CAD & Atherosclerosis

A 66-year-old woman is discharged from the hospital after an MI. Her discharge medications include atorvastatin 40 mg, lisinopril 20 mg, acetylsalicylic acid 81 mg, and clopidogrel 75 mg. At this patient’s follow-up appointment, she mentions that she has muscle pain and stiffness in both legs and her back. Her labs include thyroid-stimulating hormone of 2.0 and vitamin D of 40. She stops the atorvastatin for 2 weeks with resolution of her symptoms.

Which treatment recommendation would you make for this patient?

A. Restart atorvastatin

B. Start rosuvastatin twice a week

C. Start ezetimibe

D. Start a PCSK9 inhibitor

We often see high-risk cardiovascular disease patients who are concerned about muscle side effects brought on by statins. I think we all can agree that this patient needs aggressive medical therapy for prevention of secondary cardiovascular events. I would restart her atorvastatin.

Neilsen and Nordestgaard found that early statin discontinuation rates increased from 6% in 1995 to 18% in 2010.¹

Early statin discontinuation correlated with negative statin-related news stories, their paper states. This suggests either an increased awareness of side effects or a possible nocebo effect.
 

Statin rechallenge results

Joy and colleagues reported the results on eight patients who had developed myalgias within 3 weeks of starting a statin. These patients, who received placebo or statin, completed an N-of-1 trial with three double-blind, crossover comparisons separated by 3-week washout periods.

Patients were evaluated pain on a visual analog scale (VAS). For each N-of-1 trial there was no statistically significant difference in pain or myalgia score between those who took statin and placebo. Five of the eight patients chose to continue on statins at the end of the trial.

Herrett and colleagues performed a more extensive series of N-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.³ Participants either received 2 months of atorvastatin 20 mg or placebo for 2-month blocks six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a VAS at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.

Wood and colleagues took it a step further, when they studied an N-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.⁴ Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).

Taylor and colleagues studied 120 patients who had prior statin-associated muscle complaints.⁵ Each patient received either simvastatin 20 mg or placebo for 4 weeks, and then were switched for an additional 4 weeks. A total of 43 patients (36%) had pain on simvastatin but not placebo, 21 (17%) had no pain with either treatment, 21 (17%) reported pain with both treatments, and 35 (29%) had pain with placebo but not simvastatin. These studies support the concept of nocebo effect in patients who have muscle symptoms on statins.

So what should be done? Brennan and Roy did a retrospective study of 118 patients referred to a lipid clinic as being statin intolerant to two or more statins.⁶ Most of the patients were able to tolerate a statin: 71% tolerated same statin rechallenge, 53% tolerated statin switch, and 57% tolerated a nonstatin therapy.

In the Prosisa study, only 27% of patients who reported statin-associated muscle symptoms had reappearance of muscle symptoms after rechallenge with a statin.7
 

Research implications

Rechallenge with the same statin seems to be a reasonable first step, followed by switching to a different statin. I also share the concept of nocebo effect with my patients, and tell them I believe they have an excellent chance of tolerating the statin.

Pearl: The majority of patients with muscle symptoms while taking a statin likely have a nocebo effect, and are likely to tolerate rechallenge with the same statin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Nielsen SF and Nordestgaard BG. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:908-16.

2. Joy TR et al. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:301-10.

3. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n135.

4. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2182-4.

5. Taylor BA et al. Atherosclerosis. 2017;256:100-4.

6. Brennen ET and Roy TR. Can J Card. 2017;33(5):666-73.

7. Bonaiti Fet al. Atherosclerosis. 2020;315:E13-4.

A 66-year-old woman is discharged from the hospital after an MI. Her discharge medications include atorvastatin 40 mg, lisinopril 20 mg, acetylsalicylic acid 81 mg, and clopidogrel 75 mg. At this patient’s follow-up appointment, she mentions that she has muscle pain and stiffness in both legs and her back. Her labs include thyroid-stimulating hormone of 2.0 and vitamin D of 40. She stops the atorvastatin for 2 weeks with resolution of her symptoms.

Which treatment recommendation would you make for this patient?

A. Restart atorvastatin

B. Start rosuvastatin twice a week

C. Start ezetimibe

D. Start a PCSK9 inhibitor

We often see high-risk cardiovascular disease patients who are concerned about muscle side effects brought on by statins. I think we all can agree that this patient needs aggressive medical therapy for prevention of secondary cardiovascular events. I would restart her atorvastatin.

Neilsen and Nordestgaard found that early statin discontinuation rates increased from 6% in 1995 to 18% in 2010.¹

Early statin discontinuation correlated with negative statin-related news stories, their paper states. This suggests either an increased awareness of side effects or a possible nocebo effect.
 

Statin rechallenge results

Joy and colleagues reported the results on eight patients who had developed myalgias within 3 weeks of starting a statin. These patients, who received placebo or statin, completed an N-of-1 trial with three double-blind, crossover comparisons separated by 3-week washout periods.

Patients were evaluated pain on a visual analog scale (VAS). For each N-of-1 trial there was no statistically significant difference in pain or myalgia score between those who took statin and placebo. Five of the eight patients chose to continue on statins at the end of the trial.

Herrett and colleagues performed a more extensive series of N-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.³ Participants either received 2 months of atorvastatin 20 mg or placebo for 2-month blocks six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a VAS at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.

Wood and colleagues took it a step further, when they studied an N-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.⁴ Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).

Taylor and colleagues studied 120 patients who had prior statin-associated muscle complaints.⁵ Each patient received either simvastatin 20 mg or placebo for 4 weeks, and then were switched for an additional 4 weeks. A total of 43 patients (36%) had pain on simvastatin but not placebo, 21 (17%) had no pain with either treatment, 21 (17%) reported pain with both treatments, and 35 (29%) had pain with placebo but not simvastatin. These studies support the concept of nocebo effect in patients who have muscle symptoms on statins.

So what should be done? Brennan and Roy did a retrospective study of 118 patients referred to a lipid clinic as being statin intolerant to two or more statins.⁶ Most of the patients were able to tolerate a statin: 71% tolerated same statin rechallenge, 53% tolerated statin switch, and 57% tolerated a nonstatin therapy.

In the Prosisa study, only 27% of patients who reported statin-associated muscle symptoms had reappearance of muscle symptoms after rechallenge with a statin.7
 

Research implications

Rechallenge with the same statin seems to be a reasonable first step, followed by switching to a different statin. I also share the concept of nocebo effect with my patients, and tell them I believe they have an excellent chance of tolerating the statin.

Pearl: The majority of patients with muscle symptoms while taking a statin likely have a nocebo effect, and are likely to tolerate rechallenge with the same statin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Nielsen SF and Nordestgaard BG. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:908-16.

2. Joy TR et al. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:301-10.

3. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n135.

4. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2182-4.

5. Taylor BA et al. Atherosclerosis. 2017;256:100-4.

6. Brennen ET and Roy TR. Can J Card. 2017;33(5):666-73.

7. Bonaiti Fet al. Atherosclerosis. 2020;315:E13-4.

A 66-year-old woman is discharged from the hospital after an MI. Her discharge medications include atorvastatin 40 mg, lisinopril 20 mg, acetylsalicylic acid 81 mg, and clopidogrel 75 mg. At this patient’s follow-up appointment, she mentions that she has muscle pain and stiffness in both legs and her back. Her labs include thyroid-stimulating hormone of 2.0 and vitamin D of 40. She stops the atorvastatin for 2 weeks with resolution of her symptoms.

Which treatment recommendation would you make for this patient?

A. Restart atorvastatin

B. Start rosuvastatin twice a week

C. Start ezetimibe

D. Start a PCSK9 inhibitor

We often see high-risk cardiovascular disease patients who are concerned about muscle side effects brought on by statins. I think we all can agree that this patient needs aggressive medical therapy for prevention of secondary cardiovascular events. I would restart her atorvastatin.

Neilsen and Nordestgaard found that early statin discontinuation rates increased from 6% in 1995 to 18% in 2010.¹

Early statin discontinuation correlated with negative statin-related news stories, their paper states. This suggests either an increased awareness of side effects or a possible nocebo effect.
 

Statin rechallenge results

Joy and colleagues reported the results on eight patients who had developed myalgias within 3 weeks of starting a statin. These patients, who received placebo or statin, completed an N-of-1 trial with three double-blind, crossover comparisons separated by 3-week washout periods.

Patients were evaluated pain on a visual analog scale (VAS). For each N-of-1 trial there was no statistically significant difference in pain or myalgia score between those who took statin and placebo. Five of the eight patients chose to continue on statins at the end of the trial.

Herrett and colleagues performed a more extensive series of N-of-1 trials involving 200 patients who had stopped or were considering stopping statins because of muscle symptoms.³ Participants either received 2 months of atorvastatin 20 mg or placebo for 2-month blocks six times. They rated their muscle symptoms on a VAS at the end of each block. There was no difference in muscle symptom scores between the statin and placebo periods.

Wood and colleagues took it a step further, when they studied an N-of-1 trial that included statin, placebo, and no treatment.⁴ Each participant received four bottles of atorvastatin 20 mg, four bottles of placebo, and four empty bottles. Each month they used treatment from the bottles based on random sequence and reported daily symptom scores. The mean symptom intensity was 8.0 during no-tablet months, 15.4 during placebo months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months), and 16.3 during statin months (P < .001, compared with no-tablet months; P = .39, compared with placebo).

Taylor and colleagues studied 120 patients who had prior statin-associated muscle complaints.⁵ Each patient received either simvastatin 20 mg or placebo for 4 weeks, and then were switched for an additional 4 weeks. A total of 43 patients (36%) had pain on simvastatin but not placebo, 21 (17%) had no pain with either treatment, 21 (17%) reported pain with both treatments, and 35 (29%) had pain with placebo but not simvastatin. These studies support the concept of nocebo effect in patients who have muscle symptoms on statins.

So what should be done? Brennan and Roy did a retrospective study of 118 patients referred to a lipid clinic as being statin intolerant to two or more statins.⁶ Most of the patients were able to tolerate a statin: 71% tolerated same statin rechallenge, 53% tolerated statin switch, and 57% tolerated a nonstatin therapy.

In the Prosisa study, only 27% of patients who reported statin-associated muscle symptoms had reappearance of muscle symptoms after rechallenge with a statin.7
 

Research implications

Rechallenge with the same statin seems to be a reasonable first step, followed by switching to a different statin. I also share the concept of nocebo effect with my patients, and tell them I believe they have an excellent chance of tolerating the statin.

Pearl: The majority of patients with muscle symptoms while taking a statin likely have a nocebo effect, and are likely to tolerate rechallenge with the same statin.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].

References

1. Nielsen SF and Nordestgaard BG. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:908-16.

2. Joy TR et al. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:301-10.

3. Herrett E et al. BMJ. 2021 Feb 24;372:n135.

4. Wood FA et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2182-4.

5. Taylor BA et al. Atherosclerosis. 2017;256:100-4.

6. Brennen ET and Roy TR. Can J Card. 2017;33(5):666-73.

7. Bonaiti Fet al. Atherosclerosis. 2020;315:E13-4.

Observational data indicate that the number of hospitalizations for cardiac arrests linked to opioid use roughly doubled from 2012 to 2018.

“This was an observational study, so we cannot conclude that all of the arrests were caused by opioids, but the findings do suggest the opioid epidemic is a contributor to increasing rates,” Senada S. Malik, of the University of New England, Portland, Maine, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The data were drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012 to 2018, the most recent period available. Cardiac arrests were considered opioid related if there was a secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. The rates of opioid-associated hospitalizations for these types of cardiac arrests climbed from about 800 per year in 2012 to 1,500 per year in 2018, a trend that was statistically significant (P < .05).

The profile of patients with an opioid-associated cardiac arrest was different from those without secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. This included a younger age and lower rates of comorbidities: heart failure (21.2% vs. 40.6%; P < .05), renal failure (14.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .05), diabetes (19.5% vs. 35.4%; P < .05), and hypertension (43.4% vs. 64.9%; P < .05).
 

Mortality from opioid-associated cardiac arrest is lower

These features might explain the lower rate of in-hospital mortality for opioid-associated cardiac arrests (56.7% vs. 61.2%), according to Ms. Malik, who performed this research in collaboration with Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, director of cardiology research, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y.

When compared to those without a history of opioid use on admission, those with opioid-associated cardiac arrest were more likely to be depressed (18.8% vs. 9.0%), to smoke (37.0% vs. 21.8%) and to abuse alcohol (16.9% vs. 7.1%), according to the NIS data.

While these findings are based on cardiac arrests brought to a hospital, some opioid-induced cardiac arrests never result in hospital admission, according to data included in a recently issued scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Rate of opioid-associated cardiac arrests underestimated

In that statement, which was focused on opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OA-OHCA), numerous studies were cited to support the conclusion that these events are common and underestimated. One problem is that opioid-induced cardiac arrests are not always accurately differentiated from cardiac arrests induced by use of other substances, such as barbiturates, cocaine, or alcohol.

For this and other reasons, the data are inconsistent. One study based on emergency medical service (EMS) response data concluded that 9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid associated.

In another study using potentially more accurate autopsy data, 60% of the non–cardiac-associated cardiac arrests were found to occur in individuals with potentially lethal serum concentrations of opioids. As 40% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were considered non–cardiac related, this suggested that 15% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid related.

In the NIS data, the incident curves of opioid-related cardiac arrests appeared to be flattening in 2018, the last year of data collection, but there was no indication they were declining.
 

Patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrests evolving

The patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrest have changed and are likely to continue to change in response to the evolving opioid epidemic, according to the AHA scientific statement. The authors described three waves of opioid abuse. The first, which was related to the promotion of prescription opioids to treat chronic pain that ultimately led to high rates of opioid addiction, peaked in 2012 when rates of these prescriptions began to fall. At that time a second wave, attributed to patients switching to less expensive nonprescription heroin, was already underway. A third wave, attributed to growth in the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, began in 2013 and is ongoing, according to data cited in the AHA statement.

