEMI was diagnosed in 22.5% of the study population by 12-lead ECG and in 29.4% by smartphone app. The discrepancy was explained by small voltage differences in the ST-segment elevation which met criteria for STEMI by smartphone but not standard 12-lead ECG in 15 cases.
“It appears that the ST elevation was a little bit more obvious in the smartphone ECG,” Dr. Muhlestein observed.
Left bundle branch block was identified in 5.4% of patients by both methods.
The key performance numbers: The smartphone ECG had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, positive predictive value of 70%, and negative predictive value of 95% for diagnosis of STEMI or left bundle branch block. The positive predictive value was diminished by the increased likelihood that the smartphone would call STEMI in discordant cases.
Dr. Muhlestein said that, despite the AliveCor device’s very good correlation with the standard 12-lead ECG, the system needs further tweaking.
“We definitely think this is not ready for prime time. Further refinements of the software and hardware may improve on our study results and broaden potential applications through increased ease of use and reliability. I’m sure smart engineers can make a much more simple, really user-friendly device now that we know it’s actually feasible. I envision a time when you turn it on and it speaks loud and tells you what to do and how to do it – like an AED [automated external defibrillator] – then uploads the ECG to the cloud, interprets it, and tells you whether you should go to the emergency department or not,” Dr. Muhlestein said.
This is a device that’s going to be a boon not only in the United States but also in developing countries, where even people living without electricity or running water often have cell phones, the cardiologist noted.
Dr. Muhlestein reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The app, designed to diagnose ST-segment elevation MI, had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 84%, and negative predictive value of 95% for this purpose.
Study details: This multicenter, international study featured blinded expert side-by-side comparisons of standard 12-lead ECGs and ECGs obtained via a smartphone app in 204 patients who presented with chest pain.
Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding the study, which was fully sponsored by the participating medical institutions.
Nocturnal hypoxemia predicts incident atrial fibrillation in sleep apnea patients
Researchers have found a significant independent association between nocturnal hypoxemia and risk of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which they believe may help prevent the development of AF in this population, according to recent research published in the journal CHEST®.
“These findings are consistent with those of previous studies suggesting that these groups, who are typically at somewhat lower risk of [atrial fibrillation], might be especially vulnerable to the effects of [obstructive sleep apnea] and hypoxemia,” Tetyana Kendzerska, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, and her colleagues wrote in their study.
They performed an analysis of 8,256 patients with data linked to a provincial health administrative database who had suspected OSA who underwent a sleep study at a large academic hospital between 1994 and 2010. The patients were median 47 years old; 62% of the cohort were men, 28% had an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of greater than 30 events per hour, and 6% spent more than 30% of the time during sleep with less than 90% oxygen saturation.
Overall, 173 of 8,256 patients (2.1%) developed AF during the study period. In patients with suspected OSA and who were arrhythmia free, nocturnal hypoxemia significantly increased the risk of incident hospitalized AF (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.71) over median 10 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 7-13 years) after the researchers controlled for age, sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of heart failure, smoking status, nocturnal hypoxemia, and pulmonary embolism, and this association remained significant after adjustment for body mass index and hypertension (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.74).
“These findings support a relationship between OSA, chronic nocturnal hypoxemia, and the development of [atrial fibrillation], and may be used to identify those patients with OSA who are at greatest risk of developing AF.”
Researchers cited the observational design, retrospective data collection, and examining hospitalized AF only as limitations in the study. However, they noted that clinical data was collected prospectively and the inability to adjust to positive airway pressure would push results to the null with regard to unstudied confounders.
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kendzerska T et al. CHEST. 2018;doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.1075.
Researchers have found a significant independent association between nocturnal hypoxemia and risk of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which they believe may help prevent the development of AF in this population, according to recent research published in the journal CHEST®.
“These findings are consistent with those of previous studies suggesting that these groups, who are typically at somewhat lower risk of [atrial fibrillation], might be especially vulnerable to the effects of [obstructive sleep apnea] and hypoxemia,” Tetyana Kendzerska, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, and her colleagues wrote in their study.
They performed an analysis of 8,256 patients with data linked to a provincial health administrative database who had suspected OSA who underwent a sleep study at a large academic hospital between 1994 and 2010. The patients were median 47 years old; 62% of the cohort were men, 28% had an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of greater than 30 events per hour, and 6% spent more than 30% of the time during sleep with less than 90% oxygen saturation.
Overall, 173 of 8,256 patients (2.1%) developed AF during the study period. In patients with suspected OSA and who were arrhythmia free, nocturnal hypoxemia significantly increased the risk of incident hospitalized AF (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.71) over median 10 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 7-13 years) after the researchers controlled for age, sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of heart failure, smoking status, nocturnal hypoxemia, and pulmonary embolism, and this association remained significant after adjustment for body mass index and hypertension (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.74).
“These findings support a relationship between OSA, chronic nocturnal hypoxemia, and the development of [atrial fibrillation], and may be used to identify those patients with OSA who are at greatest risk of developing AF.”
Researchers cited the observational design, retrospective data collection, and examining hospitalized AF only as limitations in the study. However, they noted that clinical data was collected prospectively and the inability to adjust to positive airway pressure would push results to the null with regard to unstudied confounders.
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kendzerska T et al. CHEST. 2018;doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.1075.
Researchers have found a significant independent association between nocturnal hypoxemia and risk of incident atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which they believe may help prevent the development of AF in this population, according to recent research published in the journal CHEST®.
“These findings are consistent with those of previous studies suggesting that these groups, who are typically at somewhat lower risk of [atrial fibrillation], might be especially vulnerable to the effects of [obstructive sleep apnea] and hypoxemia,” Tetyana Kendzerska, MD, PhD, of the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, and her colleagues wrote in their study.
