CAD & Atherosclerosis

In patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for a percutaneous intervention (PCI), fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment at the time of angiography significantly improves outcome, but it has no apparent value as a routine study in all CAD patients, according to the randomized RIPCORD 2 trial.

When compared to angiography alone in an all comer-strategy, the addition of FFR did not significantly change management or lower costs, but it was associated with a longer time for diagnostic assessment and more complications, Nicholas P. Curzen, BM, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

As a tool for evaluating stenotic lesions in diseased vessels, FFR, also known as pressure wire assessment, allows interventionalists to target those vessels that induce ischemia without unnecessarily treating vessels with lesions that are hemodynamically nonsignificant. It is guideline recommended for patients with scheduled PCI on the basis of several randomized trials, including the landmark FAME trial.

“The results of these trials were spectacular. The clinical outcomes were significantly better in the FFR group despite less stents being placed and fewer vessels being stented. And there was significantly less resource utilization in the FFR group,” said Dr. Curzen, professor of interventional cardiology, University of Southampton, England.
 

Hypothesis: All-comers benefit from FFR

This prompted the new trial, called RIPCORD 2. The hypothesis was that systematic FFR early in the diagnosis of CAD would reduce resource utilization and improve quality of life relative to angiography alone. Both were addressed as primary endpoints. A reduction in clinical events at 12 months was a secondary endpoint.

The 1,136 participants, all scheduled for angiographic evaluation for stable angina or non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), were randomized at 17 participating centers in the United Kingdom. All underwent angiography, but the experimental arm also underwent FFR for all arteries of a size suitable for revascularization.

Resource utilization evaluated through hospital costs at 12 months was somewhat higher in the FFR group, but the difference was not significant (P =.137). There was also no significant difference (P = 0.88) between the groups in quality of life, which was measured with EQ-5D-5L, an instrument for expressing five dimensions of health on a visual analog scale.
 

No impact from FFR on clinical events

Furthermore, there was no difference in the rate of clinical events, whether measured by a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (P = .64) or by the components of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization, according to Dr. Curzen.

Finally, FFR did not appear to influence subsequent management. When the intervention and control groups were compared, the proportions triaged to optimal medical therapy, optimal medical therapy plus PCI, or optimal medical therapy plus bypass grafting did not differ significantly.  

Given the lack of significant differences for FFR plus angiography relative to angiography alone for any clinically relevant outcome, the addition of FFR provides "no overall advantage" in this all comer study population, Dr. Curzen concluded.

However, FFR was associated with some relative disadvantages. These included significantly longer mean procedure times (69 vs. 42.4 minutes; P < .001), significantly greater mean use of contrast (206 vs. 146.3 mL; P < .001), and a significantly higher mean radiation dose (6608.7 vs. 5029.7 cGY/cm²; P < .001). There were 10 complications (1.8%) associated with FFR.

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.
 

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

In patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for a percutaneous intervention (PCI), fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment at the time of angiography significantly improves outcome, but it has no apparent value as a routine study in all CAD patients, according to the randomized RIPCORD 2 trial.

When compared to angiography alone in an all comer-strategy, the addition of FFR did not significantly change management or lower costs, but it was associated with a longer time for diagnostic assessment and more complications, Nicholas P. Curzen, BM, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

As a tool for evaluating stenotic lesions in diseased vessels, FFR, also known as pressure wire assessment, allows interventionalists to target those vessels that induce ischemia without unnecessarily treating vessels with lesions that are hemodynamically nonsignificant. It is guideline recommended for patients with scheduled PCI on the basis of several randomized trials, including the landmark FAME trial.

“The results of these trials were spectacular. The clinical outcomes were significantly better in the FFR group despite less stents being placed and fewer vessels being stented. And there was significantly less resource utilization in the FFR group,” said Dr. Curzen, professor of interventional cardiology, University of Southampton, England.
 

Hypothesis: All-comers benefit from FFR

This prompted the new trial, called RIPCORD 2. The hypothesis was that systematic FFR early in the diagnosis of CAD would reduce resource utilization and improve quality of life relative to angiography alone. Both were addressed as primary endpoints. A reduction in clinical events at 12 months was a secondary endpoint.

The 1,136 participants, all scheduled for angiographic evaluation for stable angina or non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), were randomized at 17 participating centers in the United Kingdom. All underwent angiography, but the experimental arm also underwent FFR for all arteries of a size suitable for revascularization.

Resource utilization evaluated through hospital costs at 12 months was somewhat higher in the FFR group, but the difference was not significant (P =.137). There was also no significant difference (P = 0.88) between the groups in quality of life, which was measured with EQ-5D-5L, an instrument for expressing five dimensions of health on a visual analog scale.
 

No impact from FFR on clinical events

Furthermore, there was no difference in the rate of clinical events, whether measured by a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (P = .64) or by the components of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization, according to Dr. Curzen.

Finally, FFR did not appear to influence subsequent management. When the intervention and control groups were compared, the proportions triaged to optimal medical therapy, optimal medical therapy plus PCI, or optimal medical therapy plus bypass grafting did not differ significantly.  

Given the lack of significant differences for FFR plus angiography relative to angiography alone for any clinically relevant outcome, the addition of FFR provides "no overall advantage" in this all comer study population, Dr. Curzen concluded.

However, FFR was associated with some relative disadvantages. These included significantly longer mean procedure times (69 vs. 42.4 minutes; P < .001), significantly greater mean use of contrast (206 vs. 146.3 mL; P < .001), and a significantly higher mean radiation dose (6608.7 vs. 5029.7 cGY/cm²; P < .001). There were 10 complications (1.8%) associated with FFR.

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.
 

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

In patients with coronary artery disease scheduled for a percutaneous intervention (PCI), fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment at the time of angiography significantly improves outcome, but it has no apparent value as a routine study in all CAD patients, according to the randomized RIPCORD 2 trial.

When compared to angiography alone in an all comer-strategy, the addition of FFR did not significantly change management or lower costs, but it was associated with a longer time for diagnostic assessment and more complications, Nicholas P. Curzen, BM, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

As a tool for evaluating stenotic lesions in diseased vessels, FFR, also known as pressure wire assessment, allows interventionalists to target those vessels that induce ischemia without unnecessarily treating vessels with lesions that are hemodynamically nonsignificant. It is guideline recommended for patients with scheduled PCI on the basis of several randomized trials, including the landmark FAME trial.

“The results of these trials were spectacular. The clinical outcomes were significantly better in the FFR group despite less stents being placed and fewer vessels being stented. And there was significantly less resource utilization in the FFR group,” said Dr. Curzen, professor of interventional cardiology, University of Southampton, England.
 

Hypothesis: All-comers benefit from FFR

This prompted the new trial, called RIPCORD 2. The hypothesis was that systematic FFR early in the diagnosis of CAD would reduce resource utilization and improve quality of life relative to angiography alone. Both were addressed as primary endpoints. A reduction in clinical events at 12 months was a secondary endpoint.

The 1,136 participants, all scheduled for angiographic evaluation for stable angina or non-ST elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), were randomized at 17 participating centers in the United Kingdom. All underwent angiography, but the experimental arm also underwent FFR for all arteries of a size suitable for revascularization.

Resource utilization evaluated through hospital costs at 12 months was somewhat higher in the FFR group, but the difference was not significant (P =.137). There was also no significant difference (P = 0.88) between the groups in quality of life, which was measured with EQ-5D-5L, an instrument for expressing five dimensions of health on a visual analog scale.
 

No impact from FFR on clinical events

Furthermore, there was no difference in the rate of clinical events, whether measured by a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (P = .64) or by the components of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization, according to Dr. Curzen.

Finally, FFR did not appear to influence subsequent management. When the intervention and control groups were compared, the proportions triaged to optimal medical therapy, optimal medical therapy plus PCI, or optimal medical therapy plus bypass grafting did not differ significantly.  

Given the lack of significant differences for FFR plus angiography relative to angiography alone for any clinically relevant outcome, the addition of FFR provides "no overall advantage" in this all comer study population, Dr. Curzen concluded.

However, FFR was associated with some relative disadvantages. These included significantly longer mean procedure times (69 vs. 42.4 minutes; P < .001), significantly greater mean use of contrast (206 vs. 146.3 mL; P < .001), and a significantly higher mean radiation dose (6608.7 vs. 5029.7 cGY/cm²; P < .001). There were 10 complications (1.8%) associated with FFR.

RIPCORD 1 results provided study rationale

In the previously published nonrandomized RIPCORD 1 study, interventionalists were asked to develop a management plan on the basis of angiography alone in 200 patients with stable chest pain. When these interventionalists were then provided with FFR results, the new information resulted in a change of management plan in 36% of cases.

According to Dr. Curzen, it was this study that raised all-comer FFR as a “logical and clinically plausible question.” RIPCORD 2 provided the answer.

While he is now conducting an evaluation of a subgroup of RIPCORD 2 patients with more severe disease, “it appears that the atheroma burden on angiography is adequate” to make an appropriate management determination in most or all cases.

The invited discussant for this study, Robert Byrne, MD, BCh, PhD, director of cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, pointed out that more angiography-alone patients in RIPCORD 2 required additional evaluation to develop a management strategy (14.7% vs. 1.8%), but he agreed that FFR offered “no reasonable benefit” in the relatively low-risk patients who were enrolled.
 

Results do not alter FFR indications

However, he emphasized that the lack of an advantage in this trial should in no way diminish the evidence of benefit for selective FFR use as currently recommended in guidelines. This was echoed strongly in remarks by two other interventionalists who served on the same panel after the RIPCORD 2 results were presented.

“I want to make sure that our audience does not walk away thinking that FFR is useless. This is not what was shown,” said Roxana Mehran, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular research at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She emphasized that this was a study that found no value in a low-risk, all-comer population and is not relevant to the populations where it now has an indication.

Marco Roffi, MD, director of the interventional cardiology unit, Geneva University Hospitals, made the same point.