Recognizing the role of opioids in rising rates of cardiac arrest is important for promoting strategies of effective treatment and prevention, according to Cameron Dezfulian, MD, medical director of the adult congenital heart disease program at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Dr. Dezfulian was vice chair and leader of the writing committee for the AHA scientific statement on OA-OHCA. He said there are plenty of data to support the need for greater attention to the role of opioids in cardiac arrest.

“The recent data affirms the trends many of us have observed without our emergency rooms and ICUs: a steady increase in the proportion of OA-OHCA, primarily in young and otherwise healthy individuals,” he said.

He calls not only for more awareness at the front lines of health are but also for a more comprehensive approach.

“Public health policies and community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to reduce the mortality due to OA-OHCA, which is distinct from the traditional cardiac etiology,” Dr. Dezfulian said.

In opioid-induced cardiac arrest, as in other types of cardiac arrest, prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential, but early administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can also be lifesaving, according to treatment strategies outlined in the AHA scientific statement. The fact that OA-OHCA typically occur in patients with structurally and electrophysiologically normal hearts is emphasized in the AHA statement. So is the enormous public health toll of OA-OHCA.

Death due to opioid overdose, which includes cardiac arrests, is now the leading cause of mortality in the U.S. among individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 years, according to the statement.

Ms. Malik reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Dezfulian reports a financial relationship with Mallinckrodt.

Observational data indicate that the number of hospitalizations for cardiac arrests linked to opioid use roughly doubled from 2012 to 2018.

“This was an observational study, so we cannot conclude that all of the arrests were caused by opioids, but the findings do suggest the opioid epidemic is a contributor to increasing rates,” Senada S. Malik, of the University of New England, Portland, Maine, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The data were drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012 to 2018, the most recent period available. Cardiac arrests were considered opioid related if there was a secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. The rates of opioid-associated hospitalizations for these types of cardiac arrests climbed from about 800 per year in 2012 to 1,500 per year in 2018, a trend that was statistically significant (P < .05).

The profile of patients with an opioid-associated cardiac arrest was different from those without secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. This included a younger age and lower rates of comorbidities: heart failure (21.2% vs. 40.6%; P < .05), renal failure (14.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .05), diabetes (19.5% vs. 35.4%; P < .05), and hypertension (43.4% vs. 64.9%; P < .05).
 

Mortality from opioid-associated cardiac arrest is lower

These features might explain the lower rate of in-hospital mortality for opioid-associated cardiac arrests (56.7% vs. 61.2%), according to Ms. Malik, who performed this research in collaboration with Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, director of cardiology research, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y.

When compared to those without a history of opioid use on admission, those with opioid-associated cardiac arrest were more likely to be depressed (18.8% vs. 9.0%), to smoke (37.0% vs. 21.8%) and to abuse alcohol (16.9% vs. 7.1%), according to the NIS data.

While these findings are based on cardiac arrests brought to a hospital, some opioid-induced cardiac arrests never result in hospital admission, according to data included in a recently issued scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Rate of opioid-associated cardiac arrests underestimated

In that statement, which was focused on opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OA-OHCA), numerous studies were cited to support the conclusion that these events are common and underestimated. One problem is that opioid-induced cardiac arrests are not always accurately differentiated from cardiac arrests induced by use of other substances, such as barbiturates, cocaine, or alcohol.

For this and other reasons, the data are inconsistent. One study based on emergency medical service (EMS) response data concluded that 9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid associated.

In another study using potentially more accurate autopsy data, 60% of the non–cardiac-associated cardiac arrests were found to occur in individuals with potentially lethal serum concentrations of opioids. As 40% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were considered non–cardiac related, this suggested that 15% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid related.

In the NIS data, the incident curves of opioid-related cardiac arrests appeared to be flattening in 2018, the last year of data collection, but there was no indication they were declining.
 

Patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrests evolving

The patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrest have changed and are likely to continue to change in response to the evolving opioid epidemic, according to the AHA scientific statement. The authors described three waves of opioid abuse. The first, which was related to the promotion of prescription opioids to treat chronic pain that ultimately led to high rates of opioid addiction, peaked in 2012 when rates of these prescriptions began to fall. At that time a second wave, attributed to patients switching to less expensive nonprescription heroin, was already underway. A third wave, attributed to growth in the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, began in 2013 and is ongoing, according to data cited in the AHA statement.

Recognizing the role of opioids in rising rates of cardiac arrest is important for promoting strategies of effective treatment and prevention, according to Cameron Dezfulian, MD, medical director of the adult congenital heart disease program at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Dr. Dezfulian was vice chair and leader of the writing committee for the AHA scientific statement on OA-OHCA. He said there are plenty of data to support the need for greater attention to the role of opioids in cardiac arrest.

“The recent data affirms the trends many of us have observed without our emergency rooms and ICUs: a steady increase in the proportion of OA-OHCA, primarily in young and otherwise healthy individuals,” he said.

He calls not only for more awareness at the front lines of health are but also for a more comprehensive approach.

“Public health policies and community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to reduce the mortality due to OA-OHCA, which is distinct from the traditional cardiac etiology,” Dr. Dezfulian said.

In opioid-induced cardiac arrest, as in other types of cardiac arrest, prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential, but early administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can also be lifesaving, according to treatment strategies outlined in the AHA scientific statement. The fact that OA-OHCA typically occur in patients with structurally and electrophysiologically normal hearts is emphasized in the AHA statement. So is the enormous public health toll of OA-OHCA.

Death due to opioid overdose, which includes cardiac arrests, is now the leading cause of mortality in the U.S. among individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 years, according to the statement.

Ms. Malik reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Dezfulian reports a financial relationship with Mallinckrodt.

Observational data indicate that the number of hospitalizations for cardiac arrests linked to opioid use roughly doubled from 2012 to 2018.

“This was an observational study, so we cannot conclude that all of the arrests were caused by opioids, but the findings do suggest the opioid epidemic is a contributor to increasing rates,” Senada S. Malik, of the University of New England, Portland, Maine, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The data were drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012 to 2018, the most recent period available. Cardiac arrests were considered opioid related if there was a secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. The rates of opioid-associated hospitalizations for these types of cardiac arrests climbed from about 800 per year in 2012 to 1,500 per year in 2018, a trend that was statistically significant (P < .05).

The profile of patients with an opioid-associated cardiac arrest was different from those without secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. This included a younger age and lower rates of comorbidities: heart failure (21.2% vs. 40.6%; P < .05), renal failure (14.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .05), diabetes (19.5% vs. 35.4%; P < .05), and hypertension (43.4% vs. 64.9%; P < .05).
 

Mortality from opioid-associated cardiac arrest is lower

These features might explain the lower rate of in-hospital mortality for opioid-associated cardiac arrests (56.7% vs. 61.2%), according to Ms. Malik, who performed this research in collaboration with Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, director of cardiology research, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y.

When compared to those without a history of opioid use on admission, those with opioid-associated cardiac arrest were more likely to be depressed (18.8% vs. 9.0%), to smoke (37.0% vs. 21.8%) and to abuse alcohol (16.9% vs. 7.1%), according to the NIS data.

While these findings are based on cardiac arrests brought to a hospital, some opioid-induced cardiac arrests never result in hospital admission, according to data included in a recently issued scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Rate of opioid-associated cardiac arrests underestimated

In that statement, which was focused on opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OA-OHCA), numerous studies were cited to support the conclusion that these events are common and underestimated. One problem is that opioid-induced cardiac arrests are not always accurately differentiated from cardiac arrests induced by use of other substances, such as barbiturates, cocaine, or alcohol.

For this and other reasons, the data are inconsistent. One study based on emergency medical service (EMS) response data concluded that 9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid associated.

In another study using potentially more accurate autopsy data, 60% of the non–cardiac-associated cardiac arrests were found to occur in individuals with potentially lethal serum concentrations of opioids. As 40% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were considered non–cardiac related, this suggested that 15% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid related.

In the NIS data, the incident curves of opioid-related cardiac arrests appeared to be flattening in 2018, the last year of data collection, but there was no indication they were declining.
 

Patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrests evolving

The patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrest have changed and are likely to continue to change in response to the evolving opioid epidemic, according to the AHA scientific statement. The authors described three waves of opioid abuse. The first, which was related to the promotion of prescription opioids to treat chronic pain that ultimately led to high rates of opioid addiction, peaked in 2012 when rates of these prescriptions began to fall. At that time a second wave, attributed to patients switching to less expensive nonprescription heroin, was already underway. A third wave, attributed to growth in the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, began in 2013 and is ongoing, according to data cited in the AHA statement.

Recognizing the role of opioids in rising rates of cardiac arrest is important for promoting strategies of effective treatment and prevention, according to Cameron Dezfulian, MD, medical director of the adult congenital heart disease program at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Dr. Dezfulian was vice chair and leader of the writing committee for the AHA scientific statement on OA-OHCA. He said there are plenty of data to support the need for greater attention to the role of opioids in cardiac arrest.

“The recent data affirms the trends many of us have observed without our emergency rooms and ICUs: a steady increase in the proportion of OA-OHCA, primarily in young and otherwise healthy individuals,” he said.

He calls not only for more awareness at the front lines of health are but also for a more comprehensive approach.

“Public health policies and community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to reduce the mortality due to OA-OHCA, which is distinct from the traditional cardiac etiology,” Dr. Dezfulian said.

In opioid-induced cardiac arrest, as in other types of cardiac arrest, prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential, but early administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can also be lifesaving, according to treatment strategies outlined in the AHA scientific statement. The fact that OA-OHCA typically occur in patients with structurally and electrophysiologically normal hearts is emphasized in the AHA statement. So is the enormous public health toll of OA-OHCA.

Death due to opioid overdose, which includes cardiac arrests, is now the leading cause of mortality in the U.S. among individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 years, according to the statement.

Ms. Malik reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Dezfulian reports a financial relationship with Mallinckrodt.

Estimating an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the cornerstone of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice. The new guidelines were published online Aug. 30 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with presentation at the European Stroke Congress (ESOC) 2021.   

They were developed by an ESOC task force in collaboration with 12 medical societies and with special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

“A chief goal of the task force was to create a single CVD prevention guideline for everyone – for primary care, for hospital care, for guiding clinical practice – so one guideline for all,” said cochair of the guideline committee Frank Visseren, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands. “We also wanted to make a more personalized CVD prevention guideline, instead of a one-size-fits-all. In clinical practice, people are very, very different, and we really want to have a more individualized prevention guideline,” said Dr. Visseren, as well as provide “more room for shared decision-making.”
 

Prevention at the individual and population levels

The new guidelines also give more attention to CVD prevention in older persons. “Many of our patients are over 70 years old and we really want to have more detail, more guidance on older persons,” said Dr. Visseren.

The guideline is divided into two sections. One section covers CVD prevention at the individual level in apparently healthy people, in patients with established CVD, and in those with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, or chronic kidney disease.

The other section covers CVD prevention at the population level, including public health policy, interventions, and the environment, including putting in place measures to reduce air pollution, use of fossil fuels, and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Targets for blood lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic control in diabetes remain in line with recent ESC guidelines on dyslipidemias, hypertension, or diabetes.

However, the guidelines introduce a new stepwise treatment-intensification approach to achieve these targets, with consideration of CVD risk, treatment benefit of risk factors, risk modifiers, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

The 2021 CVD prevention guidelines also embrace the recently published Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2 (SCORE2) and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) algorithms. “The algorithms we are using are a bit old and we want to have more updated risk prediction, because that’s the starting point of CVD prevention,” Dr. Visseren said.

The guidelines also introduce age-specific risk thresholds for risk factor treatments in apparently healthy people and provide estimation of lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit. This will allow clinicians to have “an informed discussion with patients on lifetime risk and potential treatment benefits,” Dr. Visseren said.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend smoking cessation regardless of whether it leads to weight gain, as weight gain does not lessen the benefits of cessation.

Regarding exercise, adults of all ages should aim for at least 150-300 minutes a week of moderate, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous, aerobic physical activity. The guidelines recommend reducing sedentary time and engaging in at least light activity throughout the day.

Regarding nutrition, the guidelines advise adopting a Mediterranean or similar diet; restricting alcohol intake to a maximum of 100 g per week (a standard drink is 8-14 g); eating fish, preferably fatty fish, at least once a week; and restricting consumption of meat, particularly processed meat.

Also for the first time, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be considered for obese individuals at elevated risk of CVD when a healthy diet and exercise fail to lead to weight loss that is maintained.

They note that individuals with mental disorders need additional attention and support to improve adherence to lifestyle changes and drug treatment.

They advise consideration of referring patients with heart disease and significant stress and anxiety to psychotherapeutic stress management to reduce stress symptoms and improve CV outcomes.

Potential cost issues that could be considered when implementing the guidelines are also reviewed.

Dr. Visseren acknowledged and thanked the task force members for continuing their work on the guidelines over the 2 “challenging” years.
 

Setting the bar lower?

Discussant for the guideline presentation, Diederick Grobbee, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, who was not involved in drafting the guidelines, said he does have one conflict of interest, which is a “passion for prevention.” From that perspective, he said the guideline panel “should be applauded; the once-every-5-year issuing of the prevention guidelines is a major event.”

Dr. Grobbee noted that the working group “really tried to follow their ambitions and goals, in a way making the guidelines simpler, or perhaps setting the bar not initially as high as we used to do, which may, in fact, sometimes scare off physicians and patients alike.”

“We’ve had prevention guidelines for quite some time now, yet looking at what is accomplished in practice is sobering,” said Dr. Grobbee. Introducing a stepwise approach is “really appealing,” he added.

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

Estimating an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the cornerstone of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice. The new guidelines were published online Aug. 30 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with presentation at the European Stroke Congress (ESOC) 2021.   