They performed an analysis of 8,256 patients with data linked to a provincial health administrative database who had suspected OSA who underwent a sleep study at a large academic hospital between 1994 and 2010. The patients were median 47 years old; 62% of the cohort were men, 28% had an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of greater than 30 events per hour, and 6% spent more than 30% of the time during sleep with less than 90% oxygen saturation.
Overall, 173 of 8,256 patients (2.1%) developed AF during the study period. In patients with suspected OSA and who were arrhythmia free, nocturnal hypoxemia significantly increased the risk of incident hospitalized AF (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.71) over median 10 years of follow-up (interquartile range, 7-13 years) after the researchers controlled for age, sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of heart failure, smoking status, nocturnal hypoxemia, and pulmonary embolism, and this association remained significant after adjustment for body mass index and hypertension (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.74).
“These findings support a relationship between OSA, chronic nocturnal hypoxemia, and the development of [atrial fibrillation], and may be used to identify those patients with OSA who are at greatest risk of developing AF.”
Researchers cited the observational design, retrospective data collection, and examining hospitalized AF only as limitations in the study. However, they noted that clinical data was collected prospectively and the inability to adjust to positive airway pressure would push results to the null with regard to unstudied confounders.
The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Kendzerska T et al. CHEST. 2018;doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.1075.
FROM CHEST
Key clinical point: In patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea and who were arrhythmia free, nocturnal hypoxemia increased the risk of incident hospitalized atrial fibrillation by 77%.
Major finding: Nocturnal hypoxemia significantly predicted atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-3.71) and remained significant after adjustment for body mass index and hypertension (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.15-2.74).
Study details: An observational study of 8,256 arrhythmia-free patients with suspected obstructive sleep apnea who underwent a sleep study at a large academic hospital between 1994 and 2010.
Disclosures: The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
Source: Kendzerska T et al. CHEST. 2018;doi:10.1016/j.chest.2018.08.1075.
ARISTOPHANES: Apixaban edges other DOACS for octogenarians
The findings come from an analysis of insurance claims data from more than 50,000 U.S. patients – the largest observational study to date to compare these three direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in octogenarians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, Steven B. Deitelzweig, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The results may help clinicians evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the DOACs” in this population, said Dr. Deitelzweig, vice president for medical affairs at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.
He noted that the results were consistent with prior reports from observational data and registries, as well as the results in a recent analysis commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “We see a consistent message that apixaban always has less risk for major bleeding, and at least comparable efficacy” when compared with other DOACs, he said in a video interview.
And for the foreseeable future, this sort of data will need to suffice for clinicians trying to decide which DOAC to use because “I know of no head-to-head trials, nor do I anticipate any head-to-head trials” that could provide a more definitive comparison of the DOACs, Dr. Deitelzweig said.
The data came from a large number of patients – about 38% of the U.S. population – which boosts the generalizability of the finding. “I think our data are useful” for helping to make treatment decisions, he concluded.
The analysis he reported came from the ARISTOPHANES (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) study, which pooled U.S. insurance claims data from several sources. For the octogenarian study, Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates used data from about 123 million U.S. residents collected between January 2012 and September 2015 by Medicare and three different commercial insurance databases. The overall level of beneficiary overlap between these four data sources was less than 0.5%.
The researchers identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who started anticoagulant treatment with a DOAC and were at least 80 years old. This included 19,752 patients started on apixaban (Eliquis), 6,741 started on dabigatran (Pradaxa), and 27,217 started on rivaroxaban (Xarelto). A majority of the patients were at least 84 years old.
The analysis used propensity-score matching to compare similar patients and to minimize the impact of potentially confounding differences among the patients in each treatment subgroup. During a median follow-up of 7-9 months, the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism was 35% lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those who received dabigatran, and 28% lower in the apixaban patients, compared with those treated with rivaroxaban, both statistically significant differences, Dr. Deitelzweig reported. The incidence of major bleeding episodes was 40% lower with apixaban than with dabigatran and 50% lower with apixaban, compared with rivaroxaban, also statistically significant differences.
When the analysis compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban it showed no statistically significant difference for the efficacy endpoint, but dabigatran produced 23% fewer major bleeds than rivaroxaban, a statistically significant difference.
These findings jibed with a recently published analysis from Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates that used data from all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation started on an oral anticoagulant in an expanded ARISTOPHANES database for 2012-2015 that included more than 180 million U.S. beneficiaries. After propensity-score matching, this created subgroups of about 58,000 patients started on apixaban, nearly 27,000 started on dabigatran, and more than 83,000 started on rivaroxaban. The patients averaged about 73 years old. Again, with about 7-9 months of follow-up, very similar outcomes occurred. Patients on apixaban had significantly fewer strokes and systemic embolic events as well as significantly fewer major bleeds compared with patients treated with one of the other DOACs (Stroke. 2018 Dec;49[12]:2933-44).
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138(suppl 1):A14900.
The findings come from an analysis of insurance claims data from more than 50,000 U.S. patients – the largest observational study to date to compare these three direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in octogenarians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, Steven B. Deitelzweig, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The results may help clinicians evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the DOACs” in this population, said Dr. Deitelzweig, vice president for medical affairs at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.
He noted that the results were consistent with prior reports from observational data and registries, as well as the results in a recent analysis commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “We see a consistent message that apixaban always has less risk for major bleeding, and at least comparable efficacy” when compared with other DOACs, he said in a video interview.