“These results do not take away the value of FFR in a more selected population [than that enrolled in RIPCORD 2],” Dr. Roffi said. He did not rule out the potential for benefit from adding FFR to angiography even in early disease assessment if a benefit can be demonstrated in a higher-risk population.

Dr. Curzen reports financial relationships with Abbott, Beckman Coulter, HeartFlow, and Boston Scientific, which provided funding for RIPCORD 2. Dr. Byrne reported financial relationships with the trial sponsor as well as Abbott, Biosensors, and Biotronik. Dr. Mehran reports financial relationships with more than 15 medical product companies including the sponsor of this trial. Dr. Roffi reports no relevant financial disclosures.

The addition of image-guided atrial fibrosis ablation did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrence relative to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with treatment-resistant atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized DECAAF II trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

However, there was a significant advantage for the addition of image-guided ablation in the subgroup of patients with stage I or II fibrosis, and this is a clinically meaningful finding, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Patients at early stages [of fibrosis] appear to do well if you do a good job covering the myopathy [with scar formation], and that is an important message,” said Dr. Marrouche, the principal investigator.

The underlying hypothesis of the DECAAF trial was that ablation guided with MRI imaging would prove superior to PVI alone in the treatment of resistant AF. There were 843 participants randomized at 44 centers. At baseline, all underwent a late gadolinium-enhancement MRI, a technique that allows detection of fibrotic tissue.

After randomization, those in the control group underwent standard of care PVI alone. Those in the intervention group underwent ablation of areas of the atrium revealed to be fibrotic on the MRI scan in addition to PVI.
 

Five percent risk reduction not significant

After a median follow-up of 12 months, recurrence of AFib, which was the primary endpoint, was observed in 43% in the intervention group and 46.1% in the control group. The relative 5% reduction for treatment was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.778-1.17; P = .63).

As part of the study protocol, MRI was repeated 3 months after treatment in all patients. This permitted the investigators to evaluate the degree of scar formation in relation to the fibrosis covered in the intervention group. Independent reviewers rated this coverage on levels from 1 to 5, with 5 representing complete coverage.

In this analysis, it was found that ablation resulted in higher levels of lesion formation in those with early stages of disease, defined as stage I or II fibrosis, but lower levels in advanced stages.

“The more myopathy, the more disease, the less likelihood of lesion formation,” reported Dr. Marrouche, professor of medicine in the section of cardiology at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Attributed to the greater levels of fibrosis coverage, the risk of AF recurrence over the course of follow-up was significantly reduced in the intervention relative to the control group on as-treated analysis in patients who had stage I or II fibrosis at baseline. (HR 0.841, 95% CI, 0.732-0.968; P < .05).

Subgroup data called clinically meaningful

“This has huge implications going forward,” Dr. Marrouche maintained. In the context of a series of previous trials, including DECAAF I, which associated advanced fibrosis with higher risk of failing ablation, DECAAF II provides the groundwork for “where and how to ablate.”

Taken together, the DECAAF data suggest that there is no value in ablating advanced fibrosis. Due to the poor scar formation needed to reduce risk of AF recurrence, there are no benefits to outweigh the slightly greater risk of strokes and other adverse events observed among the intervention group in the DECAAF II trial, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“If the fibrosis is advanced, do PVI only,” he said.

However, if fibrosis remains at an early stage, defined by these data as stage II or lower, the data from DECAAF indicated that there is a benefit, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“DECAAF tells you to target early disease,” he said. Asked if he would now apply these data to treatment of patients with early fibrosis, he replied, “Yes, that’s what I am concluding.”

Several aspects of the design of DECAAF II, such as the use of a follow-up MRI to assess ablation at 3 months, were praised by Paul J. Wang, MD, director, Stanford Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Stanford (Calif.) University, but he did not agree with Dr. Marrouche’s interpretation. This included the contention that scar formation was easier to achieve in patients with less atrial fibrosis.
 

DECAAF II is not a positive trial

Based on his reading of the correlation coefficients, expressed as an r value, which were 0.237 and 0.493 for the low- and high-fibrosis groups, respectively, “the difference in lesion formation in low- and high-fibrosis groups seems difficult to prove,” Dr. Wang pointed out.

In addition, “the authors suggest that the failure to achieve a good ablation lesion may account for the AFib recurrence,” said Dr. Wang, editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association’s Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. However, due to the many other potential variables influencing this risk, “this is difficult to show.”

Ultimately, despite a benefit observed among patients with a low level of fibrosis that was identified in an as-treated subgroup, “DECAAF II joins the numerous studies [evaluating the addition of an intervention relative to PVI alone] that have not achieved the primary endpoint,” Dr. Wang concluded.

An ESC-invited discussant, Christophe Leclercq, MD, chief of cardiology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France, made the same point. He said several previous studies have made the concept of achieving greater ablation to reduce AF recurrence “attractive,” but this “was not confirmed in DECAAF II.”

He also would not endorse MRI-guided ablation in resistant AFib among patients with early disease.

“There was a positive result observed in those with a low stage of fibrosis, but there were also more complications in those undergoing MRI-guided ablation,” he said.

Dr. Marrouche reports financial relationships with Abbott, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Wang had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical.

The addition of image-guided atrial fibrosis ablation did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrence relative to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with treatment-resistant atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized DECAAF II trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

However, there was a significant advantage for the addition of image-guided ablation in the subgroup of patients with stage I or II fibrosis, and this is a clinically meaningful finding, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Patients at early stages [of fibrosis] appear to do well if you do a good job covering the myopathy [with scar formation], and that is an important message,” said Dr. Marrouche, the principal investigator.

The underlying hypothesis of the DECAAF trial was that ablation guided with MRI imaging would prove superior to PVI alone in the treatment of resistant AF. There were 843 participants randomized at 44 centers. At baseline, all underwent a late gadolinium-enhancement MRI, a technique that allows detection of fibrotic tissue.

After randomization, those in the control group underwent standard of care PVI alone. Those in the intervention group underwent ablation of areas of the atrium revealed to be fibrotic on the MRI scan in addition to PVI.
 

Five percent risk reduction not significant

After a median follow-up of 12 months, recurrence of AFib, which was the primary endpoint, was observed in 43% in the intervention group and 46.1% in the control group. The relative 5% reduction for treatment was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.778-1.17; P = .63).

As part of the study protocol, MRI was repeated 3 months after treatment in all patients. This permitted the investigators to evaluate the degree of scar formation in relation to the fibrosis covered in the intervention group. Independent reviewers rated this coverage on levels from 1 to 5, with 5 representing complete coverage.

In this analysis, it was found that ablation resulted in higher levels of lesion formation in those with early stages of disease, defined as stage I or II fibrosis, but lower levels in advanced stages.

“The more myopathy, the more disease, the less likelihood of lesion formation,” reported Dr. Marrouche, professor of medicine in the section of cardiology at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Attributed to the greater levels of fibrosis coverage, the risk of AF recurrence over the course of follow-up was significantly reduced in the intervention relative to the control group on as-treated analysis in patients who had stage I or II fibrosis at baseline. (HR 0.841, 95% CI, 0.732-0.968; P < .05).

Subgroup data called clinically meaningful

“This has huge implications going forward,” Dr. Marrouche maintained. In the context of a series of previous trials, including DECAAF I, which associated advanced fibrosis with higher risk of failing ablation, DECAAF II provides the groundwork for “where and how to ablate.”

Taken together, the DECAAF data suggest that there is no value in ablating advanced fibrosis. Due to the poor scar formation needed to reduce risk of AF recurrence, there are no benefits to outweigh the slightly greater risk of strokes and other adverse events observed among the intervention group in the DECAAF II trial, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“If the fibrosis is advanced, do PVI only,” he said.

However, if fibrosis remains at an early stage, defined by these data as stage II or lower, the data from DECAAF indicated that there is a benefit, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“DECAAF tells you to target early disease,” he said. Asked if he would now apply these data to treatment of patients with early fibrosis, he replied, “Yes, that’s what I am concluding.”

Several aspects of the design of DECAAF II, such as the use of a follow-up MRI to assess ablation at 3 months, were praised by Paul J. Wang, MD, director, Stanford Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Stanford (Calif.) University, but he did not agree with Dr. Marrouche’s interpretation. This included the contention that scar formation was easier to achieve in patients with less atrial fibrosis.
 

DECAAF II is not a positive trial

Based on his reading of the correlation coefficients, expressed as an r value, which were 0.237 and 0.493 for the low- and high-fibrosis groups, respectively, “the difference in lesion formation in low- and high-fibrosis groups seems difficult to prove,” Dr. Wang pointed out.

In addition, “the authors suggest that the failure to achieve a good ablation lesion may account for the AFib recurrence,” said Dr. Wang, editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association’s Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. However, due to the many other potential variables influencing this risk, “this is difficult to show.”

Ultimately, despite a benefit observed among patients with a low level of fibrosis that was identified in an as-treated subgroup, “DECAAF II joins the numerous studies [evaluating the addition of an intervention relative to PVI alone] that have not achieved the primary endpoint,” Dr. Wang concluded.

An ESC-invited discussant, Christophe Leclercq, MD, chief of cardiology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France, made the same point. He said several previous studies have made the concept of achieving greater ablation to reduce AF recurrence “attractive,” but this “was not confirmed in DECAAF II.”

He also would not endorse MRI-guided ablation in resistant AFib among patients with early disease.

“There was a positive result observed in those with a low stage of fibrosis, but there were also more complications in those undergoing MRI-guided ablation,” he said.

Dr. Marrouche reports financial relationships with Abbott, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Wang had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical.

The addition of image-guided atrial fibrosis ablation did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrence relative to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in patients with treatment-resistant atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to results of an intention-to-treat analysis of the randomized DECAAF II trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

However, there was a significant advantage for the addition of image-guided ablation in the subgroup of patients with stage I or II fibrosis, and this is a clinically meaningful finding, Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Patients at early stages [of fibrosis] appear to do well if you do a good job covering the myopathy [with scar formation], and that is an important message,” said Dr. Marrouche, the principal investigator.