They were developed by an ESOC task force in collaboration with 12 medical societies and with special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

“A chief goal of the task force was to create a single CVD prevention guideline for everyone – for primary care, for hospital care, for guiding clinical practice – so one guideline for all,” said cochair of the guideline committee Frank Visseren, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands. “We also wanted to make a more personalized CVD prevention guideline, instead of a one-size-fits-all. In clinical practice, people are very, very different, and we really want to have a more individualized prevention guideline,” said Dr. Visseren, as well as provide “more room for shared decision-making.”
 

Prevention at the individual and population levels

The new guidelines also give more attention to CVD prevention in older persons. “Many of our patients are over 70 years old and we really want to have more detail, more guidance on older persons,” said Dr. Visseren.

The guideline is divided into two sections. One section covers CVD prevention at the individual level in apparently healthy people, in patients with established CVD, and in those with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, or chronic kidney disease.

The other section covers CVD prevention at the population level, including public health policy, interventions, and the environment, including putting in place measures to reduce air pollution, use of fossil fuels, and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Targets for blood lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic control in diabetes remain in line with recent ESC guidelines on dyslipidemias, hypertension, or diabetes.

However, the guidelines introduce a new stepwise treatment-intensification approach to achieve these targets, with consideration of CVD risk, treatment benefit of risk factors, risk modifiers, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

The 2021 CVD prevention guidelines also embrace the recently published Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2 (SCORE2) and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) algorithms. “The algorithms we are using are a bit old and we want to have more updated risk prediction, because that’s the starting point of CVD prevention,” Dr. Visseren said.

The guidelines also introduce age-specific risk thresholds for risk factor treatments in apparently healthy people and provide estimation of lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit. This will allow clinicians to have “an informed discussion with patients on lifetime risk and potential treatment benefits,” Dr. Visseren said.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend smoking cessation regardless of whether it leads to weight gain, as weight gain does not lessen the benefits of cessation.

Regarding exercise, adults of all ages should aim for at least 150-300 minutes a week of moderate, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous, aerobic physical activity. The guidelines recommend reducing sedentary time and engaging in at least light activity throughout the day.

Regarding nutrition, the guidelines advise adopting a Mediterranean or similar diet; restricting alcohol intake to a maximum of 100 g per week (a standard drink is 8-14 g); eating fish, preferably fatty fish, at least once a week; and restricting consumption of meat, particularly processed meat.

Also for the first time, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be considered for obese individuals at elevated risk of CVD when a healthy diet and exercise fail to lead to weight loss that is maintained.

They note that individuals with mental disorders need additional attention and support to improve adherence to lifestyle changes and drug treatment.

They advise consideration of referring patients with heart disease and significant stress and anxiety to psychotherapeutic stress management to reduce stress symptoms and improve CV outcomes.

Potential cost issues that could be considered when implementing the guidelines are also reviewed.

Dr. Visseren acknowledged and thanked the task force members for continuing their work on the guidelines over the 2 “challenging” years.
 

Setting the bar lower?

Discussant for the guideline presentation, Diederick Grobbee, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, who was not involved in drafting the guidelines, said he does have one conflict of interest, which is a “passion for prevention.” From that perspective, he said the guideline panel “should be applauded; the once-every-5-year issuing of the prevention guidelines is a major event.”

Dr. Grobbee noted that the working group “really tried to follow their ambitions and goals, in a way making the guidelines simpler, or perhaps setting the bar not initially as high as we used to do, which may, in fact, sometimes scare off physicians and patients alike.”

“We’ve had prevention guidelines for quite some time now, yet looking at what is accomplished in practice is sobering,” said Dr. Grobbee. Introducing a stepwise approach is “really appealing,” he added.

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

Estimating an individual’s risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the cornerstone of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice. The new guidelines were published online Aug. 30 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with presentation at the European Stroke Congress (ESOC) 2021.   

They were developed by an ESOC task force in collaboration with 12 medical societies and with special contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology.

“A chief goal of the task force was to create a single CVD prevention guideline for everyone – for primary care, for hospital care, for guiding clinical practice – so one guideline for all,” said cochair of the guideline committee Frank Visseren, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Utrecht, Netherlands. “We also wanted to make a more personalized CVD prevention guideline, instead of a one-size-fits-all. In clinical practice, people are very, very different, and we really want to have a more individualized prevention guideline,” said Dr. Visseren, as well as provide “more room for shared decision-making.”
 

Prevention at the individual and population levels

The new guidelines also give more attention to CVD prevention in older persons. “Many of our patients are over 70 years old and we really want to have more detail, more guidance on older persons,” said Dr. Visseren.

The guideline is divided into two sections. One section covers CVD prevention at the individual level in apparently healthy people, in patients with established CVD, and in those with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, or chronic kidney disease.

The other section covers CVD prevention at the population level, including public health policy, interventions, and the environment, including putting in place measures to reduce air pollution, use of fossil fuels, and limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Targets for blood lipids, blood pressure, and glycemic control in diabetes remain in line with recent ESC guidelines on dyslipidemias, hypertension, or diabetes.

However, the guidelines introduce a new stepwise treatment-intensification approach to achieve these targets, with consideration of CVD risk, treatment benefit of risk factors, risk modifiers, comorbidities, and patient preferences.

The 2021 CVD prevention guidelines also embrace the recently published Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2 (SCORE2) and Systemic Coronary Risk Estimation 2-Older Persons (SCORE2-OP) algorithms. “The algorithms we are using are a bit old and we want to have more updated risk prediction, because that’s the starting point of CVD prevention,” Dr. Visseren said.

The guidelines also introduce age-specific risk thresholds for risk factor treatments in apparently healthy people and provide estimation of lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit. This will allow clinicians to have “an informed discussion with patients on lifetime risk and potential treatment benefits,” Dr. Visseren said.

For the first time, the guidelines recommend smoking cessation regardless of whether it leads to weight gain, as weight gain does not lessen the benefits of cessation.

Regarding exercise, adults of all ages should aim for at least 150-300 minutes a week of moderate, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous, aerobic physical activity. The guidelines recommend reducing sedentary time and engaging in at least light activity throughout the day.

Regarding nutrition, the guidelines advise adopting a Mediterranean or similar diet; restricting alcohol intake to a maximum of 100 g per week (a standard drink is 8-14 g); eating fish, preferably fatty fish, at least once a week; and restricting consumption of meat, particularly processed meat.

Also for the first time, the guidelines state that bariatric surgery should be considered for obese individuals at elevated risk of CVD when a healthy diet and exercise fail to lead to weight loss that is maintained.

They note that individuals with mental disorders need additional attention and support to improve adherence to lifestyle changes and drug treatment.

They advise consideration of referring patients with heart disease and significant stress and anxiety to psychotherapeutic stress management to reduce stress symptoms and improve CV outcomes.

Potential cost issues that could be considered when implementing the guidelines are also reviewed.

Dr. Visseren acknowledged and thanked the task force members for continuing their work on the guidelines over the 2 “challenging” years.
 

Setting the bar lower?

Discussant for the guideline presentation, Diederick Grobbee, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, who was not involved in drafting the guidelines, said he does have one conflict of interest, which is a “passion for prevention.” From that perspective, he said the guideline panel “should be applauded; the once-every-5-year issuing of the prevention guidelines is a major event.”

Dr. Grobbee noted that the working group “really tried to follow their ambitions and goals, in a way making the guidelines simpler, or perhaps setting the bar not initially as high as we used to do, which may, in fact, sometimes scare off physicians and patients alike.”

“We’ve had prevention guidelines for quite some time now, yet looking at what is accomplished in practice is sobering,” said Dr. Grobbee. Introducing a stepwise approach is “really appealing,” he added.

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

Not sure if you’ve heard the news, but eating a single hot dog will apparently cost you 36 minutes of healthy life. My first thought when hearing this was of course the same as everyone else’s: Poor Joey Chestnut, multiyear winner of Nathan’s annual hot dog–eating contest.

He won this year’s contest with 76 hot dogs, which puts his total number of competition-consumed hot dogs at 1,089 – which cost him, it would seem, 27.2 days of healthy life. Unless, of course, every hot dog he inhaled came with a bun hosting two portions of sesame seeds, which in turn would buy him 50 extra minutes of life (25 minutes per portion, you see) and would consequently have extended his life by 10.6 days.

Clearly, the obvious solution here is to ensure that all hot dog buns have two portions of sesame seeds on them moving forward; that way, hot dogs can transition from being poisonous killers to antiaging medicine.

The other solution, albeit less exciting, perhaps, is for researchers to stop studying single foods’ impacts on health, and/or for journals to stop publishing them, and/or for the media to stop promoting them – because they are all as ridiculously useless as the example above highlighting findings from a newly published study in Nature Food, entitled “Small targeted dietary changes can yield substantial gains for human health and the environment.”

While no doubt we would all love for diet and health to be so well understood that we could choose specific single foods (knowing that they would prolong our lives) while avoiding single foods that would shorten it, there’s this unfortunate truth that the degree of confounding among food alone is staggering. People eat thousands of different foods in thousands of different dietary combinations. Moreover, most (all?) research conducted on dietary impacts of single foods on health don’t actually track consumption of those specific foods over time, let alone their interactions with all other foods consumed, but rather at moments in time.

In the case of the “hot dogs will kill you unless there are sesame seeds on your bun” article, for example, the researchers utilized one solitary dietary recall session upon which to base their ridiculously specific, ridiculous conclusions.

People’s diets also change over time for various reasons, and of course people themselves are very different. You might imagine that people whose diets are rich in chicken wings, sugared soda, and hot dogs will have markedly different lifestyles and demographics than those whose diets are rich in walnuts, sashimi, and avocados.

So why do we keep seeing studies like this being published? Is it because they’re basically clickbait catnip for journals and newspapers, and in our publish-or-perish attention-seeking world, that means they not only get a pass but they get a press release? Is it because peer review is broken and everyone knows it? Is it because as a society, we’re frogs who have been steeping for decades in the ever-heated pot of nutritional nonsense, and consequently don’t think to question it?

I don’t know the answer to any of those questions, but one thing I do know: Studies on single foods’ impact on life length are pointless, impossible, and idiotic, and people who share them noncritically should be forever shunned – or at the very least, forever ignored.

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight-management center.

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

Not sure if you’ve heard the news, but eating a single hot dog will apparently cost you 36 minutes of healthy life. My first thought when hearing this was of course the same as everyone else’s: Poor Joey Chestnut, multiyear winner of Nathan’s annual hot dog–eating contest.

He won this year’s contest with 76 hot dogs, which puts his total number of competition-consumed hot dogs at 1,089 – which cost him, it would seem, 27.2 days of healthy life. Unless, of course, every hot dog he inhaled came with a bun hosting two portions of sesame seeds, which in turn would buy him 50 extra minutes of life (25 minutes per portion, you see) and would consequently have extended his life by 10.6 days.

Clearly, the obvious solution here is to ensure that all hot dog buns have two portions of sesame seeds on them moving forward; that way, hot dogs can transition from being poisonous killers to antiaging medicine.

The other solution, albeit less exciting, perhaps, is for researchers to stop studying single foods’ impacts on health, and/or for journals to stop publishing them, and/or for the media to stop promoting them – because they are all as ridiculously useless as the example above highlighting findings from a newly published study in Nature Food, entitled “Small targeted dietary changes can yield substantial gains for human health and the environment.”

While no doubt we would all love for diet and health to be so well understood that we could choose specific single foods (knowing that they would prolong our lives) while avoiding single foods that would shorten it, there’s this unfortunate truth that the degree of confounding among food alone is staggering. People eat thousands of different foods in thousands of different dietary combinations. Moreover, most (all?) research conducted on dietary impacts of single foods on health don’t actually track consumption of those specific foods over time, let alone their interactions with all other foods consumed, but rather at moments in time.

In the case of the “hot dogs will kill you unless there are sesame seeds on your bun” article, for example, the researchers utilized one solitary dietary recall session upon which to base their ridiculously specific, ridiculous conclusions.

People’s diets also change over time for various reasons, and of course people themselves are very different. You might imagine that people whose diets are rich in chicken wings, sugared soda, and hot dogs will have markedly different lifestyles and demographics than those whose diets are rich in walnuts, sashimi, and avocados.

So why do we keep seeing studies like this being published? Is it because they’re basically clickbait catnip for journals and newspapers, and in our publish-or-perish attention-seeking world, that means they not only get a pass but they get a press release? Is it because peer review is broken and everyone knows it? Is it because as a society, we’re frogs who have been steeping for decades in the ever-heated pot of nutritional nonsense, and consequently don’t think to question it?

I don’t know the answer to any of those questions, but one thing I do know: Studies on single foods’ impact on life length are pointless, impossible, and idiotic, and people who share them noncritically should be forever shunned – or at the very least, forever ignored.

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight-management center.

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

Not sure if you’ve heard the news, but eating a single hot dog will apparently cost you 36 minutes of healthy life. My first thought when hearing this was of course the same as everyone else’s: Poor Joey Chestnut, multiyear winner of Nathan’s annual hot dog–eating contest.

He won this year’s contest with 76 hot dogs, which puts his total number of competition-consumed hot dogs at 1,089 – which cost him, it would seem, 27.2 days of healthy life. Unless, of course, every hot dog he inhaled came with a bun hosting two portions of sesame seeds, which in turn would buy him 50 extra minutes of life (25 minutes per portion, you see) and would consequently have extended his life by 10.6 days.

Clearly, the obvious solution here is to ensure that all hot dog buns have two portions of sesame seeds on them moving forward; that way, hot dogs can transition from being poisonous killers to antiaging medicine.

The other solution, albeit less exciting, perhaps, is for researchers to stop studying single foods’ impacts on health, and/or for journals to stop publishing them, and/or for the media to stop promoting them – because they are all as ridiculously useless as the example above highlighting findings from a newly published study in Nature Food, entitled “Small targeted dietary changes can yield substantial gains for human health and the environment.”