And for the foreseeable future, this sort of data will need to suffice for clinicians trying to decide which DOAC to use because “I know of no head-to-head trials, nor do I anticipate any head-to-head trials” that could provide a more definitive comparison of the DOACs, Dr. Deitelzweig said.
The data came from a large number of patients – about 38% of the U.S. population – which boosts the generalizability of the finding. “I think our data are useful” for helping to make treatment decisions, he concluded.
The analysis he reported came from the ARISTOPHANES (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) study, which pooled U.S. insurance claims data from several sources. For the octogenarian study, Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates used data from about 123 million U.S. residents collected between January 2012 and September 2015 by Medicare and three different commercial insurance databases. The overall level of beneficiary overlap between these four data sources was less than 0.5%.
The researchers identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who started anticoagulant treatment with a DOAC and were at least 80 years old. This included 19,752 patients started on apixaban (Eliquis), 6,741 started on dabigatran (Pradaxa), and 27,217 started on rivaroxaban (Xarelto). A majority of the patients were at least 84 years old.
The analysis used propensity-score matching to compare similar patients and to minimize the impact of potentially confounding differences among the patients in each treatment subgroup. During a median follow-up of 7-9 months, the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism was 35% lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those who received dabigatran, and 28% lower in the apixaban patients, compared with those treated with rivaroxaban, both statistically significant differences, Dr. Deitelzweig reported. The incidence of major bleeding episodes was 40% lower with apixaban than with dabigatran and 50% lower with apixaban, compared with rivaroxaban, also statistically significant differences.
When the analysis compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban it showed no statistically significant difference for the efficacy endpoint, but dabigatran produced 23% fewer major bleeds than rivaroxaban, a statistically significant difference.
These findings jibed with a recently published analysis from Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates that used data from all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation started on an oral anticoagulant in an expanded ARISTOPHANES database for 2012-2015 that included more than 180 million U.S. beneficiaries. After propensity-score matching, this created subgroups of about 58,000 patients started on apixaban, nearly 27,000 started on dabigatran, and more than 83,000 started on rivaroxaban. The patients averaged about 73 years old. Again, with about 7-9 months of follow-up, very similar outcomes occurred. Patients on apixaban had significantly fewer strokes and systemic embolic events as well as significantly fewer major bleeds compared with patients treated with one of the other DOACs (Stroke. 2018 Dec;49[12]:2933-44).
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138(suppl 1):A14900.
The findings come from an analysis of insurance claims data from more than 50,000 U.S. patients – the largest observational study to date to compare these three direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in octogenarians with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, Steven B. Deitelzweig, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
“The results may help clinicians evaluate the risk-benefit ratio of the DOACs” in this population, said Dr. Deitelzweig, vice president for medical affairs at Ochsner Medical Center in New Orleans.
He noted that the results were consistent with prior reports from observational data and registries, as well as the results in a recent analysis commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “We see a consistent message that apixaban always has less risk for major bleeding, and at least comparable efficacy” when compared with other DOACs, he said in a video interview.
And for the foreseeable future, this sort of data will need to suffice for clinicians trying to decide which DOAC to use because “I know of no head-to-head trials, nor do I anticipate any head-to-head trials” that could provide a more definitive comparison of the DOACs, Dr. Deitelzweig said.
The data came from a large number of patients – about 38% of the U.S. population – which boosts the generalizability of the finding. “I think our data are useful” for helping to make treatment decisions, he concluded.
The analysis he reported came from the ARISTOPHANES (Anticoagulants for Reduction in Stroke: Observational Pooled Analysis on Health Outcomes and Experience of Patients) study, which pooled U.S. insurance claims data from several sources. For the octogenarian study, Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates used data from about 123 million U.S. residents collected between January 2012 and September 2015 by Medicare and three different commercial insurance databases. The overall level of beneficiary overlap between these four data sources was less than 0.5%.
The researchers identified patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who started anticoagulant treatment with a DOAC and were at least 80 years old. This included 19,752 patients started on apixaban (Eliquis), 6,741 started on dabigatran (Pradaxa), and 27,217 started on rivaroxaban (Xarelto). A majority of the patients were at least 84 years old.
The analysis used propensity-score matching to compare similar patients and to minimize the impact of potentially confounding differences among the patients in each treatment subgroup. During a median follow-up of 7-9 months, the incidence of stroke or systemic embolism was 35% lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those who received dabigatran, and 28% lower in the apixaban patients, compared with those treated with rivaroxaban, both statistically significant differences, Dr. Deitelzweig reported. The incidence of major bleeding episodes was 40% lower with apixaban than with dabigatran and 50% lower with apixaban, compared with rivaroxaban, also statistically significant differences.
When the analysis compared dabigatran with rivaroxaban it showed no statistically significant difference for the efficacy endpoint, but dabigatran produced 23% fewer major bleeds than rivaroxaban, a statistically significant difference.
These findings jibed with a recently published analysis from Dr. Deitelzweig and his associates that used data from all adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation started on an oral anticoagulant in an expanded ARISTOPHANES database for 2012-2015 that included more than 180 million U.S. beneficiaries. After propensity-score matching, this created subgroups of about 58,000 patients started on apixaban, nearly 27,000 started on dabigatran, and more than 83,000 started on rivaroxaban. The patients averaged about 73 years old. Again, with about 7-9 months of follow-up, very similar outcomes occurred. Patients on apixaban had significantly fewer strokes and systemic embolic events as well as significantly fewer major bleeds compared with patients treated with one of the other DOACs (Stroke. 2018 Dec;49[12]:2933-44).
The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138(suppl 1):A14900.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: Apixaban surpassed two other direct-acting oral anticoagulants in a large, observational database.