The underlying hypothesis of the DECAAF trial was that ablation guided with MRI imaging would prove superior to PVI alone in the treatment of resistant AF. There were 843 participants randomized at 44 centers. At baseline, all underwent a late gadolinium-enhancement MRI, a technique that allows detection of fibrotic tissue.

After randomization, those in the control group underwent standard of care PVI alone. Those in the intervention group underwent ablation of areas of the atrium revealed to be fibrotic on the MRI scan in addition to PVI.
 

Five percent risk reduction not significant

After a median follow-up of 12 months, recurrence of AFib, which was the primary endpoint, was observed in 43% in the intervention group and 46.1% in the control group. The relative 5% reduction for treatment was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.778-1.17; P = .63).

As part of the study protocol, MRI was repeated 3 months after treatment in all patients. This permitted the investigators to evaluate the degree of scar formation in relation to the fibrosis covered in the intervention group. Independent reviewers rated this coverage on levels from 1 to 5, with 5 representing complete coverage.

In this analysis, it was found that ablation resulted in higher levels of lesion formation in those with early stages of disease, defined as stage I or II fibrosis, but lower levels in advanced stages.

“The more myopathy, the more disease, the less likelihood of lesion formation,” reported Dr. Marrouche, professor of medicine in the section of cardiology at Tulane University, New Orleans.

Attributed to the greater levels of fibrosis coverage, the risk of AF recurrence over the course of follow-up was significantly reduced in the intervention relative to the control group on as-treated analysis in patients who had stage I or II fibrosis at baseline. (HR 0.841, 95% CI, 0.732-0.968; P < .05).

Subgroup data called clinically meaningful

“This has huge implications going forward,” Dr. Marrouche maintained. In the context of a series of previous trials, including DECAAF I, which associated advanced fibrosis with higher risk of failing ablation, DECAAF II provides the groundwork for “where and how to ablate.”

Taken together, the DECAAF data suggest that there is no value in ablating advanced fibrosis. Due to the poor scar formation needed to reduce risk of AF recurrence, there are no benefits to outweigh the slightly greater risk of strokes and other adverse events observed among the intervention group in the DECAAF II trial, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“If the fibrosis is advanced, do PVI only,” he said.

However, if fibrosis remains at an early stage, defined by these data as stage II or lower, the data from DECAAF indicated that there is a benefit, according to Dr. Marrouche.

“DECAAF tells you to target early disease,” he said. Asked if he would now apply these data to treatment of patients with early fibrosis, he replied, “Yes, that’s what I am concluding.”

Several aspects of the design of DECAAF II, such as the use of a follow-up MRI to assess ablation at 3 months, were praised by Paul J. Wang, MD, director, Stanford Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Stanford (Calif.) University, but he did not agree with Dr. Marrouche’s interpretation. This included the contention that scar formation was easier to achieve in patients with less atrial fibrosis.
 

DECAAF II is not a positive trial

Based on his reading of the correlation coefficients, expressed as an r value, which were 0.237 and 0.493 for the low- and high-fibrosis groups, respectively, “the difference in lesion formation in low- and high-fibrosis groups seems difficult to prove,” Dr. Wang pointed out.

In addition, “the authors suggest that the failure to achieve a good ablation lesion may account for the AFib recurrence,” said Dr. Wang, editor-in-chief of the American Heart Association’s Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. However, due to the many other potential variables influencing this risk, “this is difficult to show.”

Ultimately, despite a benefit observed among patients with a low level of fibrosis that was identified in an as-treated subgroup, “DECAAF II joins the numerous studies [evaluating the addition of an intervention relative to PVI alone] that have not achieved the primary endpoint,” Dr. Wang concluded.

An ESC-invited discussant, Christophe Leclercq, MD, chief of cardiology at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Rennes, France, made the same point. He said several previous studies have made the concept of achieving greater ablation to reduce AF recurrence “attractive,” but this “was not confirmed in DECAAF II.”

He also would not endorse MRI-guided ablation in resistant AFib among patients with early disease.

“There was a positive result observed in those with a low stage of fibrosis, but there were also more complications in those undergoing MRI-guided ablation,” he said.

Dr. Marrouche reports financial relationships with Abbott, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Wang had no disclosures. Dr. Leclercq reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Sorin Group, and St. Jude Medical.

The benefits of low-dose colchicine (Colcrys) are consistent if started months or years after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, a new LoDoCo2 subanalysis suggests.

As previously reported, the parent trial showed that adding colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care reduced the risk of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization – by 31% compared with placebo.

In the new analysis, led by Tjerk S.J. Opstal, MD, the anti-inflammatory agent was equally effective in reducing the risk of the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS, a recent ACS (6-24 months), remote ACS (2-7 years), or very remote ACS (> 7 years), with no interaction found between groups (P = .59).

The incidence of the primary endpoint per 100 person-years and hazard ratios (HRs) for the four groups with colchicine and placebo are as follows:

• No prior ACS: 2.8 vs. 3.4; HR, 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27).
• Recent ACS: 2.4 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10).
• Remote ACS: 1.8 vs. 3.2; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.82)
• Very remote ACS: 3.0 vs. 4.3; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

The results were reported Aug. 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In contrast, however, a recent subgroup analysis from the COLCOT trial reported an even greater reduction in its primary composite CV endpoint when colchicine was started within 3 days of an MI.

“The result of COLCOT could imply that initiation of colchicine treatment would be best suited directly after myocardial infarction,” Dr. Opstal, from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview. “Our subanalysis shows that later initiation of colchicine therapy in patients visiting outpatient clinics years after their ACS events is equally effective. As such, colchicine therapy should not be limited to patients with recent ACS, and should be considered in all patients with coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Opstal pointed out that the two trials targeted different populations. COLCOT enrolled 4,765 patients within a month of MI, whereas LoDoCo2 enrolled 5,522 patients who were clinically stable for at least 6 months after an ACS or coronary revascularization.

Overall, 864 LoDoCo2 patients had no prior ACS and 86% had a history of ACS, of which 1,479 were recent, 1,582 were remote, and 1,597 were very remote.

Patients with a history of very remote ACS had a numerically higher event rate for the primary outcome, but the difference was not statistically significant and could be attributed to a play of chance, noted Dr. Opstal.

The team presumed patients with more recent prior ACS would remain at higher risk of ACS recurrence than would those with a more remote ACS that had proved to be clinically stable under standard medical therapy. But, he said, the data show they were at equal risk of the primary outcome.

“This implies that current optimal medical therapy does not result in an attenuation of residual risk over time regardless of whether patients are clinically stable, and that the ongoing process of atherosclerosis results in continuously elevated risk, which warrants new avenues of therapy, such as anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Opstal said.

In a binary analysis, there was no difference in composite cardiovascular events between patients with and without prior ACS (HR, 0.67 vs. HR, 0.81; P value for interaction, 0.43).

Dr. Opstal observed that a lack of statistical power precludes any definitive conclusions and that a large randomized controlled trial in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) but no prior ACS would elucidate whether early initiation of colchicine is “warranted at the moment CAD is established but before a first ACS event, as is common practice with acetylsalicylic acid and statins.”

In addition, the ongoing OASIS 9 trial will answer the question of whether patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-60 mL/min can safely use low-dose colchicine. The gout medication is contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment and in patients on drugs that inhibit both CYP3A4 or the P-glycoprotein.

In an accompanying editorial, colchicine researchers Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, and Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, of the Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, suggest that study design features likely explain the discord between the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT subgroup analyses and the lack of difference in CV event rates between patients with and without prior ACS.

The editorialists say lingering questions remain, including the value of colchicine in patients with diabetes or peripheral artery disease without known CAD, but they also point out that three 2021 meta-analyses confirmed large reductions in the risk of CV events, MI, and coronary revascularization with low-dose colchicine.

“In light of the positive results from LoDoCo2, COLCOT, and meta-analyses; its good tolerability profile; and cost-effectiveness, inflammation reduction with low-dose colchicine should be considered to treat patients with coronary disease in the absence of severe renal dysfunction,” Dr. Tardif and Dr. Marquis-Gravel concluded.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation; the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Opstal reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article.

Dr. Tardif has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; has minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and is mentioned as an author on submitted patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, use of colchicine after myocardial infarction, and use of colchicine in COVID-19 (he has waived his rights in the colchicine patents and does not stand to gain financially). Dr. Marquis-Gravel has received research grants from Bayer, has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and has served on national advisory boards for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer.
 

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

The benefits of low-dose colchicine (Colcrys) are consistent if started months or years after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, a new LoDoCo2 subanalysis suggests.

As previously reported, the parent trial showed that adding colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care reduced the risk of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization – by 31% compared with placebo.

In the new analysis, led by Tjerk S.J. Opstal, MD, the anti-inflammatory agent was equally effective in reducing the risk of the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS, a recent ACS (6-24 months), remote ACS (2-7 years), or very remote ACS (> 7 years), with no interaction found between groups (P = .59).

The incidence of the primary endpoint per 100 person-years and hazard ratios (HRs) for the four groups with colchicine and placebo are as follows:

• No prior ACS: 2.8 vs. 3.4; HR, 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27).
• Recent ACS: 2.4 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10).
• Remote ACS: 1.8 vs. 3.2; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.82)
• Very remote ACS: 3.0 vs. 4.3; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

The results were reported Aug. 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In contrast, however, a recent subgroup analysis from the COLCOT trial reported an even greater reduction in its primary composite CV endpoint when colchicine was started within 3 days of an MI.

“The result of COLCOT could imply that initiation of colchicine treatment would be best suited directly after myocardial infarction,” Dr. Opstal, from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview. “Our subanalysis shows that later initiation of colchicine therapy in patients visiting outpatient clinics years after their ACS events is equally effective. As such, colchicine therapy should not be limited to patients with recent ACS, and should be considered in all patients with coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Opstal pointed out that the two trials targeted different populations. COLCOT enrolled 4,765 patients within a month of MI, whereas LoDoCo2 enrolled 5,522 patients who were clinically stable for at least 6 months after an ACS or coronary revascularization.