While no doubt we would all love for diet and health to be so well understood that we could choose specific single foods (knowing that they would prolong our lives) while avoiding single foods that would shorten it, there’s this unfortunate truth that the degree of confounding among food alone is staggering. People eat thousands of different foods in thousands of different dietary combinations. Moreover, most (all?) research conducted on dietary impacts of single foods on health don’t actually track consumption of those specific foods over time, let alone their interactions with all other foods consumed, but rather at moments in time.

In the case of the “hot dogs will kill you unless there are sesame seeds on your bun” article, for example, the researchers utilized one solitary dietary recall session upon which to base their ridiculously specific, ridiculous conclusions.

People’s diets also change over time for various reasons, and of course people themselves are very different. You might imagine that people whose diets are rich in chicken wings, sugared soda, and hot dogs will have markedly different lifestyles and demographics than those whose diets are rich in walnuts, sashimi, and avocados.

So why do we keep seeing studies like this being published? Is it because they’re basically clickbait catnip for journals and newspapers, and in our publish-or-perish attention-seeking world, that means they not only get a pass but they get a press release? Is it because peer review is broken and everyone knows it? Is it because as a society, we’re frogs who have been steeping for decades in the ever-heated pot of nutritional nonsense, and consequently don’t think to question it?

I don’t know the answer to any of those questions, but one thing I do know: Studies on single foods’ impact on life length are pointless, impossible, and idiotic, and people who share them noncritically should be forever shunned – or at the very least, forever ignored.

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, is an associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight-management center.

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

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) provided comparable outcomes over time in asymptomatic patients receiving good medical therapy in the largest trial to date of what to do with severe carotid artery narrowing that is yet to cause a stroke.

aaM Photography, Ltd./iStock

Among more than 3,600 patients, stenting and surgery performed by experienced physicians involved a 1.0% risk for causing disabling stroke or death within 30 days.

The annual rate of fatal or disabling strokes was about 0.5% with either procedure over an average 5 years’ follow-up – essentially halving the annual stroke risk had neither procedure been performed, according to Alison Halliday, MD, principal investigator of the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2).

The results were reported Aug. 29 in a Hot Line session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously online in The Lancet.

Session chair Gilles Montalescot, MD, Sorbonne University, Paris, noted that ACST-2 doubled the number of randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis studied in previous trials, “so, a huge contribution to the evidence base in this field and apparently good news for both revascularization techniques.”
 

Thirty-day and 5-year outcomes

The trial was conducted in 33 countries between January 2008 and December 2020, enrolling 3,625 patients (70% were male; mean age, 70 years) with carotid stenosis of at least 60% on ultrasonography, in whom stenting or surgery was suitable but both the doctor and patient were “substantially uncertain” which procedure to prefer.

Among the 1,811 patients assigned to stenting, 87% underwent the procedure at a median of 14 days; 6% crossed over to surgery, typically because of a highly calcified lesion or a more tortuous carotid than anticipated; and 6% had no intervention.

Among the 1,814 patients assigned to surgery, 92% had the procedure at a median of 14 days; 3% crossed over to stenting, typically because of patient or doctor preference or reluctance to undergo general anesthesia; and 4% had no intervention.

Patients without complications who had stenting stayed on average 1 day less than did those undergoing surgery.

During an earlier press briefing, Dr. Halliday highlighted the need for procedural competency and said doctors had to submit a record of their CEA or CAS experience and, consistent with current guidelines, had to demonstrate an independently verified stroke or death rate of 6% or less for symptomatic patients and 3% or lower for asymptomatic patients.

The results showed the 30-day risk for death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any stroke was 3.9% with carotid stenting and 3.2% with surgery (P = .26).

But with stenting, there was a slightly higher risk for procedural nondisabling strokes (48 vs. 29; P = .03), including 15 strokes vs. 5 strokes, respectively, that left patients with no residual symptoms. This is “consistent with large, recent nationally representative registry data,” observed Dr. Halliday, of the University of Oxford (England).

For those undergoing surgery, cranial nerve palsies were reported in 5.4% vs. no patients undergoing stenting.

At 5 years, the nonprocedural fatal or disabling stroke rate was 2.5% in each group (rate ratio [RR], 0.98; P = .91), with any nonprocedural stroke occurring in 5.3% of patients with stenting vs. 4.5% with surgery (RR, 1.16; P = .33).

The investigators performed a meta-analysis combining the ACST-2 results with those of eight prior trials (four in asymptomatic and four in symptomatic patients) that yielded a similar nonsignificant result for any nonprocedural stroke (RR, 1.11; P = .21).

Based on the results from ACST-2 plus the major trials, stenting and surgery involve “similar risks and similar benefits,” Dr. Halliday concluded.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, said, “In centers with documented expertise, carotid artery stenting should be offered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic stenosis and suitable anatomy.”

While the trial provides “good news” for patients, he pointed out that a reduction in the sample size from 5,000 to 3,625 limited the statistical power and that enrollment over a long period of time may have introduced confounders, such as changes in equipment technique, and medical therapy.

Also, many centers enrolled few patients, raising the concern over low-volume centers and operators, Dr. Roffi said. “We know that 8% of the centers enrolled 39% of the patients,” and “information on the credentialing and experience of the interventionalists was limited.”

Further, a lack of systematic MI assessment may have favored the surgery group, and more recent developments in stenting with the potential of reducing periprocedural stroke were rarely used, such as proximal emboli protection in only 15% and double-layer stents in 11%.

Friedhelm Beyersdorf, MD, University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, said that, as a vascular surgeon, he finds it understandable that there might be a higher incidence of nonfatal strokes when treating carotid stenosis with stents, given the vulnerability of these lesions.

“Nevertheless, the main conclusion from the entire study is that carotid artery treatment is extremely safe, it has to be done in order to avoid strokes, and, obviously, there seems to be an advantage for surgery in terms of nondisabling stroke,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Montalescot, however, said that what the study cannot address – and what was the subject of many online audience comments – is whether either intervention should be performed in these patients. 

Unlike earlier trials comparing interventions to medical therapy, Dr. Halliday said ACST-2 enrolled patients for whom the decision had been made that revascularization was needed. In addition, 99%-100% were receiving antithrombotic therapy at baseline, 85%-90% were receiving antihypertensives, and about 85% were taking statins.

Longer-term follow-up should provide a better picture of the nonprocedural stroke risk, with patients asked annually about exactly what medications and doses they are taking, she said.

“We will have an enormous list of exactly what’s gone on and the intensity of that therapy, which is, of course, much more intense than when we carried out our first trial. But these were people in whom a procedure was thought to be necessary,” she noted.

When asked during the press conference which procedure she would choose, Dr. Halliday, a surgeon, observed that patient preference is important but that the nature of the lesion itself often determines the optimal choice.

“If you know the competence of the people doing it is equal, then the less invasive procedure – providing it has good long-term viability, and that’s why we’re following for 10 years – is the more important,” she added.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme. Dr. Halliday reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) provided comparable outcomes over time in asymptomatic patients receiving good medical therapy in the largest trial to date of what to do with severe carotid artery narrowing that is yet to cause a stroke.

aaM Photography, Ltd./iStock

Among more than 3,600 patients, stenting and surgery performed by experienced physicians involved a 1.0% risk for causing disabling stroke or death within 30 days.

The annual rate of fatal or disabling strokes was about 0.5% with either procedure over an average 5 years’ follow-up – essentially halving the annual stroke risk had neither procedure been performed, according to Alison Halliday, MD, principal investigator of the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2).

The results were reported Aug. 29 in a Hot Line session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously online in The Lancet.

Session chair Gilles Montalescot, MD, Sorbonne University, Paris, noted that ACST-2 doubled the number of randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis studied in previous trials, “so, a huge contribution to the evidence base in this field and apparently good news for both revascularization techniques.”
 

Thirty-day and 5-year outcomes

The trial was conducted in 33 countries between January 2008 and December 2020, enrolling 3,625 patients (70% were male; mean age, 70 years) with carotid stenosis of at least 60% on ultrasonography, in whom stenting or surgery was suitable but both the doctor and patient were “substantially uncertain” which procedure to prefer.

Among the 1,811 patients assigned to stenting, 87% underwent the procedure at a median of 14 days; 6% crossed over to surgery, typically because of a highly calcified lesion or a more tortuous carotid than anticipated; and 6% had no intervention.

Among the 1,814 patients assigned to surgery, 92% had the procedure at a median of 14 days; 3% crossed over to stenting, typically because of patient or doctor preference or reluctance to undergo general anesthesia; and 4% had no intervention.

Patients without complications who had stenting stayed on average 1 day less than did those undergoing surgery.

During an earlier press briefing, Dr. Halliday highlighted the need for procedural competency and said doctors had to submit a record of their CEA or CAS experience and, consistent with current guidelines, had to demonstrate an independently verified stroke or death rate of 6% or less for symptomatic patients and 3% or lower for asymptomatic patients.

The results showed the 30-day risk for death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any stroke was 3.9% with carotid stenting and 3.2% with surgery (P = .26).

But with stenting, there was a slightly higher risk for procedural nondisabling strokes (48 vs. 29; P = .03), including 15 strokes vs. 5 strokes, respectively, that left patients with no residual symptoms. This is “consistent with large, recent nationally representative registry data,” observed Dr. Halliday, of the University of Oxford (England).

For those undergoing surgery, cranial nerve palsies were reported in 5.4% vs. no patients undergoing stenting.

At 5 years, the nonprocedural fatal or disabling stroke rate was 2.5% in each group (rate ratio [RR], 0.98; P = .91), with any nonprocedural stroke occurring in 5.3% of patients with stenting vs. 4.5% with surgery (RR, 1.16; P = .33).

The investigators performed a meta-analysis combining the ACST-2 results with those of eight prior trials (four in asymptomatic and four in symptomatic patients) that yielded a similar nonsignificant result for any nonprocedural stroke (RR, 1.11; P = .21).

Based on the results from ACST-2 plus the major trials, stenting and surgery involve “similar risks and similar benefits,” Dr. Halliday concluded.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, said, “In centers with documented expertise, carotid artery stenting should be offered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic stenosis and suitable anatomy.”

While the trial provides “good news” for patients, he pointed out that a reduction in the sample size from 5,000 to 3,625 limited the statistical power and that enrollment over a long period of time may have introduced confounders, such as changes in equipment technique, and medical therapy.

Also, many centers enrolled few patients, raising the concern over low-volume centers and operators, Dr. Roffi said. “We know that 8% of the centers enrolled 39% of the patients,” and “information on the credentialing and experience of the interventionalists was limited.”

Further, a lack of systematic MI assessment may have favored the surgery group, and more recent developments in stenting with the potential of reducing periprocedural stroke were rarely used, such as proximal emboli protection in only 15% and double-layer stents in 11%.

Friedhelm Beyersdorf, MD, University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, said that, as a vascular surgeon, he finds it understandable that there might be a higher incidence of nonfatal strokes when treating carotid stenosis with stents, given the vulnerability of these lesions.

“Nevertheless, the main conclusion from the entire study is that carotid artery treatment is extremely safe, it has to be done in order to avoid strokes, and, obviously, there seems to be an advantage for surgery in terms of nondisabling stroke,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Montalescot, however, said that what the study cannot address – and what was the subject of many online audience comments – is whether either intervention should be performed in these patients. 

Unlike earlier trials comparing interventions to medical therapy, Dr. Halliday said ACST-2 enrolled patients for whom the decision had been made that revascularization was needed. In addition, 99%-100% were receiving antithrombotic therapy at baseline, 85%-90% were receiving antihypertensives, and about 85% were taking statins.

Longer-term follow-up should provide a better picture of the nonprocedural stroke risk, with patients asked annually about exactly what medications and doses they are taking, she said.

“We will have an enormous list of exactly what’s gone on and the intensity of that therapy, which is, of course, much more intense than when we carried out our first trial. But these were people in whom a procedure was thought to be necessary,” she noted.

When asked during the press conference which procedure she would choose, Dr. Halliday, a surgeon, observed that patient preference is important but that the nature of the lesion itself often determines the optimal choice.

“If you know the competence of the people doing it is equal, then the less invasive procedure – providing it has good long-term viability, and that’s why we’re following for 10 years – is the more important,” she added.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme. Dr. Halliday reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) provided comparable outcomes over time in asymptomatic patients receiving good medical therapy in the largest trial to date of what to do with severe carotid artery narrowing that is yet to cause a stroke.

aaM Photography, Ltd./iStock

Among more than 3,600 patients, stenting and surgery performed by experienced physicians involved a 1.0% risk for causing disabling stroke or death within 30 days.

The annual rate of fatal or disabling strokes was about 0.5% with either procedure over an average 5 years’ follow-up – essentially halving the annual stroke risk had neither procedure been performed, according to Alison Halliday, MD, principal investigator of the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2).

The results were reported Aug. 29 in a Hot Line session at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and published simultaneously online in The Lancet.

Session chair Gilles Montalescot, MD, Sorbonne University, Paris, noted that ACST-2 doubled the number of randomly assigned patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis studied in previous trials, “so, a huge contribution to the evidence base in this field and apparently good news for both revascularization techniques.”
 

Thirty-day and 5-year outcomes

The trial was conducted in 33 countries between January 2008 and December 2020, enrolling 3,625 patients (70% were male; mean age, 70 years) with carotid stenosis of at least 60% on ultrasonography, in whom stenting or surgery was suitable but both the doctor and patient were “substantially uncertain” which procedure to prefer.

Among the 1,811 patients assigned to stenting, 87% underwent the procedure at a median of 14 days; 6% crossed over to surgery, typically because of a highly calcified lesion or a more tortuous carotid than anticipated; and 6% had no intervention.

Among the 1,814 patients assigned to surgery, 92% had the procedure at a median of 14 days; 3% crossed over to stenting, typically because of patient or doctor preference or reluctance to undergo general anesthesia; and 4% had no intervention.