Major finding: The adjusted stroke or systemic embolism rate with apixaban was 35% less than dabigatran and 28% less than rivaroxaban.
Study details: A retrospective analysis of observational data collected in insurance claims from 53,710 U.S. octogenarians.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban (Eliquis). Dr. Deitelzweig is a consultant to and speaker on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. He is also a consultant to or speaker on behalf of Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, and Portola Pharmaceuticals.
Source: Deitelzweig SB et al. Circulation. 2018 Nov 6;138[suppl 1]:A14900.
Increased risk of atrial fibrillation with migraine aura
The presence of visual aura during migraine is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, a study in Neurology has found.
Researchers reported an analysis of data from the longitudinal, community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, which included 11,939 individuals with no history of atrial fibrillation or stroke. Of these, 426 experienced migraines with visual aura, 1,090 experienced migraines without aura, 1,018 experienced nonmigraine headache, and 9,405 experienced no headache.
After adjustment for age and sex, individuals who had migraine with visual aura showed a significant 46% increase in the risk of incident atrial fibrillation when compared with those who experienced migraine without aura and a 39% increased risk when compared with individuals who did not experience headache (P = .004). After adjustment for risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, the hazard ratio of incident atrial fibrillation was 1.30 for migraineurs with aura, compared with people without headache. In addition, the hazard ratio of incident atrial fibrillation was 1.39 for migraineurs with aura, compared with migraineurs without aura.
In contrast, individuals who experienced migraines without aura did not show a significantly increased risk of atrial fibrillation.
“This finding has important clinical implications and may help us better understand the atrial fibrillation mediation of the migraine-stroke link,” wrote Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, a professor in the department of neurology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and his coauthors. “A randomized clinical trial may help ascertain whether patients with migraine with visual aura may benefit from atrial fibrillation detection and subsequent anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy as a primary stroke prevention strategy.”
The study also showed a significant interaction with age and sex. While men who experienced migraine with aura had an 89% higher risk of atrial fibrillation, women with aura showed no increase in risk, compared with individuals who experienced no headache. Similarly, only individuals aged 60 years or older who experienced migraine with aura showed an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, while those younger than 60 years did not.
The authors noted that previous case reports have recorded the incidence of atrial fibrillation during a migraine attack. Autonomic dysfunction influences the pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation and migraine.
“Cardiac arrhythmia recordings have been shown to be present in ECGs of patients while experiencing migraine headaches as compared with migraine-free phases,” they wrote. “This hypothesis is further supported by atrial fibrillation ablation procedures that have shown tendencies to reduce migraine symptoms and frequencies.”
In regard to the role that migraine aura played in this, they speculated as to whether migraine aura could be the result of cardioembolic stroke that might have occurred because of the atrial fibrillation.
Overall, 167 patients had incident cardioembolic strokes, and researchers suggested strokes in 87% of these cases could be attributed to the atrial fibrillation that came before the stroke.
The stroke incidence rate also was around twice as high in individuals who experienced migraine with aura, compared with those who experienced migraine without aura (4.1 per 1,000 person-years vs. 2.07 per 1,000 person-years).
The study authors acknowledged that patent foramen ovale, which was not assessed in ARIC, is a possible confounder. Previous studies have showed that patent foramen ovale is more common in younger individuals with migraine and particularly in patients who experience migraine with aura.
However, they also noted that trials of patent foramen ovale closures as a treatment for migraine have not shown success in reducing migraine frequency and, therefore, argued against patent foramen ovale as being a major confounder.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. One author declared grants from the National Institutes of health, one declared research support from Tian Medical, and one author is an associate editor for Neurology. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Sen S et al. Neurology. 2018;91:1-9.
This article was updated 12/12/18.
The presence of visual aura during migraine is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, a study in Neurology has found.
Researchers reported an analysis of data from the longitudinal, community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, which included 11,939 individuals with no history of atrial fibrillation or stroke. Of these, 426 experienced migraines with visual aura, 1,090 experienced migraines without aura, 1,018 experienced nonmigraine headache, and 9,405 experienced no headache.
After adjustment for age and sex, individuals who had migraine with visual aura showed a significant 46% increase in the risk of incident atrial fibrillation when compared with those who experienced migraine without aura and a 39% increased risk when compared with individuals who did not experience headache (P = .004). After adjustment for risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, the hazard ratio of incident atrial fibrillation was 1.30 for migraineurs with aura, compared with people without headache. In addition, the hazard ratio of incident atrial fibrillation was 1.39 for migraineurs with aura, compared with migraineurs without aura.
In contrast, individuals who experienced migraines without aura did not show a significantly increased risk of atrial fibrillation.
“This finding has important clinical implications and may help us better understand the atrial fibrillation mediation of the migraine-stroke link,” wrote Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, a professor in the department of neurology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and his coauthors. “A randomized clinical trial may help ascertain whether patients with migraine with visual aura may benefit from atrial fibrillation detection and subsequent anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy as a primary stroke prevention strategy.”
The study also showed a significant interaction with age and sex. While men who experienced migraine with aura had an 89% higher risk of atrial fibrillation, women with aura showed no increase in risk, compared with individuals who experienced no headache. Similarly, only individuals aged 60 years or older who experienced migraine with aura showed an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, while those younger than 60 years did not.
The authors noted that previous case reports have recorded the incidence of atrial fibrillation during a migraine attack. Autonomic dysfunction influences the pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation and migraine.
“Cardiac arrhythmia recordings have been shown to be present in ECGs of patients while experiencing migraine headaches as compared with migraine-free phases,” they wrote. “This hypothesis is further supported by atrial fibrillation ablation procedures that have shown tendencies to reduce migraine symptoms and frequencies.”