Overall, 864 LoDoCo2 patients had no prior ACS and 86% had a history of ACS, of which 1,479 were recent, 1,582 were remote, and 1,597 were very remote.

Patients with a history of very remote ACS had a numerically higher event rate for the primary outcome, but the difference was not statistically significant and could be attributed to a play of chance, noted Dr. Opstal.

The team presumed patients with more recent prior ACS would remain at higher risk of ACS recurrence than would those with a more remote ACS that had proved to be clinically stable under standard medical therapy. But, he said, the data show they were at equal risk of the primary outcome.

“This implies that current optimal medical therapy does not result in an attenuation of residual risk over time regardless of whether patients are clinically stable, and that the ongoing process of atherosclerosis results in continuously elevated risk, which warrants new avenues of therapy, such as anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Opstal said.

In a binary analysis, there was no difference in composite cardiovascular events between patients with and without prior ACS (HR, 0.67 vs. HR, 0.81; P value for interaction, 0.43).

Dr. Opstal observed that a lack of statistical power precludes any definitive conclusions and that a large randomized controlled trial in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) but no prior ACS would elucidate whether early initiation of colchicine is “warranted at the moment CAD is established but before a first ACS event, as is common practice with acetylsalicylic acid and statins.”

In addition, the ongoing OASIS 9 trial will answer the question of whether patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-60 mL/min can safely use low-dose colchicine. The gout medication is contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment and in patients on drugs that inhibit both CYP3A4 or the P-glycoprotein.

In an accompanying editorial, colchicine researchers Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, and Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, of the Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, suggest that study design features likely explain the discord between the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT subgroup analyses and the lack of difference in CV event rates between patients with and without prior ACS.

The editorialists say lingering questions remain, including the value of colchicine in patients with diabetes or peripheral artery disease without known CAD, but they also point out that three 2021 meta-analyses confirmed large reductions in the risk of CV events, MI, and coronary revascularization with low-dose colchicine.

“In light of the positive results from LoDoCo2, COLCOT, and meta-analyses; its good tolerability profile; and cost-effectiveness, inflammation reduction with low-dose colchicine should be considered to treat patients with coronary disease in the absence of severe renal dysfunction,” Dr. Tardif and Dr. Marquis-Gravel concluded.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation; the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Opstal reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article.

Dr. Tardif has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; has minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and is mentioned as an author on submitted patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, use of colchicine after myocardial infarction, and use of colchicine in COVID-19 (he has waived his rights in the colchicine patents and does not stand to gain financially). Dr. Marquis-Gravel has received research grants from Bayer, has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and has served on national advisory boards for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer.
 

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

The benefits of low-dose colchicine (Colcrys) are consistent if started months or years after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in patients with stable coronary artery disease, a new LoDoCo2 subanalysis suggests.

As previously reported, the parent trial showed that adding colchicine 0.5 mg daily to standard care reduced the risk of the primary endpoint – a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization – by 31% compared with placebo.

In the new analysis, led by Tjerk S.J. Opstal, MD, the anti-inflammatory agent was equally effective in reducing the risk of the primary endpoint in patients with no prior ACS, a recent ACS (6-24 months), remote ACS (2-7 years), or very remote ACS (> 7 years), with no interaction found between groups (P = .59).

The incidence of the primary endpoint per 100 person-years and hazard ratios (HRs) for the four groups with colchicine and placebo are as follows:

• No prior ACS: 2.8 vs. 3.4; HR, 0.81 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.27).
• Recent ACS: 2.4 vs. 3.3; HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.51-1.10).
• Remote ACS: 1.8 vs. 3.2; HR, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.37-0.82)
• Very remote ACS: 3.0 vs. 4.3; HR, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

The results were reported Aug. 23 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In contrast, however, a recent subgroup analysis from the COLCOT trial reported an even greater reduction in its primary composite CV endpoint when colchicine was started within 3 days of an MI.

“The result of COLCOT could imply that initiation of colchicine treatment would be best suited directly after myocardial infarction,” Dr. Opstal, from Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said in an interview. “Our subanalysis shows that later initiation of colchicine therapy in patients visiting outpatient clinics years after their ACS events is equally effective. As such, colchicine therapy should not be limited to patients with recent ACS, and should be considered in all patients with coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Opstal pointed out that the two trials targeted different populations. COLCOT enrolled 4,765 patients within a month of MI, whereas LoDoCo2 enrolled 5,522 patients who were clinically stable for at least 6 months after an ACS or coronary revascularization.

Overall, 864 LoDoCo2 patients had no prior ACS and 86% had a history of ACS, of which 1,479 were recent, 1,582 were remote, and 1,597 were very remote.

Patients with a history of very remote ACS had a numerically higher event rate for the primary outcome, but the difference was not statistically significant and could be attributed to a play of chance, noted Dr. Opstal.

The team presumed patients with more recent prior ACS would remain at higher risk of ACS recurrence than would those with a more remote ACS that had proved to be clinically stable under standard medical therapy. But, he said, the data show they were at equal risk of the primary outcome.

“This implies that current optimal medical therapy does not result in an attenuation of residual risk over time regardless of whether patients are clinically stable, and that the ongoing process of atherosclerosis results in continuously elevated risk, which warrants new avenues of therapy, such as anti-inflammatory medication,” Dr. Opstal said.

In a binary analysis, there was no difference in composite cardiovascular events between patients with and without prior ACS (HR, 0.67 vs. HR, 0.81; P value for interaction, 0.43).

Dr. Opstal observed that a lack of statistical power precludes any definitive conclusions and that a large randomized controlled trial in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) but no prior ACS would elucidate whether early initiation of colchicine is “warranted at the moment CAD is established but before a first ACS event, as is common practice with acetylsalicylic acid and statins.”

In addition, the ongoing OASIS 9 trial will answer the question of whether patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-60 mL/min can safely use low-dose colchicine. The gout medication is contraindicated in patients with severe renal or hepatic impairment and in patients on drugs that inhibit both CYP3A4 or the P-glycoprotein.

In an accompanying editorial, colchicine researchers Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, and Guillaume Marquis-Gravel, MD, of the Montreal Heart Institute, Quebec, Canada, suggest that study design features likely explain the discord between the LoDoCo2 and COLCOT subgroup analyses and the lack of difference in CV event rates between patients with and without prior ACS.

The editorialists say lingering questions remain, including the value of colchicine in patients with diabetes or peripheral artery disease without known CAD, but they also point out that three 2021 meta-analyses confirmed large reductions in the risk of CV events, MI, and coronary revascularization with low-dose colchicine.

“In light of the positive results from LoDoCo2, COLCOT, and meta-analyses; its good tolerability profile; and cost-effectiveness, inflammation reduction with low-dose colchicine should be considered to treat patients with coronary disease in the absence of severe renal dysfunction,” Dr. Tardif and Dr. Marquis-Gravel concluded.

The study was supported by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia; a grant from the Sir Charles Gairdner Research Advisory Committee; the Withering Foundation; the Netherlands Heart Foundation; the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; and a consortium of Teva, Disphar, and Tiofarma in the Netherlands. The funders had no role in the design or conduct of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. Dr. Opstal reports no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor disclosures are listed in the original article.

Dr. Tardif has received grant support from Amarin, AstraZeneca, Ceapro, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, Esperion, Ionis, Novartis, Pfizer, RegenXBio, and Sanofi; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Pendopharm, and Sanofi; has minor equity interest in DalCor Pharmaceuticals; and is mentioned as an author on submitted patents on pharmacogenomics-guided CETP inhibition, use of colchicine after myocardial infarction, and use of colchicine in COVID-19 (he has waived his rights in the colchicine patents and does not stand to gain financially). Dr. Marquis-Gravel has received research grants from Bayer, has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, and has served on national advisory boards for Servier, JAMP, and Bayer.
 

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

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

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

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

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

There will be so much more to the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, which begins Aug. 27 with an all-virtual format, than detailed primary results of EMPEROR-Preserved, a trial that could mark a turning point for heart failure (HF) medical therapy.

Also among the featured Hot Line and Late-Breaking Science sessions are – along with many other studies – explorations of arrhythmia management (ablation or guided by loop recorder); secondary prevention, including by vaccination; oral anticoagulation, notably after transcatheter valve procedures; and colchicine or thrombosis prophylaxis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

There will even be a head-to-head comparison of two long-familiar left atrial appendage (LAA) occluders, and a population-based, randomized trial of sodium restriction through wide-scale use of a potassium-based salt substitute.

The congress will also introduce four guideline documents at sessions throughout the Congress, one on each day. They cover new and modified recommendations for heart failure; pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); cardiovascular (CV) disease prevention; and, with cosponsorship from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, valvular heart disease.
 

The virtues of virtual

That next year’s Congress is slated for Aug. 27-30 in Barcelona should be welcome news for anyone whose “what if” curiosity about all-virtual conferences has already been satisfied. But with experience comes wisdom, as the medical societies have learned that online scientific meetings have some winning qualities that may be worth keeping, as least for a while.

“I think there is no doubt that the digital format will continue, for several reasons. One is that this pandemic is not over,” ESC Congress program committee chair Stephan Windecker, MD, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital, , told this news organization. “As long as it is not over, the digital format is here to stay.”

But it also appears that people who haven’t been able to attend the congress in person are keen to log in and engage online, Dr. Windecker said. The 2020 all-virtual conference drew a much younger pool of registrants, on average, than did the live conferences before the pandemic.

“I think that’s an indication of people that may be in training, in early stages of their career, or they don’t have the support from departments or from their practice, or other financial means.” But they are able to participate via computer, tablet, or smartphone, he said.