Patients without complications who had stenting stayed on average 1 day less than did those undergoing surgery.

During an earlier press briefing, Dr. Halliday highlighted the need for procedural competency and said doctors had to submit a record of their CEA or CAS experience and, consistent with current guidelines, had to demonstrate an independently verified stroke or death rate of 6% or less for symptomatic patients and 3% or lower for asymptomatic patients.

The results showed the 30-day risk for death, myocardial infarction (MI), or any stroke was 3.9% with carotid stenting and 3.2% with surgery (P = .26).

But with stenting, there was a slightly higher risk for procedural nondisabling strokes (48 vs. 29; P = .03), including 15 strokes vs. 5 strokes, respectively, that left patients with no residual symptoms. This is “consistent with large, recent nationally representative registry data,” observed Dr. Halliday, of the University of Oxford (England).

For those undergoing surgery, cranial nerve palsies were reported in 5.4% vs. no patients undergoing stenting.

At 5 years, the nonprocedural fatal or disabling stroke rate was 2.5% in each group (rate ratio [RR], 0.98; P = .91), with any nonprocedural stroke occurring in 5.3% of patients with stenting vs. 4.5% with surgery (RR, 1.16; P = .33).

The investigators performed a meta-analysis combining the ACST-2 results with those of eight prior trials (four in asymptomatic and four in symptomatic patients) that yielded a similar nonsignificant result for any nonprocedural stroke (RR, 1.11; P = .21).

Based on the results from ACST-2 plus the major trials, stenting and surgery involve “similar risks and similar benefits,” Dr. Halliday concluded.

Discussant Marco Roffi, MD, University Hospital of Geneva, said, “In centers with documented expertise, carotid artery stenting should be offered as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy in patients with asymptomatic stenosis and suitable anatomy.”

While the trial provides “good news” for patients, he pointed out that a reduction in the sample size from 5,000 to 3,625 limited the statistical power and that enrollment over a long period of time may have introduced confounders, such as changes in equipment technique, and medical therapy.

Also, many centers enrolled few patients, raising the concern over low-volume centers and operators, Dr. Roffi said. “We know that 8% of the centers enrolled 39% of the patients,” and “information on the credentialing and experience of the interventionalists was limited.”

Further, a lack of systematic MI assessment may have favored the surgery group, and more recent developments in stenting with the potential of reducing periprocedural stroke were rarely used, such as proximal emboli protection in only 15% and double-layer stents in 11%.

Friedhelm Beyersdorf, MD, University Hospital of Freiburg, Germany, said that, as a vascular surgeon, he finds it understandable that there might be a higher incidence of nonfatal strokes when treating carotid stenosis with stents, given the vulnerability of these lesions.

“Nevertheless, the main conclusion from the entire study is that carotid artery treatment is extremely safe, it has to be done in order to avoid strokes, and, obviously, there seems to be an advantage for surgery in terms of nondisabling stroke,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Montalescot, however, said that what the study cannot address – and what was the subject of many online audience comments – is whether either intervention should be performed in these patients. 

Unlike earlier trials comparing interventions to medical therapy, Dr. Halliday said ACST-2 enrolled patients for whom the decision had been made that revascularization was needed. In addition, 99%-100% were receiving antithrombotic therapy at baseline, 85%-90% were receiving antihypertensives, and about 85% were taking statins.

Longer-term follow-up should provide a better picture of the nonprocedural stroke risk, with patients asked annually about exactly what medications and doses they are taking, she said.

“We will have an enormous list of exactly what’s gone on and the intensity of that therapy, which is, of course, much more intense than when we carried out our first trial. But these were people in whom a procedure was thought to be necessary,” she noted.

When asked during the press conference which procedure she would choose, Dr. Halliday, a surgeon, observed that patient preference is important but that the nature of the lesion itself often determines the optimal choice.

“If you know the competence of the people doing it is equal, then the less invasive procedure – providing it has good long-term viability, and that’s why we’re following for 10 years – is the more important,” she added.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme. Dr. Halliday reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A protocol of immediate angiography provided no mortality benefit over a strategy or delayed or more selective angiography among patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without ST-segment elevation, new randomized results show.

Cathy Yeulet/thinkstock

“Among patients with resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of possible cardiac origin, with shockable and nonshockable arrest rhythm and no ST-elevation, a strategy of immediate, unselected coronary angiography was not found to be beneficial over a delayed and selective approach with regard to the 30-day risk of all-cause death,” concluded principal investigator Steffen Desch, MD, University of Leipzig (Germany) Heart Center.

The results support previous results of the Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial, in patients with shockable rhythms, which also showed no differences in clinical outcomes between immediate and delayed coronary angiography at both 90 days and 1 year, he noted.  

“What the clinicians wanted to know is, is it really necessary to get up at 3 a.m. in the morning to perform a coronary angiography on these patients, and that’s certainly out,” Dr. Desch said in an interview. “So, there’s really no room for this strategy anymore. You can take your time and wait a day or 2.”

These findings, from the TOMAHAWK trial, were presented Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Larger group without ST-segment elevation

Prognosis after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is extremely poor, with an overall survival rate of less than 10%, Dr. Desch noted. “Actually, only 20% make it to the hospital; the vast majority of these patients die out in the field, so there’s really a great need in improving treatment.”

Acute coronary syndrome accounts for up to 60% of out-of-hospital arrests in which a cardiac cause has been identified, the authors wrote in their report. ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography “has good positive predictive value” for acute coronary lesions triggering the arrest, but in the far larger subgroup of patients without ST-segment elevation, “the spectrum of underlying causes is considerably broader and includes both cardiac and noncardiac causes.”

In patients with myocardial infarction, early revascularization would prevent negative consequences of myocardial injury, but unselected early coronary angiography would put patients not having an MI at unnecessary risk for procedural complications or delay in the diagnosis of the actual cause of their arrest, they noted. 

In this trial, the researchers randomly assigned 554 patients from 31 sites in Germany and Denmark who were successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest of possible cardiac origin to immediate transfer for coronary angiography or to initial intensive care assessment with delayed or selective angiography after a minimum delay of at least 1 day.

In the end, the average delay in this arm was 2 days, Dr. Desch noted. If the clinical course indicated that a coronary cause was unlikely, angiography might not be performed at all in this group.  

No patient had ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography. The primary endpoint was death from any cause at 30 days; secondary end points were death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days.

Results showed that 95% of patients in the immediate angiography group actually underwent the procedure, compared with 62% of those in the delayed group, a finding that was “logical” given the study design, he said.

At 30 days, 54% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 46% in the delayed group had died, a nonsignificant difference (P = .06). Because the researchers had performed an interim analysis, Dr. Desch explained, the final P value for significance in this trial was not .05, but rather .034, to account for multiple comparisons.

The secondary end point of death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days “was actually nominally significant in favor of the delayed group,” he said. “So, this is not corrected for multiple testing, it’s just a hypothesis that’s in the room, but it’s certainly worthy of discussion that the immediate strategy might actually cause harm.”

There was no difference between the groups in peak release of myocardial enzymes, or any other safety end points, including bleeding, stroke, or renal failure, Dr. Desch said.

Further analyses showed no large differences between subgroups, including age, diabetes, first monitored rhythm, confirmed MI as the trigger of the arrest, sex, and the time from cardiac arrest to the return of spontaneous circulation, he noted.
 

Opportunity to minimize harm

Discussant for the results during the presentation was Susanna Price, MBBS, PhD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London.

Dr. Price concluded: “What this means for me, is it gives me information that’s useful regarding the opportunity to minimize harm, which is a lot of what critical care is about, so we don’t necessarily now have to move these patients very acutely when they’ve just come in through the ED [emergency department]. It has implications for resource utilization, but also implications for mobilizing patients around the hospital during COVID-19.”

It’s also important to note that coronary angiography was still carried out in certain patients, “so we still have to have that dialogue with our interventional cardiologists for certain patients who may need to go to the cath lab, and what it should now allow us to do is give appropriate focus to how to manage these patients when they come in to the ED or to our ICUs [intensive care units],” she said.

Dr. Price added, though, that perhaps “the most important slide” in the presentation was that showing 90% of these patients had a witnessed cardiac arrest, “and yet a third of these patients, 168 of them, had no bystander CPR at all.” 

She pointed to the “chain of survival” after cardiac arrest, of which Charles D. Deakin, MD, University Hospital Southampton (England), wrote that “not all links are equal.”

“Early recognition and calling for help, early CPR, early defibrillation where appropriate are very, very important, and we need to be addressing all of these, as well as what happens in the cath lab and after admission,” Dr. Price said.

This research was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Desch and Dr. Price reported no relevant disclosures.

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

A protocol of immediate angiography provided no mortality benefit over a strategy or delayed or more selective angiography among patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without ST-segment elevation, new randomized results show.

Cathy Yeulet/thinkstock

“Among patients with resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of possible cardiac origin, with shockable and nonshockable arrest rhythm and no ST-elevation, a strategy of immediate, unselected coronary angiography was not found to be beneficial over a delayed and selective approach with regard to the 30-day risk of all-cause death,” concluded principal investigator Steffen Desch, MD, University of Leipzig (Germany) Heart Center.

The results support previous results of the Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial, in patients with shockable rhythms, which also showed no differences in clinical outcomes between immediate and delayed coronary angiography at both 90 days and 1 year, he noted.  

“What the clinicians wanted to know is, is it really necessary to get up at 3 a.m. in the morning to perform a coronary angiography on these patients, and that’s certainly out,” Dr. Desch said in an interview. “So, there’s really no room for this strategy anymore. You can take your time and wait a day or 2.”

These findings, from the TOMAHAWK trial, were presented Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Larger group without ST-segment elevation

Prognosis after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is extremely poor, with an overall survival rate of less than 10%, Dr. Desch noted. “Actually, only 20% make it to the hospital; the vast majority of these patients die out in the field, so there’s really a great need in improving treatment.”

Acute coronary syndrome accounts for up to 60% of out-of-hospital arrests in which a cardiac cause has been identified, the authors wrote in their report. ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography “has good positive predictive value” for acute coronary lesions triggering the arrest, but in the far larger subgroup of patients without ST-segment elevation, “the spectrum of underlying causes is considerably broader and includes both cardiac and noncardiac causes.”

In patients with myocardial infarction, early revascularization would prevent negative consequences of myocardial injury, but unselected early coronary angiography would put patients not having an MI at unnecessary risk for procedural complications or delay in the diagnosis of the actual cause of their arrest, they noted. 

In this trial, the researchers randomly assigned 554 patients from 31 sites in Germany and Denmark who were successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest of possible cardiac origin to immediate transfer for coronary angiography or to initial intensive care assessment with delayed or selective angiography after a minimum delay of at least 1 day.

In the end, the average delay in this arm was 2 days, Dr. Desch noted. If the clinical course indicated that a coronary cause was unlikely, angiography might not be performed at all in this group.  

No patient had ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography. The primary endpoint was death from any cause at 30 days; secondary end points were death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days.

Results showed that 95% of patients in the immediate angiography group actually underwent the procedure, compared with 62% of those in the delayed group, a finding that was “logical” given the study design, he said.

At 30 days, 54% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 46% in the delayed group had died, a nonsignificant difference (P = .06). Because the researchers had performed an interim analysis, Dr. Desch explained, the final P value for significance in this trial was not .05, but rather .034, to account for multiple comparisons.

The secondary end point of death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days “was actually nominally significant in favor of the delayed group,” he said. “So, this is not corrected for multiple testing, it’s just a hypothesis that’s in the room, but it’s certainly worthy of discussion that the immediate strategy might actually cause harm.”

There was no difference between the groups in peak release of myocardial enzymes, or any other safety end points, including bleeding, stroke, or renal failure, Dr. Desch said.

Further analyses showed no large differences between subgroups, including age, diabetes, first monitored rhythm, confirmed MI as the trigger of the arrest, sex, and the time from cardiac arrest to the return of spontaneous circulation, he noted.
 

Opportunity to minimize harm

Discussant for the results during the presentation was Susanna Price, MBBS, PhD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London.

Dr. Price concluded: “What this means for me, is it gives me information that’s useful regarding the opportunity to minimize harm, which is a lot of what critical care is about, so we don’t necessarily now have to move these patients very acutely when they’ve just come in through the ED [emergency department]. It has implications for resource utilization, but also implications for mobilizing patients around the hospital during COVID-19.”

It’s also important to note that coronary angiography was still carried out in certain patients, “so we still have to have that dialogue with our interventional cardiologists for certain patients who may need to go to the cath lab, and what it should now allow us to do is give appropriate focus to how to manage these patients when they come in to the ED or to our ICUs [intensive care units],” she said.

Dr. Price added, though, that perhaps “the most important slide” in the presentation was that showing 90% of these patients had a witnessed cardiac arrest, “and yet a third of these patients, 168 of them, had no bystander CPR at all.” 

She pointed to the “chain of survival” after cardiac arrest, of which Charles D. Deakin, MD, University Hospital Southampton (England), wrote that “not all links are equal.”

“Early recognition and calling for help, early CPR, early defibrillation where appropriate are very, very important, and we need to be addressing all of these, as well as what happens in the cath lab and after admission,” Dr. Price said.

This research was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Desch and Dr. Price reported no relevant disclosures.

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

A protocol of immediate angiography provided no mortality benefit over a strategy or delayed or more selective angiography among patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without ST-segment elevation, new randomized results show.

Cathy Yeulet/thinkstock

“Among patients with resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of possible cardiac origin, with shockable and nonshockable arrest rhythm and no ST-elevation, a strategy of immediate, unselected coronary angiography was not found to be beneficial over a delayed and selective approach with regard to the 30-day risk of all-cause death,” concluded principal investigator Steffen Desch, MD, University of Leipzig (Germany) Heart Center.

The results support previous results of the Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial, in patients with shockable rhythms, which also showed no differences in clinical outcomes between immediate and delayed coronary angiography at both 90 days and 1 year, he noted.  