In regard to the role that migraine aura played in this, they speculated as to whether migraine aura could be the result of cardioembolic stroke that might have occurred because of the atrial fibrillation.
Overall, 167 patients had incident cardioembolic strokes, and researchers suggested strokes in 87% of these cases could be attributed to the atrial fibrillation that came before the stroke.
The stroke incidence rate also was around twice as high in individuals who experienced migraine with aura, compared with those who experienced migraine without aura (4.1 per 1,000 person-years vs. 2.07 per 1,000 person-years).
The study authors acknowledged that patent foramen ovale, which was not assessed in ARIC, is a possible confounder. Previous studies have showed that patent foramen ovale is more common in younger individuals with migraine and particularly in patients who experience migraine with aura.
However, they also noted that trials of patent foramen ovale closures as a treatment for migraine have not shown success in reducing migraine frequency and, therefore, argued against patent foramen ovale as being a major confounder.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. One author declared grants from the National Institutes of health, one declared research support from Tian Medical, and one author is an associate editor for Neurology. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Sen S et al. Neurology. 2018;91:1-9.
This article was updated 12/12/18.
The presence of visual aura during migraine is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, a study in Neurology has found.
Researchers reported an analysis of data from the longitudinal, community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, which included 11,939 individuals with no history of atrial fibrillation or stroke. Of these, 426 experienced migraines with visual aura, 1,090 experienced migraines without aura, 1,018 experienced nonmigraine headache, and 9,405 experienced no headache.
After adjustment for age and sex, individuals who had migraine with visual aura showed a significant 46% increase in the risk of incident atrial fibrillation when compared with those who experienced migraine without aura and a 39% increased risk when compared with individuals who did not experience headache (P = .004). After adjustment for risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, the hazard ratio of incident atrial fibrillation was 1.30 for migraineurs with aura, compared with people without headache. In addition, the hazard ratio of incident atrial fibrillation was 1.39 for migraineurs with aura, compared with migraineurs without aura.
In contrast, individuals who experienced migraines without aura did not show a significantly increased risk of atrial fibrillation.
“This finding has important clinical implications and may help us better understand the atrial fibrillation mediation of the migraine-stroke link,” wrote Souvik Sen, MD, MPH, a professor in the department of neurology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and his coauthors. “A randomized clinical trial may help ascertain whether patients with migraine with visual aura may benefit from atrial fibrillation detection and subsequent anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy as a primary stroke prevention strategy.”
The study also showed a significant interaction with age and sex. While men who experienced migraine with aura had an 89% higher risk of atrial fibrillation, women with aura showed no increase in risk, compared with individuals who experienced no headache. Similarly, only individuals aged 60 years or older who experienced migraine with aura showed an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, while those younger than 60 years did not.
The authors noted that previous case reports have recorded the incidence of atrial fibrillation during a migraine attack. Autonomic dysfunction influences the pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation and migraine.
“Cardiac arrhythmia recordings have been shown to be present in ECGs of patients while experiencing migraine headaches as compared with migraine-free phases,” they wrote. “This hypothesis is further supported by atrial fibrillation ablation procedures that have shown tendencies to reduce migraine symptoms and frequencies.”
In regard to the role that migraine aura played in this, they speculated as to whether migraine aura could be the result of cardioembolic stroke that might have occurred because of the atrial fibrillation.
Overall, 167 patients had incident cardioembolic strokes, and researchers suggested strokes in 87% of these cases could be attributed to the atrial fibrillation that came before the stroke.
The stroke incidence rate also was around twice as high in individuals who experienced migraine with aura, compared with those who experienced migraine without aura (4.1 per 1,000 person-years vs. 2.07 per 1,000 person-years).
The study authors acknowledged that patent foramen ovale, which was not assessed in ARIC, is a possible confounder. Previous studies have showed that patent foramen ovale is more common in younger individuals with migraine and particularly in patients who experience migraine with aura.
However, they also noted that trials of patent foramen ovale closures as a treatment for migraine have not shown success in reducing migraine frequency and, therefore, argued against patent foramen ovale as being a major confounder.
The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. One author declared grants from the National Institutes of health, one declared research support from Tian Medical, and one author is an associate editor for Neurology. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
SOURCE: Sen S et al. Neurology. 2018;91:1-9.
This article was updated 12/12/18.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Key clinical point: Aura in migraine is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation.
Major finding: Individuals who experience migraine with aura have a 39% higher risk of atrial fibrillation than do those without aura or without migraine.
Study details: The longitudinal, community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study in 11,939 individuals.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. One author declared grants from the National Institutes of health, one declared research support from Tian Medical, and one author is an associate editor for Neurology. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Source: Sen S et al. Neurology. 2018;91:1-9.
Is prehospital cooling in cardiac arrest ready for prime time?
CHICAGO – Starting transnasal evaporative cooling before patients in cardiac arrest arrive at the hospital has been found to be safe, according to study results presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The European trial didn’t determine any benefit in the out-of-hospital approach, compared with in-hospital cooling across all study patients. But it did suggest that patients with ventricular fibrillation may achieve higher rates of complete neurologic recovery with the prehospital cooling approach.
“Transnasal evaporative cooling in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is hemodynamically safe,” said Per Nordberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, reporting for the Prehospital Resuscitation Intra-arrest Cooling Effectiveness Survival Study (PRINCESS). “I think this an important message, because guidelines state at the moment that you shouldn’t cool patients outside the hospital. We have shown that this is possible with this new method.”