“Another advantage is that the recorded content can be replayed at the convenience of whoever wants to consume it at a later point in time,” he added. “Those are just some examples why the digital format is likely to stay,” on its own or in a new age of hybrid meetings.  
 

New and updated guidelines

Leading off the guideline series is the document on diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic HF, which leveraged the past few busy years of HF clinical trials to arrive at a number of new recommendations and strengthened level-of-evidence ratings. It covers both drug and device therapy of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and acute decompensated HF, and tweaks and further enshrines the concept of HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Several updated recommendations for both long-used and novel medications, notably the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, will be included because of the recently appreciated evidence-based impact in HFrEF, Dr. Windecker noted.

“I think it will be particularly interesting to look for the SGLT2 inhibitors as not a completely new class of drugs, but certainly one where there has been a lot of new evidence, to look at how those drugs will be integrated in the overall care pathway.”

A top-line preview of the new HF guideline limited to drug therapy, presented at July’s Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC-HFA), provided a simple answer to a common question in the new, bountiful age of HFrEF medications: Which meds, initiated in what order?

As it happens, the new recommendation for first-line HFrEF drug therapy is not a silver bullet, but a shotgun – prompt initiation of at least four meds, one from each of four drug classes: renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and SGLT2 inhibitors. Each class, as described in the document, is to be started as soon as safely feasible, in a sequence deemed appropriate for each individual patient.
 

Spotlight on EMPEROR-Preserved

The world already knows that the trial, which tested the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly) on top of standard therapy, “met” its primary endpoint in almost 6,000 patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), who included some with HFmrEF by more contemporary definitions.

That means patients in EMPEROR-Preserved assigned to take empagliflozin showed significantly fewer events that made up the study’s primary endpoint, a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization. It appears to be the first clearly significant overall medical therapy benefit for a clinical primary endpoint in a major randomized HFpEF drug trial.

And that, pending fuller presentation of trial results at the Congress on Aug. 27, could be a huge deal for the half of HF patients with left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) higher than the HFrEF range.

Those early top-line results weren’t a decisive bombshell for a field now filled with hope for a practice-changing empagliflozin outcome in EMPEROR-Preserved, which isn’t a certainty. They were more like the “boom” of a mortar launching a rocket of fireworks that may explode into a chrysanthemum or green comet or, sometimes, turn out to be no more than a dud. The promise of the early cursory results critically depends on further details.

“Provided there is a compelling benefit, this is what everyone has been waiting for in this condition for decades,” Mikhail N. Kosiborod, MD, director of cardiometabolic research at Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., said.

“Already knowing that the trial met the primary endpoint is obviously very intriguing and encouraging,” he added. “But there are things we don’t know, such as: What is the magnitude of benefit? And whether that benefit, whatever the magnitude, is driven by reductions in both heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, or only one of the two.”

For example: “If we see an impressive benefit for reduction of hospitalizations, but not a significant reduction in death, that would still be a huge advance. That’s because, to date, we don’t have any drug for HFpEF that has convincingly demonstrated a compelling reduction in heart failure hospitalization or improvement in symptoms, function, or quality of life,” observed Dr. Kosiborod, who wasn’t part of EMPEROR-Preserved.

There have been “suggestions” from HFrEF trials that empagliflozin and dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) “have very comparable effects on at least the endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure,” he said. “So, my expectation would be that whatever is observed in EMPEROR-Preserved is likely a class effect, as well.”

Following EMPEROR-Preserved on the agenda is EMPEROR-Pooled, a patient-level combined analysis of the EMPEROR series of trials that spans the range of HF, regardless of ejection fraction or diabetes status, primarily exploring the effects of empagliflozin on renal function.
 

Other offerings, Friday, Aug. 27

Scheduled immediately after EMPEROR-Preserved is a presentation on the SMART-MI trial, which should clarify whether management guided by continuous ambulatory monitoring is effective in patients considered at especially high arrhythmic risk. Entry called for recent myocardial infarction and an LVEF of 36%-50% with evidence of cardiac autonomic dysfunction.

The trial randomly assigned 400 such patients to be or not be implanted with a Reveal LINQ (Medtronic) loop recorder and followed them for up to 18 months, primarily for detection of potentially serious arrhythmic events. Endpoints that involved mortality, hospitalization or other clinical events were secondary.

In a time slot preceding both SMART-MI and EMPEROR-Preserved, the GUIDE-HF trial is following a projected 3,600 patients with HF implanted with a CardioMEMS HF System (Abbott) pulmonary artery (PA) pressure sensor to explore the its value for guiding management.

The trial’s three cohorts, followed for at least 12 months, include randomized sensor-monitored and control groups of patients with New York Heart Association class 2-4 symptoms, as well as a third observational set of patients in NYHA class 3. That’s the indication for which the CardioMEMS monitor gained approval in the United States in 2014 based on the 2011 CHAMPION trial, and which fared just as well in the 2017 CHAMPION Post-Approval Study.

The Friday Hot Lines also include Dal-GenE, which has entered about 6,000 patients with recent MI to test the once-abandoned cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor dalcetrapib (DalCor) for any secondary-prevention benefits when used selectively. The trial’s hook: All its patients are confirmed to have the AA genotype of the rs1967309 variant in the ADCY9 gene, which has been associated with a pronounced clinical response to CETP inhibition.

Saturday, Aug. 28

The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AFib). But whether DOACs are similarly preferable in the growing world population of people who have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR or TAVI), an issue explored with variable results in the ATLANTIS and GALILEO trials, is far from settled.

The ENVISAGE-TAVI AF trial explored the question for the factor X inhibitor edoxaban (Savaysa, Lixiana, Daiichi-Sankyo) in 1,400 patients with AFib and a transfemoral TAVR in the previous 5 days, who were randomly assigned to the DOAC or standard management along with discretionary antiplatelet therapy. They’ve been followed for up to 3 years for a composite endpoint of clinical events – including death, MI, and stroke – and for major bleeding.

The day will also feature MASTER DAPT, a comparison of two dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimens in an estimated 4,300 patients considered to be high-risk for bleeding who had received the sirolimus-eluting Ultimaster (Terumo) coronary stent, which has a bioresorbable polymer coating.

Investigators have randomly assigned patients to receive either very-short-duration DAPT, for about a month after stenting, followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor alone for up to a year after the procedure; or a more conventional regimen of a P2Y12 inhibitor for 6-12 months with aspirin maintained for a total of 12 months.

Later that day, investigators from the FIGARO-DKD trial will present their results based on 7,437 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD), a much fuller version than the top-line findings announced by sponsor Bayer 3 months ago.

Those top-line results suggested that patients assigned to receive the nonsteroidal nonselective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) finerenone (Kerendia) on top of standard care benefited with a drop in risk for the primary endpoint of CV death or nonfatal CV events.

Finerenone was recently approved in the United States for treating patients with both type 2 diabetes and CKD based on the published FIDELIO-DKD trial, which had seen less CKD progression and fewer CV events in such patients who took the novel MRA.

Although similar in design to FIGARO-DKD, FIDELIO-DKD had entered fewer patients with early-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD). That led researchers to pool the two trials’ populations to create a cohort that spans the spectrum of DKD severity. An analysis of the pooled cohort, dubbed FIDELITY, is on the schedule after FIGARO-DKD.

After FIDELITY is the prospective APAF-CRT trial that is following a projected 1,830 patients with permanent, symptomatic AFib and a recent hospitalization for AFib or HF and who were not good candidates for standard ablation. They were assigned to receive either atrioventricular junctional ablation followed by CRT, with or without a defibrillation, on top of optimal meds – a so-called “ablate-and-pace” strategy – or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator with rate-control drug therapy.

The new analysis represents the trial’s second phase in which mortality was followed for 4 years as the primary endpoint, in contrast to the previously reported initial phase that followed the first 102 patients for 2 years for the composite primary endpoint of death, worsening HF, and HF hospitalization. The first phase had halted enrollment before reaching its planned target of 280 patients after an interim analysis showed a significant benefit for ablate and pace. 

Next up: DECAAF 2, a randomized assessment of whether catheter ablation for AFib guided by delayed gadolinium enhancement on MRI, a proxy for scar tissue, can be more effective than standard AFib ablation by pulmonary vein isolation alone. An estimated 900 patients with persistent AFib who had never before undergone ablation for the arrhythmia were randomly assigned to one strategy or the other and followed for AFib recurrence over 18 months.
 

Sunday, Aug. 29

The TOMAHAWK trial aimed to clarify the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography for resuscitated patients with non–ST-segment elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, a broad population in a setting for which there is little randomized-trial guidance. Investigators randomly assigned 558 such patients to undergo immediate invasive angiography or to direct intensive care unit admission for initial standard care with discretionary delayed angiography. Patients were followed for all-cause mortality, with other clinical events and neurologic outcomes as secondary endpoints.

Next on the schedule, the RIPCORD-2 trial randomly assigned 1,100 patients with stable known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) to undergo conventional angiography alone or with added direct pressure-wire measurement of fractional flow reserve to guide management decisions. Primary outcomes include health care costs and patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

Slated for later that day, the Asymptomatic Carotid Surgery Trial-2 (ACST-2) has entered an estimated 3600 patients with a substantial carotid artery narrowing not associated with symptoms but for which either carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) was considered anatomically feasible. There also must have been “substantial uncertainty” regarding the optimal procedure choice.

The trial, conducted in 40 countries primarily in Europe and North America and launched in 2008, randomly assigned the patients to undergo either CEA or CAS, in both cases with appropriate medical therapy, and followed them for periprocedural events and up to 10 years for strokes and stroke-related events.

The LOOP study, which is to directly follow ACST-2, has explored whether screening for AFib using the Medtronic Reveal LINQ monitor in older patients with non-AFib stroke risk factors – with oral anticoagulation prescribed for those who test positive – can lower their risk for stroke or systemic embolism. It randomly assigned 6,000 such patients to care guided by the loop recorder or to standard care.