“What the clinicians wanted to know is, is it really necessary to get up at 3 a.m. in the morning to perform a coronary angiography on these patients, and that’s certainly out,” Dr. Desch said in an interview. “So, there’s really no room for this strategy anymore. You can take your time and wait a day or 2.”

These findings, from the TOMAHAWK trial, were presented Aug. 29 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Larger group without ST-segment elevation

Prognosis after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is extremely poor, with an overall survival rate of less than 10%, Dr. Desch noted. “Actually, only 20% make it to the hospital; the vast majority of these patients die out in the field, so there’s really a great need in improving treatment.”

Acute coronary syndrome accounts for up to 60% of out-of-hospital arrests in which a cardiac cause has been identified, the authors wrote in their report. ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography “has good positive predictive value” for acute coronary lesions triggering the arrest, but in the far larger subgroup of patients without ST-segment elevation, “the spectrum of underlying causes is considerably broader and includes both cardiac and noncardiac causes.”

In patients with myocardial infarction, early revascularization would prevent negative consequences of myocardial injury, but unselected early coronary angiography would put patients not having an MI at unnecessary risk for procedural complications or delay in the diagnosis of the actual cause of their arrest, they noted. 

In this trial, the researchers randomly assigned 554 patients from 31 sites in Germany and Denmark who were successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest of possible cardiac origin to immediate transfer for coronary angiography or to initial intensive care assessment with delayed or selective angiography after a minimum delay of at least 1 day.

In the end, the average delay in this arm was 2 days, Dr. Desch noted. If the clinical course indicated that a coronary cause was unlikely, angiography might not be performed at all in this group.  

No patient had ST-segment elevation on postresuscitation electrocardiography. The primary endpoint was death from any cause at 30 days; secondary end points were death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days.

Results showed that 95% of patients in the immediate angiography group actually underwent the procedure, compared with 62% of those in the delayed group, a finding that was “logical” given the study design, he said.

At 30 days, 54% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 46% in the delayed group had died, a nonsignificant difference (P = .06). Because the researchers had performed an interim analysis, Dr. Desch explained, the final P value for significance in this trial was not .05, but rather .034, to account for multiple comparisons.

The secondary end point of death from any cause or severe neurologic deficit at 30 days “was actually nominally significant in favor of the delayed group,” he said. “So, this is not corrected for multiple testing, it’s just a hypothesis that’s in the room, but it’s certainly worthy of discussion that the immediate strategy might actually cause harm.”

There was no difference between the groups in peak release of myocardial enzymes, or any other safety end points, including bleeding, stroke, or renal failure, Dr. Desch said.

Further analyses showed no large differences between subgroups, including age, diabetes, first monitored rhythm, confirmed MI as the trigger of the arrest, sex, and the time from cardiac arrest to the return of spontaneous circulation, he noted.
 

Opportunity to minimize harm

Discussant for the results during the presentation was Susanna Price, MBBS, PhD, Royal Brompton Hospital, London.

Dr. Price concluded: “What this means for me, is it gives me information that’s useful regarding the opportunity to minimize harm, which is a lot of what critical care is about, so we don’t necessarily now have to move these patients very acutely when they’ve just come in through the ED [emergency department]. It has implications for resource utilization, but also implications for mobilizing patients around the hospital during COVID-19.”

It’s also important to note that coronary angiography was still carried out in certain patients, “so we still have to have that dialogue with our interventional cardiologists for certain patients who may need to go to the cath lab, and what it should now allow us to do is give appropriate focus to how to manage these patients when they come in to the ED or to our ICUs [intensive care units],” she said.

Dr. Price added, though, that perhaps “the most important slide” in the presentation was that showing 90% of these patients had a witnessed cardiac arrest, “and yet a third of these patients, 168 of them, had no bystander CPR at all.” 

She pointed to the “chain of survival” after cardiac arrest, of which Charles D. Deakin, MD, University Hospital Southampton (England), wrote that “not all links are equal.”

“Early recognition and calling for help, early CPR, early defibrillation where appropriate are very, very important, and we need to be addressing all of these, as well as what happens in the cath lab and after admission,” Dr. Price said.

This research was funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research. Dr. Desch and Dr. Price reported no relevant disclosures.

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

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

The first global trial to compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of two therapies for prostate cancer proved inconclusive because of inadequate enrollment and events, but the study is a harbinger of growth in the emerging specialty of cardio-oncology, according to experts.

European Society of Cardiology

“Many new cancer agents have extended patient survival, yet some of these agents have significant potential cardiovascular toxicity,” said Renato D. Lopes, MD, in presenting a study at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the context of improving survival in patients with or at risk for both cancer and cardiovascular disease, he suggested that the prostate cancer study he led could be “a model for interdisciplinary collaboration” needed to address the relative and sometimes competing risks of these disease states.

This point was seconded by several pioneers in cardio-oncology who participated in the discussion of the results of the trial, called PRONOUNCE.

“We know many drugs in oncology increase cardiovascular risk, so these are the types of trials we need,” according Thomas M. Suter, MD, who leads the cardio-oncology service at the University Hospital, Berne, Switzerland. He was the ESC-invited discussant for PRONOUNCE.
 

More than 100 centers in 12 countries involved

In PRONOUNCE, 545 patients with prostate cancer and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to degarelix, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, or leuprolide, a GnRH agonist. The patients were enrolled at 113 participating centers in 12 countries. All of the patients had an indication for an androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

In numerous previous studies, “ADT has been associated with higher CV morbidity and mortality, particularly in men with preexisting CV disease,” explained Dr. Lopes, but the relative cardiovascular safety of GnRH agonists relative to GnRH antagonists has been “controversial.”

The PRONOUNCE study was designed to resolve this issue, but the study was terminated early because of slow enrollment (not related to the COVID-19 pandemic). The planned enrollment was 900 patients.

In addition, the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death, was lower over the course of follow-up than anticipated in the study design.
 

No significant difference on primary endpoint

At the end of 12 months, MACE occurred in 11 (4.1%) of patients randomized to leuprolide and 15 (5.5%) of those randomized to degarelix. The greater hazard ratio for MACE in the degarelix group did not approach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 1.28; P = .53).

As a result, the question of the relative CV safety of these drugs “remains unresolved,” according to Dr. Lopes, professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

This does not diminish the need to answer this question. In the addition to the fact that cancer is a malignancy primarily of advancing age when CV disease is prevalent – the mean age in this study was 73 years and 44% were over age 75 – it is often an indolent disease with long periods of survival, according to Dr. Lopes. About half of prostate cancer patients have concomitant CV disease, and about half will receive ADT at some point in their treatment.

In patients receiving ADT, leuprolide is far more commonly used than GnRH antagonists, which are offered in only about 4% of patients, according to data cited by Dr. Lopes. The underlying hypothesis of this study was that leuprolide is associated with greater CV risk, which might have been relevant to a risk-benefit calculation, if the hypothesis had been confirmed.
 

Cancer drugs can increase CV risk

Based on experimental data, “there is concern the leuprolide is involved in plaque destabilization,” said Dr. Lopes, but he noted that ADTs in general are associated with adverse metabolic changes, including increases in LDL cholesterol, insulin resistance, and body fat, all of which could be relevant to CV risk.

It is the improving rates of survival for prostate cancer as well for other types of cancer that have increased attention to the potential for cancer drugs to increase CV risk, another major cause of early mortality. For these competing risks, objective data are needed to evaluate a relative risk-to-benefit ratio for treatment choices.

This dilemma led the ESC to recently establish its Council on Cardio-Oncology, and many centers around the world are also creating interdisciplinary groups to guide treatment choices for patients with both diseases.

“You will certainly get a lot of referrals,” said Rudolf de Boer, MD, professor of translational cardiology, University Medical Center, Groningen, Netherlands. Basing his remark on his own experience starting a cardio-oncology clinic at his institution, he called this work challenging and agreed that the need for objective data is urgent.

“We need data to provide common ground on which to judge relative risks,” Dr. de Boer said. He also praised the PRONOUNCE investigators for their efforts even if the data failed to answer the question posed.

The PRONOUNCE results were published online in Circulation at the time of Dr. Lopes’s presentation.

The study received funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lopes reports financial relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Suter reports financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, and Roche. Dr. de Boer reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Roche.

Healthy elderly people who ate a walnut-supplemented diet for 2 years showed significant reductions in LDL cholesterol, according to a randomized study that used imaging to evaluate lipid changes.

©rootstocks/Thinkstock

“Regularly eating walnuts will lower your LDL cholesterol and improve the quality of LDL particles, rendering them less prone to enter the arterial wall and build up atherosclerosis, and this will occur without unwanted weight gain in spite of the high-fat – healthy vegetable fat, though – content of walnuts,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, senior author of the Walnuts and Healthy Aging (WAHA) study, said in an interview.

WAHA is a parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial that followed 636 patients over 2 years at centers in Loma Linda, Calif., and Barcelona. They were randomly assigned to either a walnut-free or walnut-supplemented diet, and every 2 months they were underwent nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and recorded their compliance, toleration, medication changes, and body weight.

The researchers reported “significantly decreased” total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, along with reductions in total LDL cholesterol particles and small LDL cholesterol particle number in patients on a walnut-supplemented diet, compared with controls. However, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol were unaffected.

Study results

The study reported mean reductions in the following lipid categories among what the researchers called the “walnut group”:

• Total cholesterol, –8.5 mg/dL (95% confidence interval, –11.2 to –5.4), a 4.4% mean reduction.
• LDL-C, –4.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.6 to –1.6), a 3.6% reduction.
• Intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, –1.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –1.5 to –1.0] for a 16.8% reduction.
• Total LDL cholesterol particles, a reduction of 4.3%.
• Small LDL cholesterol particle number, a 6.1% decrease.

“WAHA is the largest and longest randomized nut trial to date, which overcomes power limitations of former trials, smaller and of shorter duration,” said Dr. Ros, of the lipid clinic, endocrinology, nutrition service at the Hospital Clinic Villarroel at the University of Barcelona. He noted that studies he has participated in have already shown that the walnut-supplemented diet had beneficial effects on blood pressure, systemic inflammation and endothelial function.

Other strengths of the study, he said, were that it recruited patients from two distinct locations and that it retained 90% of participants over 2 years (the study started out with 708 participants).

Christie Ballantyne, MD, concurred that the size and duration of the study are worth noting. “People always have questions about what they should eat,” said Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center, both in Houston, said in an interview. “It’s very difficult to do nutritional studies. Most studies are small and short term, so it’s unusual to have study that’s large with 2 years of follow-up. This is a larger-than-usual study.”

Potential study limitations

Dr. Ros did acknowledge some limitations of the study. Participants weren’t blinded, the feeding setting wasn’t controlled, and participants were generally healthy and had average normal lipid profiles because they were taking statins, which may explain the modest lipid improvements in the study. “LDL cholesterol lowering by nuts is related to baseline levels, hence the reduction observed in our study was modest,” he said.

Additionally, because the study group was elderly, the results don’t apply to younger people. “Yet,” Dr. Ros added, “we know from many prior studies that nuts in general and walnuts in particular will lower blood cholesterol regardless of age.”

Dr. Ballantyne noted that the use of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to evaluate lipid levels involves a methodology that isn’t as systematic or as standardized as the typical lipid profile, and that different systems use proprietary software to interpret results. “That’s a little bit of an issue,” he said. “What exactly do the numbers mean?”

Overall, though, Dr. Ballantyne said the study is a significant addition to the literature. “The study is large, well done, and it confirms the benefits of something we’ve been telling patients is a good choice. It’s useful because there’s so much noise. It is important because there’s tremendous confusion and misinformation about what’s really healthy to eat.”

The study was supported by a grant from the California Walnut Commission (CWC), from which Dr. Ros and two coauthors received research funding through their institutions. Dr. Ros also reported receiving compensation from CWC and serves on a CWC advisory council. The other authors have no relationships to disclose. The WAHA study was supported by a grant from the CWC, from which Dr. Ros and some coinvestigators have received research funding through their institutions. Dr. Ballantyne has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Healthy elderly people who ate a walnut-supplemented diet for 2 years showed significant reductions in LDL cholesterol, according to a randomized study that used imaging to evaluate lipid changes.

©rootstocks/Thinkstock

“Regularly eating walnuts will lower your LDL cholesterol and improve the quality of LDL particles, rendering them less prone to enter the arterial wall and build up atherosclerosis, and this will occur without unwanted weight gain in spite of the high-fat – healthy vegetable fat, though – content of walnuts,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, senior author of the Walnuts and Healthy Aging (WAHA) study, said in an interview.

WAHA is a parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial that followed 636 patients over 2 years at centers in Loma Linda, Calif., and Barcelona. They were randomly assigned to either a walnut-free or walnut-supplemented diet, and every 2 months they were underwent nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and recorded their compliance, toleration, medication changes, and body weight.

The researchers reported “significantly decreased” total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, along with reductions in total LDL cholesterol particles and small LDL cholesterol particle number in patients on a walnut-supplemented diet, compared with controls. However, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol were unaffected.

Study results

The study reported mean reductions in the following lipid categories among what the researchers called the “walnut group”:

• Total cholesterol, –8.5 mg/dL (95% confidence interval, –11.2 to –5.4), a 4.4% mean reduction.
• LDL-C, –4.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.6 to –1.6), a 3.6% reduction.
• Intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, –1.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –1.5 to –1.0] for a 16.8% reduction.
• Total LDL cholesterol particles, a reduction of 4.3%.
• Small LDL cholesterol particle number, a 6.1% decrease.

“WAHA is the largest and longest randomized nut trial to date, which overcomes power limitations of former trials, smaller and of shorter duration,” said Dr. Ros, of the lipid clinic, endocrinology, nutrition service at the Hospital Clinic Villarroel at the University of Barcelona. He noted that studies he has participated in have already shown that the walnut-supplemented diet had beneficial effects on blood pressure, systemic inflammation and endothelial function.