Transnasal evaporative cooling (RhinoChill) is a noninvasive method that involves cooling of the brain and provides continuous cooling without volume loading.
Centers in seven European countries participated in the trial, randomizing 677 patients to the transnasal, early cooling protocol or standard in-hospital hypothermia. The final analysis evaluated 671 patients: 337 in the intervention group and 334 in the control group. In the intervention group, the transnasal cooling technique was started on patients during CPR in their homes or in the ambulance.
The study found that the rate of 90-day survival with good neurological outcome was 16.6% in the intervention group, compared with 13.5% in the control group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .26).
“However, we could see a signal or a clinical trend toward an improved neurologic outcome in patients with ventricular fibrillation,” Dr. Nordberg said: 34.8% vs. 25.9% for the intervention vs. control populations, a relative, nonsignificant difference of 25% (P = .11).
In terms of complete neurologic recovery, the differences between the treatment groups among those with ventricular fibrillation were even more profound, and significant: 32.6% vs. 20% (P = .002).
Rates of cardiovascular complications – ventricular fibrillation, cardiogenic shock, pulmonary edema, and need for vasopressor – were similar between both groups, although the intervention group had low rates of nasal-related problems such as nose bleed and white nose tip that the control group didn’t have.
Transnasal evaporative cooling “could significantly shorten the time to the target temperature; we have shown that in previous safety feasibility trials,” Dr. Nordberg said. “Now, we can confirm that this method is effective to cool patients with cardiac arrest outside the hospital.”
In his discussion of the trial, Christopher B. Granger, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted that the trial was well conducted and that it confirmed that patients can be rapidly cooled during or immediately after cardiac arrest. “But we still do not know if this has meaningful improvement in clinical outcomes,” he cautioned. A strength of the trial is its size, particularly “in a very challenging setting,” Dr. Granger added.
But he questioned the potential for neurological benefit in patients with ventricular fibrillation, particularly because the finding conflicts with a previously published trial (Crit Care Med. 2009 Dec;37[12]:3062-9). “With the primary outcome not significantly reduced, the subgroup analysis may not be reliable,” he said.
What’s needed next? “This trial provides some suggestion of the benefit of early rapid cooling in the ventricular fibrillation population,” Dr. Granger said, “but another trial is needed to justify a widespread change in practice.”
He reported receiving funding from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. The makers of RhinoChill provided the cooling device used in the study at no cost to the participating sites.
Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Armetheon, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic and the Medtronic Foundation, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Rho Pharmaceuticals, Sirtex, and Verseon.
SOURCE: Nordberg P et al. Abstract 2018-LBCT-18598-AHA.
CHICAGO – Starting transnasal evaporative cooling before patients in cardiac arrest arrive at the hospital has been found to be safe, according to study results presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The European trial didn’t determine any benefit in the out-of-hospital approach, compared with in-hospital cooling across all study patients. But it did suggest that patients with ventricular fibrillation may achieve higher rates of complete neurologic recovery with the prehospital cooling approach.
“Transnasal evaporative cooling in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is hemodynamically safe,” said Per Nordberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, reporting for the Prehospital Resuscitation Intra-arrest Cooling Effectiveness Survival Study (PRINCESS). “I think this an important message, because guidelines state at the moment that you shouldn’t cool patients outside the hospital. We have shown that this is possible with this new method.”
Transnasal evaporative cooling (RhinoChill) is a noninvasive method that involves cooling of the brain and provides continuous cooling without volume loading.
Centers in seven European countries participated in the trial, randomizing 677 patients to the transnasal, early cooling protocol or standard in-hospital hypothermia. The final analysis evaluated 671 patients: 337 in the intervention group and 334 in the control group. In the intervention group, the transnasal cooling technique was started on patients during CPR in their homes or in the ambulance.
The study found that the rate of 90-day survival with good neurological outcome was 16.6% in the intervention group, compared with 13.5% in the control group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .26).
“However, we could see a signal or a clinical trend toward an improved neurologic outcome in patients with ventricular fibrillation,” Dr. Nordberg said: 34.8% vs. 25.9% for the intervention vs. control populations, a relative, nonsignificant difference of 25% (P = .11).
In terms of complete neurologic recovery, the differences between the treatment groups among those with ventricular fibrillation were even more profound, and significant: 32.6% vs. 20% (P = .002).
Rates of cardiovascular complications – ventricular fibrillation, cardiogenic shock, pulmonary edema, and need for vasopressor – were similar between both groups, although the intervention group had low rates of nasal-related problems such as nose bleed and white nose tip that the control group didn’t have.
Transnasal evaporative cooling “could significantly shorten the time to the target temperature; we have shown that in previous safety feasibility trials,” Dr. Nordberg said. “Now, we can confirm that this method is effective to cool patients with cardiac arrest outside the hospital.”
In his discussion of the trial, Christopher B. Granger, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted that the trial was well conducted and that it confirmed that patients can be rapidly cooled during or immediately after cardiac arrest. “But we still do not know if this has meaningful improvement in clinical outcomes,” he cautioned. A strength of the trial is its size, particularly “in a very challenging setting,” Dr. Granger added.
But he questioned the potential for neurological benefit in patients with ventricular fibrillation, particularly because the finding conflicts with a previously published trial (Crit Care Med. 2009 Dec;37[12]:3062-9). “With the primary outcome not significantly reduced, the subgroup analysis may not be reliable,” he said.
What’s needed next? “This trial provides some suggestion of the benefit of early rapid cooling in the ventricular fibrillation population,” Dr. Granger said, “but another trial is needed to justify a widespread change in practice.”