On a somewhat larger scale, the Salt Substitute and Stroke Study (SSaSS) randomly assigned a total of 20,996 people in about 600 villages across northern China and Tibet to sodium-restriction intervention and control groups by village. All participants had a history of stroke or were aged at least 60 years with uncontrolled hypertension.

As described by the trial’s online portal, participants in villages assigned to the intervention group were given a supply of a low-sodium, potassium-supplementing salt substitute to replace their own salt supplies, along with education on the health benefits of sodium restriction. Participants in control villages continued their normal diets and, at the trial’s beginning, received “advice to reduce their salt intake.” All were required to own a telephone.

Clinical events, including strokes and hospitalizations throughout a 5-year follow-up, were tracked by phone calls made to all participants every 6 months and were documented at follow-up home visits.

Sunday is also to feature a Late-Breaking Trials session with a focus on COVID-19, which leads off with COLCOVID, a test of colchicine in patients hospitalized for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and in acute respiratory distress.

The 1,279 participants in Argentina were randomly assigned to receive or not receive the potent anti-inflammatory agent on top of antivirals and other standard management and followed for death or new need for mechanical ventilation. A successful outcome would contrast with the RECOVERY trial, which terminated a colchicine group of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 because of a lack of efficacy earlier this year.

COLCOVID is to be followed by the MICHELLE trial of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer/Janssen) prophylaxis, compared with no preventive oral anticoagulant, in 320 patients who, when hospitalized with COVID-19, had been on parenteral anticoagulants because of an elevated risk for venous thromboembolism. The trial, conducted in Brazil, called for postdischarge rivaroxaban at a once-daily dosage of 10 mg for about 1 month.

The session also includes a presentation called “Insights into the Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comprehensive Analysis from the GUIDE-HF Trial,” the primary outcomes of which will be reported on the first day of the Congress.

Following is a presentation on the PREPARE-IT study of icosapent ethyl (Vascepa, Amarin), given at high dosages intended to be anti-inflammatory, compared with placebo, in an estimated 4,000 adults. The trial has two groups: A prevention group of adults living and circulating in the community; and a treatment group of patients aged at least 40 years with confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for whom the need for hospitalization isn’t clear.
 

Monday, Aug. 30

The final day of the Congress features a trial called Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI), which has tested the secondary preventive effect of influenza vaccination by randomly assigning 2,571 patients to receive a standard vaccine or a saline placebo injection on one occasion.

Entry to the international trial called for a diagnosis of MI with or without ST-segment elevation, or stable CAD and age at least 75 years with other risk factors. The patients were followed for death, MI, stent thrombosis, and a slew of secondary endpoints over 12 months.

Monday offerings continue later in a time block leading off with the STEP trial, which has randomly assigned an estimated 8,000 patients at 40 centers in China who are 60 to 80 years of age with a systolic blood pressure of 140 to <190 mm Hg to be on standard guideline-based therapy or an intensive drug-management strategy.

The systolic BP goals are 130 to <150 mm Hg for standard care and 110 to <130 mm Hg for the intensive regimen. The composite primary endpoint includes death and clinical events related to acute coronary syndromes, HF, revascularization, and stroke.

Following on heels of STEP, the Amulet IDE trial – the first major randomized comparison of two transcatheter LAA closure devices – entered 1,878 patients with nonvalvular AFib who were considered high-risk for bleeding and stroke or systemic embolism.

They were randomly assigned in the noninferiority trial to receive either the AMPLATZER Amulet (Abbott Medical Devices) or the WATCHMAN (Boston Scientific) closure devices and were followed for safety and efficacy for up to 5 years.

Both LAA closure devices, intended to make patients with AFib less reliant on oral anticoagulation, are now available on both sides of the Atlantic – as well as many other countries – after the Amulet’s United States market approval on Aug. 16, based largely on the Amulet IDE trial.

Rounding out the final Hot Line set is one of the latest efforts to show the efficacy and safety of a very short DAPT period after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndromes, the STOPDAPT-2 ACS trial.

The study assigned 3,008 patients in Japan to receive aspirin and clopidogrel for either 1 month or 1 year after implantation with an everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent and followed them for up to 5 years for a composite of MI, CV death, stent thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.

The trial follows the published STOPDAPT-2 trial that showed superiority for the 1-month DAPT regimen in a predominantly stable-CAD population treated with the same kind of stent.
 

Program structure and format

A total of 15 online channels are to be available in the morning, European time, their schedules running in parallel. Presentations often are prerecorded, but also include live sessions at 8:00 a.m. Central time and 12 p.m. CET (2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time) to liven up the channel offerings, Dr. Windecker observed, and to make them more immediate and potentially interactive.

Many of the parallel channels are devoted throughout the Congress to particular silos of cardiology; for example, arrhythmias and device therapy is on channel 3; CAD and acute care is on 5; HF is on 6; and preventive cardiology is on 9.

Other channels swing across different topics from day to day, such as channel 1, which covers COVID-19 topics on the first and third day of the meeting, “advances in science” on day 2, and “digital health, public health, health economics” on day 4.

The focus each day, starting at 2:00 p.m. CET (8:00 a.m. ET) and continuing into the evening in Europe, shifts over to the Prime Time live program, which features the Hot Line and guideline presentations and many of the live abstract presentations.

Dr. Kosiborod, not a researcher with the EMPEROR trials, is chair of the Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure ( PRESERVED-HF ) trial, which is scheduled for presentation at the September 2021 Heart Failure Society of American meeting.

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

For patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), following a Mediterranean diet is more effective in reducing progression of atherosclerosis than following a low-fat diet, according to new data from the CORDIOPREV randomized, controlled trial.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“The current study is, to our knowledge, the first to establish an effective dietary strategy for secondary cardiovascular prevention, reinforcing the fact that the Mediterranean diet rich in extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) could prevent the progression of atherosclerosis,” the study team said.

The data also show that patients with a higher atherosclerotic burden might benefit the most from the Mediterranean diet.

The study was published online Aug. 10, 2021, in Stroke.
 

Mediterranean or low fat?

“It is well established that lifestyle and dietary habits powerfully affect cardiovascular risk,” study investigator Elena M. Yubero-Serrano, PhD, with Reina Sofia University Hospital/University of Cordoba (Spain), told this news organization.

“The effectiveness of the Mediterranean diet in reducing cardiovascular risk has been seen in primary prevention. However, currently there is no consensus about a recommended dietary model for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

The Coronary Diet Intervention With Olive Oil and Cardiovascular Prevention (CORDIOPREV) study is an ongoing prospective study comparing the effects of two healthy diets for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 1002 patients.

The comparative effect of the diets in reducing CVD risk, assessed by quantification of intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (IMT-CC), is a key secondary endpoint of the study.

During the study, half of the patients follow a Mediterranean diet rich in EVOO, fruit and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and nuts. The other half follow a diet low in fat and rich in complex carbohydrates.

A total of 939 participants (459 in the low-fat diet group and 480 in the Mediterranean diet group) completed IMT-CC evaluation at baseline, and 809 (377 and 432, respectively) completed the IMT-CC evaluation at 5 years; 731 (335 and 396, respectively) did so at 7 years.

The Mediterranean diet significantly decreased IMT-CC both after 5 years (–0.027; P < .001) and after 7 years (–0.031 mm; P < .001), relative to baseline. In contrast, the low-fat diet did not exert any change on IMT-CC after 5 or 7 years, the researchers report.

The higher the IMT-CC at baseline, the greater the reduction in this parameter.

The Mediterranean diet also produced a greater decrease in IMT-CC and carotid plaque maximum height, compared with the low-fat diet throughout follow-up.

There were no between-group differences in carotid plaque numbers during follow-up.

“Our findings, in addition to reinforcing the clinical benefits of the Mediterranean diet, provide a beneficial dietary strategy as a clinical and therapeutic tool that could reduce the high cardiovascular recurrence in the context of secondary prevention,” Dr. Yubero-Serrano said in an interview.

Earlier data from CORDIOPREV showed that, after 1 year of eating a Mediterranean diet, compared with the low-fat diet, endothelial function was improved among patients with CHD, even those with type 2 diabetes, which was associated with a better balance of vascular homeostasis.

The Mediterranean diet may also modulate the lipid profile, particularly by increasing HDL cholesterol levels. The anti-inflammatory capacity of the Mediterranean diet could be another factor that contributes to reducing the progression of atherosclerosis, the researchers say.
 

Important study

Reached for comment, Alan Rozanski, MD, professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said: “We know very well that lifestyle factors, diet, and exercise in particular are extremely important in promoting health, vitality, and decreasing risk for chronic diseases, including heart attack and stroke.

“But a lot of the studies depend on epidemiological work. Until now, we haven’t had important prospective studies evaluating different kinds of dietary approaches and how they affect carotid intimal thickening assessments that we can do by ultrasound. So having this kind of imaging study which shows that diet can halt progression of atherosclerosis is important,” said Dr. Rozanski.

“Changing one’s diet is extremely important and potentially beneficial in many ways, and being able to say to a patient with atherosclerosis that we have data that shows you can halt the progression of the disease can be extraordinarily encouraging to many patients,” he noted.

“When people have disease, they very often gravitate toward drugs, but continuing to emphasize lifestyle changes in these people is extremely important,” he added.

The CORDIOPREV study was supported by the Fundación Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero. Dr. Yubero-Serrano and Dr. Rozanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), following a Mediterranean diet is more effective in reducing progression of atherosclerosis than following a low-fat diet, according to new data from the CORDIOPREV randomized, controlled trial.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“The current study is, to our knowledge, the first to establish an effective dietary strategy for secondary cardiovascular prevention, reinforcing the fact that the Mediterranean diet rich in extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) could prevent the progression of atherosclerosis,” the study team said.

The data also show that patients with a higher atherosclerotic burden might benefit the most from the Mediterranean diet.

The study was published online Aug. 10, 2021, in Stroke.
 

Mediterranean or low fat?