Other strengths of the study, he said, were that it recruited patients from two distinct locations and that it retained 90% of participants over 2 years (the study started out with 708 participants).

Christie Ballantyne, MD, concurred that the size and duration of the study are worth noting. “People always have questions about what they should eat,” said Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center, both in Houston, said in an interview. “It’s very difficult to do nutritional studies. Most studies are small and short term, so it’s unusual to have study that’s large with 2 years of follow-up. This is a larger-than-usual study.”

Potential study limitations

Dr. Ros did acknowledge some limitations of the study. Participants weren’t blinded, the feeding setting wasn’t controlled, and participants were generally healthy and had average normal lipid profiles because they were taking statins, which may explain the modest lipid improvements in the study. “LDL cholesterol lowering by nuts is related to baseline levels, hence the reduction observed in our study was modest,” he said.

Additionally, because the study group was elderly, the results don’t apply to younger people. “Yet,” Dr. Ros added, “we know from many prior studies that nuts in general and walnuts in particular will lower blood cholesterol regardless of age.”

Dr. Ballantyne noted that the use of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to evaluate lipid levels involves a methodology that isn’t as systematic or as standardized as the typical lipid profile, and that different systems use proprietary software to interpret results. “That’s a little bit of an issue,” he said. “What exactly do the numbers mean?”

Overall, though, Dr. Ballantyne said the study is a significant addition to the literature. “The study is large, well done, and it confirms the benefits of something we’ve been telling patients is a good choice. It’s useful because there’s so much noise. It is important because there’s tremendous confusion and misinformation about what’s really healthy to eat.”

The study was supported by a grant from the California Walnut Commission (CWC), from which Dr. Ros and two coauthors received research funding through their institutions. Dr. Ros also reported receiving compensation from CWC and serves on a CWC advisory council. The other authors have no relationships to disclose. The WAHA study was supported by a grant from the CWC, from which Dr. Ros and some coinvestigators have received research funding through their institutions. Dr. Ballantyne has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Healthy elderly people who ate a walnut-supplemented diet for 2 years showed significant reductions in LDL cholesterol, according to a randomized study that used imaging to evaluate lipid changes.

©rootstocks/Thinkstock

“Regularly eating walnuts will lower your LDL cholesterol and improve the quality of LDL particles, rendering them less prone to enter the arterial wall and build up atherosclerosis, and this will occur without unwanted weight gain in spite of the high-fat – healthy vegetable fat, though – content of walnuts,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, senior author of the Walnuts and Healthy Aging (WAHA) study, said in an interview.

WAHA is a parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial that followed 636 patients over 2 years at centers in Loma Linda, Calif., and Barcelona. They were randomly assigned to either a walnut-free or walnut-supplemented diet, and every 2 months they were underwent nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and recorded their compliance, toleration, medication changes, and body weight.

The researchers reported “significantly decreased” total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, along with reductions in total LDL cholesterol particles and small LDL cholesterol particle number in patients on a walnut-supplemented diet, compared with controls. However, triglycerides and HDL cholesterol were unaffected.

Study results

The study reported mean reductions in the following lipid categories among what the researchers called the “walnut group”:

• Total cholesterol, –8.5 mg/dL (95% confidence interval, –11.2 to –5.4), a 4.4% mean reduction.
• LDL-C, –4.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –6.6 to –1.6), a 3.6% reduction.
• Intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol, –1.3 mg/dL (95% CI, –1.5 to –1.0] for a 16.8% reduction.
• Total LDL cholesterol particles, a reduction of 4.3%.
• Small LDL cholesterol particle number, a 6.1% decrease.

“WAHA is the largest and longest randomized nut trial to date, which overcomes power limitations of former trials, smaller and of shorter duration,” said Dr. Ros, of the lipid clinic, endocrinology, nutrition service at the Hospital Clinic Villarroel at the University of Barcelona. He noted that studies he has participated in have already shown that the walnut-supplemented diet had beneficial effects on blood pressure, systemic inflammation and endothelial function.

Other strengths of the study, he said, were that it recruited patients from two distinct locations and that it retained 90% of participants over 2 years (the study started out with 708 participants).

Christie Ballantyne, MD, concurred that the size and duration of the study are worth noting. “People always have questions about what they should eat,” said Dr. Ballantyne, chief of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine and director of cardiovascular disease prevention at Methodist DeBakey Heart Center, both in Houston, said in an interview. “It’s very difficult to do nutritional studies. Most studies are small and short term, so it’s unusual to have study that’s large with 2 years of follow-up. This is a larger-than-usual study.”

Potential study limitations

Dr. Ros did acknowledge some limitations of the study. Participants weren’t blinded, the feeding setting wasn’t controlled, and participants were generally healthy and had average normal lipid profiles because they were taking statins, which may explain the modest lipid improvements in the study. “LDL cholesterol lowering by nuts is related to baseline levels, hence the reduction observed in our study was modest,” he said.

Additionally, because the study group was elderly, the results don’t apply to younger people. “Yet,” Dr. Ros added, “we know from many prior studies that nuts in general and walnuts in particular will lower blood cholesterol regardless of age.”

Dr. Ballantyne noted that the use of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to evaluate lipid levels involves a methodology that isn’t as systematic or as standardized as the typical lipid profile, and that different systems use proprietary software to interpret results. “That’s a little bit of an issue,” he said. “What exactly do the numbers mean?”

Overall, though, Dr. Ballantyne said the study is a significant addition to the literature. “The study is large, well done, and it confirms the benefits of something we’ve been telling patients is a good choice. It’s useful because there’s so much noise. It is important because there’s tremendous confusion and misinformation about what’s really healthy to eat.”

The study was supported by a grant from the California Walnut Commission (CWC), from which Dr. Ros and two coauthors received research funding through their institutions. Dr. Ros also reported receiving compensation from CWC and serves on a CWC advisory council. The other authors have no relationships to disclose. The WAHA study was supported by a grant from the CWC, from which Dr. Ros and some coinvestigators have received research funding through their institutions. Dr. Ballantyne has no relevant relationships to disclose.

Switching from regular salt to a low-sodium salt substitute has major public health benefits, including a reduction in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death, a new landmark study shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) was conducted in 21,000 people with a history of stroke or high blood pressure in rural China, with half of them using a lower-sodium salt substitute instead of regular salt.

Results showed that after 5 years, those using the salt substitute had a 14% reduction in stroke, a 13% reduction in major cardiovascular events, and a 12% reduction in death. These benefits were achieved without any apparent adverse effects.

The trial was presented by Bruce Neal, MB, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is one of the largest dietary intervention trials ever conducted and has shown very clear evidence of protection against stroke, cardiovascular events, and premature death, with no adverse effects with a very simple and low-cost intervention,” Dr. Neal concluded. “This is a very easy thing to work into the diet. You just replace regular salt with a substitute that looks and tastes almost identical,” he added.

Addressing the issue of whether these results are generalizable to other populations, Dr. Neal said, “We believe the results are relevant to everyone who eats salt.

“The way the body manages sodium and potassium and their association with blood pressure is highly consistent across different populations,” he said. “Almost everyone, with the exception of a few people with serious kidney disease, should be avoiding salt or switching to a salt substitute and expect to see some benefit of this.”

Commentators at the ESC presentation lauded the study as “magnificent,” with “extraordinary” results and “very powerful implications.”

Designated discussant, hypertension expert Bryan Williams, MD, University College London, said the SSaSS was “probably the most important study with regards to public health that we will see.” He described the reductions in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death as “extraordinary for such a simple intervention.”

Dr. Williams added: “Those who have doubted the benefits of salt restriction must now admit they were wrong. The debate stops here. The data are in. Global health interventions to implement these findings must now begin.”

He also highlighted the large number of events in the trial. “This was a large, pragmatic, long-duration study in a high-risk population, and with 5,000 cardiovascular events it gives enormous power to show benefits.”

Chair of the ESC session, Barbara Casadei, MD, DPhil, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford (England), said the SSaSS “will change the way we think about salt and be remembered for years to come.”

Noting that the benefits were seen in all subgroups across the study, Bertram Pitt, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was particularly excited about the stroke reduction seen in patients with diabetes, noting that several recent trials of new diabetes drugs have not managed to show a reduction in stroke.

“For patients with diabetes, this is a really important intervention,” he stated.

However, an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication gave a somewhat less enthusiastic response to the study than the ESC commentators.

Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the journal, points out that serial monitoring of potassium levels was not performed in the trial, so it is possible that hyperkalemic episodes were not detected, and persons with a history of medical conditions that may be associated with hyperkalemia were not studied.

She also noted that because the salt substitute was distributed to families, it would have been instructive to have data on the household members without risk factors, but no such data were obtained.

“Overall, the SSaSS provides some intriguing hints, but wider effectiveness is hard to predict, given limited generalizability,” she concluded.

Cluster-randomized trial

The SSaSS was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving 20,995 people from 600 villages in rural China who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with a history of severe kidney disease and those taking potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics were excluded.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (roughly 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride).

Results showed that after a mean follow-up of 4.74 years, systolic blood pressure was reduced by 3.3 mm Hg in the salt substitute group.

The rate of stroke, the primary endpoint, was 29.14 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96; P = .006).

The rates of major cardiovascular events were 49.09 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 56.29 events per 1,000 person-years in those using regular salt (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001).

And the rate of death was 39.28 events per 1,000 person-years with the salt substitute vs. 44.61 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95; P < .001).

The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .76).

Dr. Neal reported that 7%-8% of the control group started using salt substitute over the study period, so these results have likely underestimated the true effect of switching to a salt substitute product.

Noting that about 10 million cardiovascular events occur each year in China, he said the study results suggested that using salt substitute instead of regular salt could prevent about 10% of these events.
 

Food manufacturers must make changes

Dr. Neal acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the fact it was conducted in a single country, which would raise issues of generalizability. But he said he believes the results are generalizable to other populations.

Those who would get the most benefit from switching to a salt substitute are those who consume large amounts of discretionary salt – salt added at home at the time of cooking for preservation of food or seasoning. “This is salt that is easy to replace with salt substitute,” Dr. Neal noted.

“There are more than 5 billion people in the world that consume more than 50% of their salt intake as discretionary salt –  mainly in the developing world. These people would expect to get significant health benefits from a switch to salt substitute.”

He pointed out that salt substitute is low cost and is easy to manufacture. “Salt substitutes cost around 50% more than regular salt, but this translates into just a dollar or two per person per year to make the switch.”

Dr. Neal said the results also apply to higher-income countries but must be implemented by governments and food manufactures, as most salt in these countries comes from processed foods.

“This study provides strong evidence to take to the food industry,” he concluded. “We would like to see food manufacturers switch to using salt substitute and for salt substitute products to be widely available on supermarket shelves. We also urge governments to take action to promote use of salt substitutes over regular salt. This could take the form of taxing regular salt or subsidies for use of salt substitutes.”

The SSaSS was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Neal reports no disclosures. Dr. Ingelfinger is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

Switching from regular salt to a low-sodium salt substitute has major public health benefits, including a reduction in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death, a new landmark study shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) was conducted in 21,000 people with a history of stroke or high blood pressure in rural China, with half of them using a lower-sodium salt substitute instead of regular salt.

Results showed that after 5 years, those using the salt substitute had a 14% reduction in stroke, a 13% reduction in major cardiovascular events, and a 12% reduction in death. These benefits were achieved without any apparent adverse effects.

The trial was presented by Bruce Neal, MB, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is one of the largest dietary intervention trials ever conducted and has shown very clear evidence of protection against stroke, cardiovascular events, and premature death, with no adverse effects with a very simple and low-cost intervention,” Dr. Neal concluded. “This is a very easy thing to work into the diet. You just replace regular salt with a substitute that looks and tastes almost identical,” he added.

Addressing the issue of whether these results are generalizable to other populations, Dr. Neal said, “We believe the results are relevant to everyone who eats salt.

“The way the body manages sodium and potassium and their association with blood pressure is highly consistent across different populations,” he said. “Almost everyone, with the exception of a few people with serious kidney disease, should be avoiding salt or switching to a salt substitute and expect to see some benefit of this.”

Commentators at the ESC presentation lauded the study as “magnificent,” with “extraordinary” results and “very powerful implications.”

Designated discussant, hypertension expert Bryan Williams, MD, University College London, said the SSaSS was “probably the most important study with regards to public health that we will see.” He described the reductions in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death as “extraordinary for such a simple intervention.”

Dr. Williams added: “Those who have doubted the benefits of salt restriction must now admit they were wrong. The debate stops here. The data are in. Global health interventions to implement these findings must now begin.”

He also highlighted the large number of events in the trial. “This was a large, pragmatic, long-duration study in a high-risk population, and with 5,000 cardiovascular events it gives enormous power to show benefits.”

Chair of the ESC session, Barbara Casadei, MD, DPhil, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford (England), said the SSaSS “will change the way we think about salt and be remembered for years to come.”

Noting that the benefits were seen in all subgroups across the study, Bertram Pitt, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was particularly excited about the stroke reduction seen in patients with diabetes, noting that several recent trials of new diabetes drugs have not managed to show a reduction in stroke.

“For patients with diabetes, this is a really important intervention,” he stated.

However, an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication gave a somewhat less enthusiastic response to the study than the ESC commentators.

Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the journal, points out that serial monitoring of potassium levels was not performed in the trial, so it is possible that hyperkalemic episodes were not detected, and persons with a history of medical conditions that may be associated with hyperkalemia were not studied.

She also noted that because the salt substitute was distributed to families, it would have been instructive to have data on the household members without risk factors, but no such data were obtained.

“Overall, the SSaSS provides some intriguing hints, but wider effectiveness is hard to predict, given limited generalizability,” she concluded.