He reported receiving funding from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. The makers of RhinoChill provided the cooling device used in the study at no cost to the participating sites.
Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Armetheon, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic and the Medtronic Foundation, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Rho Pharmaceuticals, Sirtex, and Verseon.
SOURCE: Nordberg P et al. Abstract 2018-LBCT-18598-AHA.
CHICAGO – Starting transnasal evaporative cooling before patients in cardiac arrest arrive at the hospital has been found to be safe, according to study results presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The European trial didn’t determine any benefit in the out-of-hospital approach, compared with in-hospital cooling across all study patients. But it did suggest that patients with ventricular fibrillation may achieve higher rates of complete neurologic recovery with the prehospital cooling approach.
“Transnasal evaporative cooling in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is hemodynamically safe,” said Per Nordberg, MD, PhD, of Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, reporting for the Prehospital Resuscitation Intra-arrest Cooling Effectiveness Survival Study (PRINCESS). “I think this an important message, because guidelines state at the moment that you shouldn’t cool patients outside the hospital. We have shown that this is possible with this new method.”
Transnasal evaporative cooling (RhinoChill) is a noninvasive method that involves cooling of the brain and provides continuous cooling without volume loading.
Centers in seven European countries participated in the trial, randomizing 677 patients to the transnasal, early cooling protocol or standard in-hospital hypothermia. The final analysis evaluated 671 patients: 337 in the intervention group and 334 in the control group. In the intervention group, the transnasal cooling technique was started on patients during CPR in their homes or in the ambulance.
The study found that the rate of 90-day survival with good neurological outcome was 16.6% in the intervention group, compared with 13.5% in the control group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .26).
“However, we could see a signal or a clinical trend toward an improved neurologic outcome in patients with ventricular fibrillation,” Dr. Nordberg said: 34.8% vs. 25.9% for the intervention vs. control populations, a relative, nonsignificant difference of 25% (P = .11).
In terms of complete neurologic recovery, the differences between the treatment groups among those with ventricular fibrillation were even more profound, and significant: 32.6% vs. 20% (P = .002).
Rates of cardiovascular complications – ventricular fibrillation, cardiogenic shock, pulmonary edema, and need for vasopressor – were similar between both groups, although the intervention group had low rates of nasal-related problems such as nose bleed and white nose tip that the control group didn’t have.
Transnasal evaporative cooling “could significantly shorten the time to the target temperature; we have shown that in previous safety feasibility trials,” Dr. Nordberg said. “Now, we can confirm that this method is effective to cool patients with cardiac arrest outside the hospital.”
In his discussion of the trial, Christopher B. Granger, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted that the trial was well conducted and that it confirmed that patients can be rapidly cooled during or immediately after cardiac arrest. “But we still do not know if this has meaningful improvement in clinical outcomes,” he cautioned. A strength of the trial is its size, particularly “in a very challenging setting,” Dr. Granger added.
But he questioned the potential for neurological benefit in patients with ventricular fibrillation, particularly because the finding conflicts with a previously published trial (Crit Care Med. 2009 Dec;37[12]:3062-9). “With the primary outcome not significantly reduced, the subgroup analysis may not be reliable,” he said.
What’s needed next? “This trial provides some suggestion of the benefit of early rapid cooling in the ventricular fibrillation population,” Dr. Granger said, “but another trial is needed to justify a widespread change in practice.”
He reported receiving funding from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. The makers of RhinoChill provided the cooling device used in the study at no cost to the participating sites.
Dr. Granger reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Armetheon, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic and the Medtronic Foundation, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Pfizer, Rho Pharmaceuticals, Sirtex, and Verseon.
SOURCE: Nordberg P et al. Abstract 2018-LBCT-18598-AHA.
REPORTING FROM THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point: Prehospital hypothermia therapy for cardiac arrest patients is safe.
Major finding: Ninety-day survival was 16.6% in the intervention group vs. 13.5% in controls (P = .26).
Study details: A randomized clinical trial of 677 patients who had cardiac arrest outside the hospital.
Disclosures: Dr. Nordberg receives funding from the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation. The makers of RhinoChill provided the cooling device used in the study at no cost to the participating sites.
Source: Nordberg P et al. Abstract 2018-LBCT-18598-AHA.
Apixaban is safest effective DOAC for stroke prevention in Afib, per AHRQ report
, according to results of an updated comparative effectiveness review.
Dabigatran (Pradaxa), by contrast, has shown reductions in stroke events but a similar rate of bleeding events compared to warfarin, according to the report from the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, N.C.
Rivaroxaban (Xarelto), meanwhile, is “similar in both benefits and harms with warfarin” in evidence to date, investigators wrote in the report, which was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Finally, edoxaban (Savaysa) is “most likely similar” to warfarin with respect to preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with less risk for major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, investigators wrote in a summary of their findings on the AHRQ website.
“Effectiveness of these direct oral anticoagulants as compared to one another however is limited by the lack of randomized studies directly comparing their safety and effectiveness,” concluded investigators, led by Gillian D. Sanders, PhD, of Duke University.
The 612-page report details a systematic review based on 320 articles representing 185 unique studies. The review was designed to update a 2013 AHRQ report that evaluated evidence not only for treatment options to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but also for tools used to predict risk of stroke or bleeding.
In the 2013 report, investigators concluded that the newer anticoagulants showed “early promise” in reducing stroke and bleeding events compared with warfarin.
That earlier report said that CHA2 and CHA2DS2-VASc had the best evidence to support prediction of stroke events, while HAS-BLED provided the best discrimination of bleeding risk.
The updated report adds the ABC stroke risk score as a tool that, along with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc, has the “best evidence” predicting thromboembolic risk, authors said.