“It is well established that lifestyle and dietary habits powerfully affect cardiovascular risk,” study investigator Elena M. Yubero-Serrano, PhD, with Reina Sofia University Hospital/University of Cordoba (Spain), told this news organization.

“The effectiveness of the Mediterranean diet in reducing cardiovascular risk has been seen in primary prevention. However, currently there is no consensus about a recommended dietary model for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

The Coronary Diet Intervention With Olive Oil and Cardiovascular Prevention (CORDIOPREV) study is an ongoing prospective study comparing the effects of two healthy diets for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 1002 patients.

The comparative effect of the diets in reducing CVD risk, assessed by quantification of intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (IMT-CC), is a key secondary endpoint of the study.

During the study, half of the patients follow a Mediterranean diet rich in EVOO, fruit and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and nuts. The other half follow a diet low in fat and rich in complex carbohydrates.

A total of 939 participants (459 in the low-fat diet group and 480 in the Mediterranean diet group) completed IMT-CC evaluation at baseline, and 809 (377 and 432, respectively) completed the IMT-CC evaluation at 5 years; 731 (335 and 396, respectively) did so at 7 years.

The Mediterranean diet significantly decreased IMT-CC both after 5 years (–0.027; P < .001) and after 7 years (–0.031 mm; P < .001), relative to baseline. In contrast, the low-fat diet did not exert any change on IMT-CC after 5 or 7 years, the researchers report.

The higher the IMT-CC at baseline, the greater the reduction in this parameter.

The Mediterranean diet also produced a greater decrease in IMT-CC and carotid plaque maximum height, compared with the low-fat diet throughout follow-up.

There were no between-group differences in carotid plaque numbers during follow-up.

“Our findings, in addition to reinforcing the clinical benefits of the Mediterranean diet, provide a beneficial dietary strategy as a clinical and therapeutic tool that could reduce the high cardiovascular recurrence in the context of secondary prevention,” Dr. Yubero-Serrano said in an interview.

Earlier data from CORDIOPREV showed that, after 1 year of eating a Mediterranean diet, compared with the low-fat diet, endothelial function was improved among patients with CHD, even those with type 2 diabetes, which was associated with a better balance of vascular homeostasis.

The Mediterranean diet may also modulate the lipid profile, particularly by increasing HDL cholesterol levels. The anti-inflammatory capacity of the Mediterranean diet could be another factor that contributes to reducing the progression of atherosclerosis, the researchers say.
 

Important study

Reached for comment, Alan Rozanski, MD, professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said: “We know very well that lifestyle factors, diet, and exercise in particular are extremely important in promoting health, vitality, and decreasing risk for chronic diseases, including heart attack and stroke.

“But a lot of the studies depend on epidemiological work. Until now, we haven’t had important prospective studies evaluating different kinds of dietary approaches and how they affect carotid intimal thickening assessments that we can do by ultrasound. So having this kind of imaging study which shows that diet can halt progression of atherosclerosis is important,” said Dr. Rozanski.

“Changing one’s diet is extremely important and potentially beneficial in many ways, and being able to say to a patient with atherosclerosis that we have data that shows you can halt the progression of the disease can be extraordinarily encouraging to many patients,” he noted.

“When people have disease, they very often gravitate toward drugs, but continuing to emphasize lifestyle changes in these people is extremely important,” he added.

The CORDIOPREV study was supported by the Fundación Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero. Dr. Yubero-Serrano and Dr. Rozanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), following a Mediterranean diet is more effective in reducing progression of atherosclerosis than following a low-fat diet, according to new data from the CORDIOPREV randomized, controlled trial.

OksanaKiian/Getty Images

“The current study is, to our knowledge, the first to establish an effective dietary strategy for secondary cardiovascular prevention, reinforcing the fact that the Mediterranean diet rich in extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) could prevent the progression of atherosclerosis,” the study team said.

The data also show that patients with a higher atherosclerotic burden might benefit the most from the Mediterranean diet.

The study was published online Aug. 10, 2021, in Stroke.
 

Mediterranean or low fat?

“It is well established that lifestyle and dietary habits powerfully affect cardiovascular risk,” study investigator Elena M. Yubero-Serrano, PhD, with Reina Sofia University Hospital/University of Cordoba (Spain), told this news organization.

“The effectiveness of the Mediterranean diet in reducing cardiovascular risk has been seen in primary prevention. However, currently there is no consensus about a recommended dietary model for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease,” she said.

The Coronary Diet Intervention With Olive Oil and Cardiovascular Prevention (CORDIOPREV) study is an ongoing prospective study comparing the effects of two healthy diets for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in 1002 patients.

The comparative effect of the diets in reducing CVD risk, assessed by quantification of intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (IMT-CC), is a key secondary endpoint of the study.

During the study, half of the patients follow a Mediterranean diet rich in EVOO, fruit and vegetables, whole grains, fish, and nuts. The other half follow a diet low in fat and rich in complex carbohydrates.

A total of 939 participants (459 in the low-fat diet group and 480 in the Mediterranean diet group) completed IMT-CC evaluation at baseline, and 809 (377 and 432, respectively) completed the IMT-CC evaluation at 5 years; 731 (335 and 396, respectively) did so at 7 years.

The Mediterranean diet significantly decreased IMT-CC both after 5 years (–0.027; P < .001) and after 7 years (–0.031 mm; P < .001), relative to baseline. In contrast, the low-fat diet did not exert any change on IMT-CC after 5 or 7 years, the researchers report.

The higher the IMT-CC at baseline, the greater the reduction in this parameter.

The Mediterranean diet also produced a greater decrease in IMT-CC and carotid plaque maximum height, compared with the low-fat diet throughout follow-up.

There were no between-group differences in carotid plaque numbers during follow-up.

“Our findings, in addition to reinforcing the clinical benefits of the Mediterranean diet, provide a beneficial dietary strategy as a clinical and therapeutic tool that could reduce the high cardiovascular recurrence in the context of secondary prevention,” Dr. Yubero-Serrano said in an interview.

Earlier data from CORDIOPREV showed that, after 1 year of eating a Mediterranean diet, compared with the low-fat diet, endothelial function was improved among patients with CHD, even those with type 2 diabetes, which was associated with a better balance of vascular homeostasis.

The Mediterranean diet may also modulate the lipid profile, particularly by increasing HDL cholesterol levels. The anti-inflammatory capacity of the Mediterranean diet could be another factor that contributes to reducing the progression of atherosclerosis, the researchers say.
 

Important study

Reached for comment, Alan Rozanski, MD, professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said: “We know very well that lifestyle factors, diet, and exercise in particular are extremely important in promoting health, vitality, and decreasing risk for chronic diseases, including heart attack and stroke.

“But a lot of the studies depend on epidemiological work. Until now, we haven’t had important prospective studies evaluating different kinds of dietary approaches and how they affect carotid intimal thickening assessments that we can do by ultrasound. So having this kind of imaging study which shows that diet can halt progression of atherosclerosis is important,” said Dr. Rozanski.

“Changing one’s diet is extremely important and potentially beneficial in many ways, and being able to say to a patient with atherosclerosis that we have data that shows you can halt the progression of the disease can be extraordinarily encouraging to many patients,” he noted.

“When people have disease, they very often gravitate toward drugs, but continuing to emphasize lifestyle changes in these people is extremely important,” he added.

The CORDIOPREV study was supported by the Fundación Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero. Dr. Yubero-Serrano and Dr. Rozanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

In April, a group of more than a dozen cardiologists at St. Louis Heart and Vascular (SLHV) lost their privileges at SSM Health, an eight-hospital system in St. Louis.

The physicians did not lose their privileges because of a clinical failure. Rather, it was because of SSM’s decision to enter into an exclusive contract with another set of cardiologists.

“The current situation is economically untenable for us,” said Harvey Serota, MD, founder and medical director of SLHV. “This is an existential threat to the practice.”

Because of the exclusive contract, many of SLHV’s patients are now being redirected to SSM-contracted cardiologists. Volume for the group’s new $15 million catheterization lab has plummeted. SLHV is suing SSM to restore its privileges, claiming lack of due process, restraint of trade, interference with its business, and breach of contract.

Losing privileges because a hospital seeks to increase their profits is becoming all too familiar for many independent specialists in fields such as cardiology, orthopedic surgery, and urology, as the hospitals that hosted them become their competitors and forge exclusive contracts with opposing groups.

What can these doctors do if they’re shut out? File a lawsuit, as SLHV has done? Demand a hearing before the medical staff and try to resolve the problem? Or simply give up their privileges and move on?

Unfortunately, none of these approaches offer a quick or certain solution, and each comes with risks.

Generally, courts have upheld hospitals’ use of exclusive contracts, which is also known as economic credentialing, says Barry F. Rosen, a health law attorney at Gordon Feinblatt, in Baltimore.

“Courts have long recognized exclusive contracts, and challenges by excluded doctors usually fail,” he says.

However, Mr. Rosen can cite several examples in which excluded doctors launched legal challenges that prevailed, owing to nuances in the law. The legal field in this area is tangled, and it varies by state.
 

Can hospitals make exclusive deals?

Hospitals have long used exclusive contracts for hospital-based specialists – anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, emergency physicians, and hospitalists. They say that restricting patients to one group of anesthesiologists or radiologists enhances operational efficiency and that these contracts do not disrupt patients, because patients have no ties to hospital-based physicians. Such contracts are often more profitable for the hospital because of the negotiated rates.

Exclusive contracts in other specialties, however, are less accepted because they involve markedly different strategies and have different effects. In such cases, the hospital is no longer simply enhancing operational efficiency but is competing with physicians on staff, and the arrangement can disrupt the care of patients of the excluded doctors.

In the courts, these concerns might form the basis of an antitrust action or a claim of tortious interference with physicians’ ability to provide care for their patients, but neither claim is easy to win, Mr. Rosen says.

In antitrust cases, “the issue is not whether the excluded doctor was injured but whether the action harmed competition,” Mr. Rosen says. “Will the exclusion lead to higher prices?”