Cluster-randomized trial

The SSaSS was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving 20,995 people from 600 villages in rural China who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with a history of severe kidney disease and those taking potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics were excluded.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (roughly 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride).

Results showed that after a mean follow-up of 4.74 years, systolic blood pressure was reduced by 3.3 mm Hg in the salt substitute group.

The rate of stroke, the primary endpoint, was 29.14 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96; P = .006).

The rates of major cardiovascular events were 49.09 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 56.29 events per 1,000 person-years in those using regular salt (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001).

And the rate of death was 39.28 events per 1,000 person-years with the salt substitute vs. 44.61 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95; P < .001).

The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .76).

Dr. Neal reported that 7%-8% of the control group started using salt substitute over the study period, so these results have likely underestimated the true effect of switching to a salt substitute product.

Noting that about 10 million cardiovascular events occur each year in China, he said the study results suggested that using salt substitute instead of regular salt could prevent about 10% of these events.
 

Food manufacturers must make changes

Dr. Neal acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the fact it was conducted in a single country, which would raise issues of generalizability. But he said he believes the results are generalizable to other populations.

Those who would get the most benefit from switching to a salt substitute are those who consume large amounts of discretionary salt – salt added at home at the time of cooking for preservation of food or seasoning. “This is salt that is easy to replace with salt substitute,” Dr. Neal noted.

“There are more than 5 billion people in the world that consume more than 50% of their salt intake as discretionary salt –  mainly in the developing world. These people would expect to get significant health benefits from a switch to salt substitute.”

He pointed out that salt substitute is low cost and is easy to manufacture. “Salt substitutes cost around 50% more than regular salt, but this translates into just a dollar or two per person per year to make the switch.”

Dr. Neal said the results also apply to higher-income countries but must be implemented by governments and food manufactures, as most salt in these countries comes from processed foods.

“This study provides strong evidence to take to the food industry,” he concluded. “We would like to see food manufacturers switch to using salt substitute and for salt substitute products to be widely available on supermarket shelves. We also urge governments to take action to promote use of salt substitutes over regular salt. This could take the form of taxing regular salt or subsidies for use of salt substitutes.”

The SSaSS was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Neal reports no disclosures. Dr. Ingelfinger is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

Switching from regular salt to a low-sodium salt substitute has major public health benefits, including a reduction in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death, a new landmark study shows.

jirkaejc/Getty Images

The Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) was conducted in 21,000 people with a history of stroke or high blood pressure in rural China, with half of them using a lower-sodium salt substitute instead of regular salt.

Results showed that after 5 years, those using the salt substitute had a 14% reduction in stroke, a 13% reduction in major cardiovascular events, and a 12% reduction in death. These benefits were achieved without any apparent adverse effects.

The trial was presented by Bruce Neal, MB, George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, on Aug. 29 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is one of the largest dietary intervention trials ever conducted and has shown very clear evidence of protection against stroke, cardiovascular events, and premature death, with no adverse effects with a very simple and low-cost intervention,” Dr. Neal concluded. “This is a very easy thing to work into the diet. You just replace regular salt with a substitute that looks and tastes almost identical,” he added.

Addressing the issue of whether these results are generalizable to other populations, Dr. Neal said, “We believe the results are relevant to everyone who eats salt.

“The way the body manages sodium and potassium and their association with blood pressure is highly consistent across different populations,” he said. “Almost everyone, with the exception of a few people with serious kidney disease, should be avoiding salt or switching to a salt substitute and expect to see some benefit of this.”

Commentators at the ESC presentation lauded the study as “magnificent,” with “extraordinary” results and “very powerful implications.”

Designated discussant, hypertension expert Bryan Williams, MD, University College London, said the SSaSS was “probably the most important study with regards to public health that we will see.” He described the reductions in stroke, cardiovascular events, and death as “extraordinary for such a simple intervention.”

Dr. Williams added: “Those who have doubted the benefits of salt restriction must now admit they were wrong. The debate stops here. The data are in. Global health interventions to implement these findings must now begin.”

He also highlighted the large number of events in the trial. “This was a large, pragmatic, long-duration study in a high-risk population, and with 5,000 cardiovascular events it gives enormous power to show benefits.”

Chair of the ESC session, Barbara Casadei, MD, DPhil, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford (England), said the SSaSS “will change the way we think about salt and be remembered for years to come.”

Noting that the benefits were seen in all subgroups across the study, Bertram Pitt, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, was particularly excited about the stroke reduction seen in patients with diabetes, noting that several recent trials of new diabetes drugs have not managed to show a reduction in stroke.

“For patients with diabetes, this is a really important intervention,” he stated.

However, an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication gave a somewhat less enthusiastic response to the study than the ESC commentators.

Julie R. Ingelfinger, MD, deputy editor of the journal, points out that serial monitoring of potassium levels was not performed in the trial, so it is possible that hyperkalemic episodes were not detected, and persons with a history of medical conditions that may be associated with hyperkalemia were not studied.

She also noted that because the salt substitute was distributed to families, it would have been instructive to have data on the household members without risk factors, but no such data were obtained.

“Overall, the SSaSS provides some intriguing hints, but wider effectiveness is hard to predict, given limited generalizability,” she concluded.

Cluster-randomized trial

The SSaSS was an open-label, cluster-randomized trial involving 20,995 people from 600 villages in rural China who had a history of stroke or were 60 years of age or older and had uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with a history of severe kidney disease and those taking potassium supplements or potassium-sparing diuretics were excluded.

They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group, in which the participants used a salt substitute (roughly 75% sodium chloride and 25% potassium chloride), or to the control group, in which the participants continued to use regular salt (100% sodium chloride).

Results showed that after a mean follow-up of 4.74 years, systolic blood pressure was reduced by 3.3 mm Hg in the salt substitute group.

The rate of stroke, the primary endpoint, was 29.14 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 33.65 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.96; P = .006).

The rates of major cardiovascular events were 49.09 events per 1,000 person-years in the salt substitute group vs. 56.29 events per 1,000 person-years in those using regular salt (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001).

And the rate of death was 39.28 events per 1,000 person-years with the salt substitute vs. 44.61 events per 1,000 person-years with regular salt (rate ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95; P < .001).

The rate of serious adverse events attributed to hyperkalemia was not significantly higher with the salt substitute than with regular salt (3.35 events vs. 3.30 events per 1,000 person-years; rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.37; P = .76).

Dr. Neal reported that 7%-8% of the control group started using salt substitute over the study period, so these results have likely underestimated the true effect of switching to a salt substitute product.

Noting that about 10 million cardiovascular events occur each year in China, he said the study results suggested that using salt substitute instead of regular salt could prevent about 10% of these events.
 

Food manufacturers must make changes

Dr. Neal acknowledged that a limitation of the study was the fact it was conducted in a single country, which would raise issues of generalizability. But he said he believes the results are generalizable to other populations.

Those who would get the most benefit from switching to a salt substitute are those who consume large amounts of discretionary salt – salt added at home at the time of cooking for preservation of food or seasoning. “This is salt that is easy to replace with salt substitute,” Dr. Neal noted.

“There are more than 5 billion people in the world that consume more than 50% of their salt intake as discretionary salt –  mainly in the developing world. These people would expect to get significant health benefits from a switch to salt substitute.”

He pointed out that salt substitute is low cost and is easy to manufacture. “Salt substitutes cost around 50% more than regular salt, but this translates into just a dollar or two per person per year to make the switch.”

Dr. Neal said the results also apply to higher-income countries but must be implemented by governments and food manufactures, as most salt in these countries comes from processed foods.

“This study provides strong evidence to take to the food industry,” he concluded. “We would like to see food manufacturers switch to using salt substitute and for salt substitute products to be widely available on supermarket shelves. We also urge governments to take action to promote use of salt substitutes over regular salt. This could take the form of taxing regular salt or subsidies for use of salt substitutes.”

The SSaSS was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Dr. Neal reports no disclosures. Dr. Ingelfinger is employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as deputy editor.

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

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

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

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

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

Another trial has added to the movement toward shortening the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

MDedge News

In the MASTER DAPT trial involving patients at high risk for bleeding who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent, switching from DAPT to single antiplatelet therapy at a median of 34 days after PCI was noninferior to the continuation of DAPT treatment for a median duration of 193 days with regard to the incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebral events, and was associated with a lower incidence of major or clinically relevant bleeding.

The results of the study were presented by Marco Valgimigli, MD, Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Lugano, Switzerland, on Aug. 28 at the virtual European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021. They were simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“It has been suggested in previous studies that if patients are at high bleeding risk, then they do not seem to derive ischemic benefit from prolonging DAPT, they just get the increased bleeding risk,” Dr. Valgimigli said. “But this has never been prospectively tested until now.”

He pointed out that patients at high bleeding risk are a large group, representing up to 40% of patients undergoing PCI, and the MASTER DAPT trial included “all-comer” high-bleeding-risk patients with no selection based on ischemic risk.

M. Alexander Otto, MDedge News

The trial was very well received by commentators at the ESC Hot Line presentation.

Chair of the session, Roxana Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, described the trial as “practice-changing.”

And Robert Byrne, MD, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, added: “This is a standout trial. We have become more comfortable with abbreviated DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients, but definite evidence for this has been lacking until now. This study tells us that just 1 month of DAPT appears to be safe in that there was no increase in ischemic complications and there was a clear reduction in bleeding.”

The MASTER DAPT study involved 4,579 patients at high bleeding risk who had undergone implantation of a biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). Around half the patients had PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and half had it electively. One month after PCI they were randomly assigned to discontinue DAPT immediately (abbreviated therapy) or to continue it for at least 2 additional months (standard therapy).

The three co-primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding), major adverse cardiac or cerebral events (a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all assessed cumulatively at 335 days. The first two outcomes were assessed for noninferiority in the per-protocol population, and the third outcome for superiority in the intention-to-treat population.

Dual antiplatelet therapy consisted of aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The choices of the type of P2Y12 inhibitor for DAPT and the type of monotherapy after the discontinuation of DAPT were at the discretion of the investigator. Clopidogrel was the most popular choice, used as monotherapy in 54% of the patients in the abbreviated-therapy group and as part of DAPT in 79% of patients in the standard-therapy group.

Results showed that net adverse clinical events occurred in 7.5% of the abbreviated-therapy group and in 7.7% of the standard-therapy group (difference, –0.23 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 1.33 percentage points; P < .001 for noninferiority).

Major adverse cardiac or cerebral events occurred in 6.1% of the abbreviated-therapy group and 5.9% of standard therapy group (difference, 0.11 percentage points; 95% CI, –1.29 to 1.51 percentage points; P = .001 for noninferiority).

Reduction in bleeding driven by BARC-2

Major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 6.5% in the abbreviated-therapy group and in 9.4% in the standard-therapy group (difference, –2.82 percentage points; 95% CI, –4.40 to –1.24 percentage points; P < .001 for superiority).

“This is a highly statistically significant reduction in bleeding giving a number needed to treat of 35,” Dr. Valgimigli said.

The lower risk for bleeding in the abbreviated-therapy group was mainly due to the lower incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events (BARC type 2) in this group than in the standard-therapy group (4.5% vs. 6.8%).

During the discussion, Dr. Byrne pointed out that the most serious type of bleeding (BARC type 3-5) was not reduced in the abbreviated DAPT group.

Dr. Valgimigli responded that the investigators were surprised about that because previous studies indicated that this most serious bleeding would be reduced, but he suggested that this may be explained by the standard group receiving 3-6 months of DAPT rather than a year or more in previous studies. “Having said that, BARC-2 bleeding is not a trivial event,” he added.
 

Can results be applied to other stents?

Dr. Byrne also questioned whether the results can be applied to patients receiving other types of stents – not just Ultimaster, which is not available everywhere. Dr. Valgimigli highlighted the low rate of stent thrombosis seen with the Ultimaster stent and said, “I would be scared to assume these results are reproducible with other stents.”

But Dr. Mehran challenged this view, saying, “I’m not so sure about that. I think we can probably extrapolate.”

In an interview, Dr. Mehran added: “I think this is one of the much-needed studies in our field. For the first time, we have a randomized trial on duration of DAPT in high-bleeding-risk patients. The study was inclusive, and enrolled truly high-bleeding-risk patients, including those on oral anticoagulants.  

“These results show that, although high-bleeding-risk patients are at high risk of ischemic events, just 1 month of DAPT works well for them regardless, by reducing bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and without increasing ischemic events,” she concluded.

In an editorial accompanying the publication, E. Magnus Ohman, MB, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., pointed out the wide CIs in the results, which he said introduced some uncertainly to the findings.

But he concluded that: “The findings of Dr. Valgimigli and colleagues are important and move us toward a shorter and simpler antithrombotic strategy after PCI.”

In an interview, Dr. Ohman pointed out that the Ultimaster stent is not available in the United States. “We have to think about whether this stent would perform differently to other third- or fourth-generation stents. I wouldn’t have thought so, but it is hard to say for sure.

“All in all, we are looking at shorter periods of DAPT now after PCI. Several trials have now suggested that is the way to go. The forthcoming U.S. PCI guidelines should put all the studies together and come up with recommendations on different patient groups,” he concluded.  

Several commentators said they would like to see the data on the patients receiving oral anticoagulants in the study before making firm conclusions on how to translate the results into clinical practice. “This is such an important group. It is difficult to interpret the results without this data,” Dr. Ohman noted.  Patients receiving oral anticoagulants, who made up 36% of the study population, will be the subject of a separate report to be presented at the ESC meeting.

The MASTER DAPT trial was supported by Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli reports research grants from Terumo, Abbott, and SMT and consulting or speaker fees from Terumo, Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Chiesi, Vesalio, Vifor, Avimedica, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Ohman reports grants from Abiomed, grants from Chiesi USA, personal fees from Cara Therapeutics, Genentech, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, XyloCor, Cytokinetics, Dispersol, Otsuka, Pfizer, Cytosorbents, Neurocrine, and Paradigm, outside the submitted work.

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