Imaging tools, on the other hand, still need more evidence supporting their use to predict thromboembolic risk, Dr. Sanders and colleagues said in their report.
The literature review, which covered the January 2000 through February 2018, turned up 61 studies relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk, 38 on bleeding risk, and 117 on preventing thromboembolic events with anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedures.
Direct oral anticoagulants were evaluated in randomized clinical trials that were “often very large, of good quality, and considered definitive in the field,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report.
However, these trials were constrained to comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin or aspirin, and have not involved head-to-head comparison among the newer agents, they added.
“Based on these trials though, clinical leaders and professional societies have determined that these newer agents are better than the prior lone treatment of warfarin in terms of stroke prevention, side effects, and risk of bleeding,” they said in the published report.
SOURCE: Sanders GD, et al. 2018 Oct 30. AHRQ Publication No. 18(19)-EHC018-EF.
, according to results of an updated comparative effectiveness review.
Dabigatran (Pradaxa), by contrast, has shown reductions in stroke events but a similar rate of bleeding events compared to warfarin, according to the report from the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, N.C.
Rivaroxaban (Xarelto), meanwhile, is “similar in both benefits and harms with warfarin” in evidence to date, investigators wrote in the report, which was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Finally, edoxaban (Savaysa) is “most likely similar” to warfarin with respect to preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with less risk for major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, investigators wrote in a summary of their findings on the AHRQ website.
“Effectiveness of these direct oral anticoagulants as compared to one another however is limited by the lack of randomized studies directly comparing their safety and effectiveness,” concluded investigators, led by Gillian D. Sanders, PhD, of Duke University.
The 612-page report details a systematic review based on 320 articles representing 185 unique studies. The review was designed to update a 2013 AHRQ report that evaluated evidence not only for treatment options to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but also for tools used to predict risk of stroke or bleeding.
In the 2013 report, investigators concluded that the newer anticoagulants showed “early promise” in reducing stroke and bleeding events compared with warfarin.
That earlier report said that CHA2 and CHA2DS2-VASc had the best evidence to support prediction of stroke events, while HAS-BLED provided the best discrimination of bleeding risk.
The updated report adds the ABC stroke risk score as a tool that, along with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc, has the “best evidence” predicting thromboembolic risk, authors said.
Imaging tools, on the other hand, still need more evidence supporting their use to predict thromboembolic risk, Dr. Sanders and colleagues said in their report.
The literature review, which covered the January 2000 through February 2018, turned up 61 studies relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk, 38 on bleeding risk, and 117 on preventing thromboembolic events with anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedures.
Direct oral anticoagulants were evaluated in randomized clinical trials that were “often very large, of good quality, and considered definitive in the field,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report.
However, these trials were constrained to comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin or aspirin, and have not involved head-to-head comparison among the newer agents, they added.
“Based on these trials though, clinical leaders and professional societies have determined that these newer agents are better than the prior lone treatment of warfarin in terms of stroke prevention, side effects, and risk of bleeding,” they said in the published report.
SOURCE: Sanders GD, et al. 2018 Oct 30. AHRQ Publication No. 18(19)-EHC018-EF.
, according to results of an updated comparative effectiveness review.
Dabigatran (Pradaxa), by contrast, has shown reductions in stroke events but a similar rate of bleeding events compared to warfarin, according to the report from the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, N.C.
Rivaroxaban (Xarelto), meanwhile, is “similar in both benefits and harms with warfarin” in evidence to date, investigators wrote in the report, which was prepared for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).
Finally, edoxaban (Savaysa) is “most likely similar” to warfarin with respect to preventing stroke or systemic embolism, with less risk for major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke, investigators wrote in a summary of their findings on the AHRQ website.
“Effectiveness of these direct oral anticoagulants as compared to one another however is limited by the lack of randomized studies directly comparing their safety and effectiveness,” concluded investigators, led by Gillian D. Sanders, PhD, of Duke University.
The 612-page report details a systematic review based on 320 articles representing 185 unique studies. The review was designed to update a 2013 AHRQ report that evaluated evidence not only for treatment options to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but also for tools used to predict risk of stroke or bleeding.
In the 2013 report, investigators concluded that the newer anticoagulants showed “early promise” in reducing stroke and bleeding events compared with warfarin.
That earlier report said that CHA2 and CHA2DS2-VASc had the best evidence to support prediction of stroke events, while HAS-BLED provided the best discrimination of bleeding risk.
The updated report adds the ABC stroke risk score as a tool that, along with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc, has the “best evidence” predicting thromboembolic risk, authors said.
Imaging tools, on the other hand, still need more evidence supporting their use to predict thromboembolic risk, Dr. Sanders and colleagues said in their report.
The literature review, which covered the January 2000 through February 2018, turned up 61 studies relevant to predicting thromboembolic risk, 38 on bleeding risk, and 117 on preventing thromboembolic events with anticoagulation therapies, antiplatelet therapies, or procedures.
Direct oral anticoagulants were evaluated in randomized clinical trials that were “often very large, of good quality, and considered definitive in the field,” Dr. Sanders and colleagues wrote in their report.
However, these trials were constrained to comparing direct oral anticoagulants with warfarin or aspirin, and have not involved head-to-head comparison among the newer agents, they added.
“Based on these trials though, clinical leaders and professional societies have determined that these newer agents are better than the prior lone treatment of warfarin in terms of stroke prevention, side effects, and risk of bleeding,” they said in the published report.
SOURCE: Sanders GD, et al. 2018 Oct 30. AHRQ Publication No. 18(19)-EHC018-EF.