In the case of interference with patient care, “you will always find interference by one entity in the affairs of another,” he says, “but tortious interference applies to situations where something nefarious is going on, such as the other side was out to destroy your business and create a monopoly.”

Hospitals may try to restrict the privileges of physicians who invest in competing facilities such as cath labs and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), says Gregory Mertz, managing director of Physician Strategies Group, a consultancy in Virginia Beach.

“However, any revenge that a hospital might take against the doctors who started an ASC would usually not be publicly admitted,” Mr. Mertz says. “Revenge would be exacted in subtle ways.”

In the St. Louis situation, SSM did not cite SLHV’s cath lab as a reason for its exclusive contract. SSM stated in court documents that the decision was based on the recommendations of an expert panel. Furthermore, SSM said the board created the panel in response to a state report that cited the limited experience of some SLHV cardiologists in treating a rare type of heart attack.

Mr. Mertz says the board’s interest in the state’s concern and then its forming the special panel lent a great deal of legitimacy to SSM’s decision to start an exclusive contract. “SSM can show evidence that the board’s decision was based on a clinical matter and not on trying to squeeze out the cardiologists,” he says.

In SLHV’s defense, Dr. Serota says the practice offered to stop taking calls for the type of heart attack that was cited, but the hospital did not respond to its offer. He says SSM should have consulted the hospital’s medical staff to address the state’s concern and to create the exclusive contract, because these decisions involved clinical issues that the medical staff understands better than the board.

The law, however, does not require a hospital board to consult with its medical staff, says Alice G. Gosfield, a health care attorney in Philadelphia. “The board has ultimate legal control of everything in the hospital,” she says. However, the board often delegates certain functions to the medical staff in the hospital bylaws, and depending on the wording of the bylaws, it is still possible that the board violated the bylaws, Ms. Gosfield adds.
 

Can excluded physicians get peer review?

Can the hospital medical staff help restore the privileges of excluded physicians? Don’t these physicians have the right to peer review – a hearing before the medical staff?

Indeed, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals, states that the hospital must have “mechanisms, including a fair hearing and appeal process, for addressing adverse decisions for existing medical staff members and other individuals holding clinical privileges for renewal, revocation, or revision of clinical privileges.”

However, excluded physicians may not have a right to a hearing if they have not been fully stripped of privileges. SSM discontinued adult cardiology privileges for SLHV doctors but retained some doctors’ internal medicine privileges. Dr. Serota says internal medicine privileges are useless to cardiologists, but because the doctors’ privileges had not been fully removed, they cannot ask for a hearing.

More fundamentally, exclusive contracts are not a good fit for peer review. Mr. Rosen says the hearings were designed to review the physicians’ clinical competence or behavior, but excluded physicians do not have these problems. About all the hearing could focus on is the hospital’s policy, which the board would not want to allow. To avoid this, “the hospital might rule out a hearing as contrary to the intent of the bylaws,” Mr. Rosen says.

Furthermore, even if peer review goes forward, “what the medical staff decides is only advisory, and the hospital board makes the final decision,” Mr. Rosen says. He notes that the doctor could challenge the decision in court, but the hospital might still prevail.
 

Excluded physicians sometimes prevail

Although it is rare for excluded physicians to win a lawsuit against their hospital, it does happen, says Michael R. Callahan, health lawyer at Katten Muchin Rosenman, in Chicago.

Mr. Callahan cites a 2010 decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court that stopped the state’s largest health system from denying physicians’ privileges. Among other things, the hospital was found to have tortiously interfered with the physicians’ contracts with patients.

In a 2007 decision, a West Virginia court ruled that hospitals that have a mission to serve the public cannot exclude physicians for nonquality issues. In addition, some states, such as Texas, limit the economic factors that can be considered when credentialing decisions are made. Other states, such as Ohio, give hospitals a great deal of leeway to alter credentialing.

Dr. Serota is optimistic about his Missouri lawsuit. Although the judge in the case did not immediately grant SLHV’s request for restoration of privileges while the case proceeds, she did grant expedited discovery – allowing SLHV to obtain documents from SSM that could strengthen the doctors’ case – and she agreed to a hearing on SLHV’s request for a temporary restoration of privileges.

Ms. Gosfield says Dr. Serota’s optimism seems justified, but she adds that such cases cost a lot of money and that they may still not be winnable.

Often plaintiffs can settle lawsuits before they go to trial, but Mr. Callahan says hospitals are loath to restore privileges in a settlement because they don’t want to undermine an exclusivity deal. “The exclusive group expects a certain volume, which can’t be reached if the competing doctors are allowed back in,” he says.
 

Many physicians don’t challenge the exclusion

Quite often, excluded doctors decide not to challenge the decision. For example, Dr. Serota says groups of orthopedic surgeons and urologists have decided not to challenge similar decisions by SSM. “They wanted to move on,” he says.

Mr. Callahan says many excluded doctors also don’t even ask for a hearing. “They expect that the hospital’s decision will be upheld,” he says.

This was the case for Devendra K. Amin, MD, an independent cardiologist in Easton, Pa. Dr. Amin has not had any hospital privileges since July 2020. Even though he is board certified in interventional cardiology, which involves catheterization, Dr. Amin says he cannot perform these procedures because they can only be performed in a hospital in the area.

In the 1990s, Dr. Amin says, he had invasive cardiology privileges at five hospitals, but then those hospitals consolidated, and the remaining ones started constricting his privileges. First he could no longer work in the emergency department, then he could no longer read echocardiograms and interpret stress test results, because that work was assigned exclusively to employed doctors, he says.

Then the one remaining hospital announced that privileges would only be available to physicians by invitation, and he was not invited. Dr. Amin says he could have regained general cardiology privileges if he had accepted employment at the hospital, but he did not want to do this. A recruiter and the head of the cardiology section at the hospital even took him out to dinner 2 years ago to discuss employment, but there was a stipulation that the hospital would not agree to.

“I wanted to get back my interventional privileges back,” Dr. Amin says, “but they told me that would not be possible because they had an exclusive contract with a group.”

Dr. Amin says that now, he can only work as a general cardiologist with reduced volume. He says primary care physicians in the local hospital systems only refer to cardiologists within their systems. “When these patients do come to me, it is only because they specifically requested to see me,” Dr. Amin says.

He does not want to challenge the decisions regarding privileging. “Look, I am 68 years old,” Dr. Amin says. “I’m not retiring yet, but I don’t want to get into a battle with a hospital that has very deep pockets. I’m not a confrontational person to begin with, and I don’t want to spend the next 10 years of my life in litigation.”
 

Diverging expectations

The law on exclusive contracts does not provide easy answers for excluded doctors, and often it defies physicians’ conception of their own role in the hospital.

Many physicians expect the hospital to be a haven where they can do their work without being cut out by a competitor. This view is reinforced by organizations such as the American Medical Association.

The AMA Council on Medical Service states that privileges “can only be abridged upon recommendation of the medical staff and only for reason related to professional competence, adherence to standards of care, and other parameters agreed to by the medical staff.”

But the courts don’t tend to agree with that position. “Hospitals have a fiduciary duty to protect their own financial interests,” Mr. Callahan says. “This may involve anything that furthers the hospital’s mission to provide high-quality health care services to its patient community.”

At the same time, however, there are plenty of instances in which courts have ruled that exclusive contracts had gone too far. But usually it takes a lawyer experienced in these cases to know what those exceptions are.

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

Cardiologist Samirkumar J. Shah, MD, was sentenced to 78 months in prison after his conviction on two counts of federal health care fraud involving more than $13 million.

Instants/Getty Images

As part of his sentence, Dr. Shah, 58, of Fox Chapel, Pa., must pay $1.7 million in restitution and other penalties and undergo 3 years of supervised release after prison.

“Dr. Shah risked the health of his patients so he could make millions of dollars through unnecessary procedures, and lied and fabricated records for years to perpetuate his fraud scheme,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman said in an Aug. 5 statement from the Department of Justice.

As previously reported, Dr. Shah was convicted June 14, 2019, of submitting fraudulent claims to private and federal insurance programs between 2008 and 2013 for external counterpulsation (ECP) therapy, a lower limb compression treatment approved for patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina.

Dr. Shah, however, advertised ECP as the “fountain of youth,” claimed it made patients “younger and smarter,” and offered the treatment for conditions such as obesity, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.

Patients were required to undergo diagnostic ultrasounds as a precautionary measure prior to starting ECP, but witness testimony established that Dr. Shah did not review any of the imaging before approving new patients for ECP, placing his patients at risk for serious injury or even death, the DOJ stated.

The evidence also showed that Dr. Shah double-billed insurers, routinely submitted fabricated patient files, and made false statements concerning his practice, patient population, recording keeping, and compliance with coverage guidelines, the government said.

During the scheme, Dr. Shah submitted ECP-related claims for Medicare Part B, UPMC Health Plan, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Gateway Health Plan beneficiaries totalling more than $13 million and received reimbursement payments in excess of $3.5 million.

“Rather than upholding the oath he swore and providing care for patients who trusted him, this defendant misled patients and drained critical Medicaid funds from families who needed it,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro. “We will not let anyone put their patients’ lives at risk for a profit.”

“Today’s sentence holds Mr. Shah accountable for his appalling actions,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Mr. Shah used his position as a doctor to illegally profit from a health care program paid for by taxpayers. Fraud of this magnitude will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Shah has been in custody since July 15, 2021, after skipping out on his original July 14 sentencing date. The Tribune-Review reported that Dr. Shah filed a last-minute request for a continuance, claiming he had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and was advised by his doctor that he needed “strict bedrest for at least 6 weeks.”

Dr. Shah reportedly turned himself after presiding U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone denied the motion and issued an arrest warrant.

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

Cardiologist Samirkumar J. Shah, MD, was sentenced to 78 months in prison after his conviction on two counts of federal health care fraud involving more than $13 million.

Instants/Getty Images

As part of his sentence, Dr. Shah, 58, of Fox Chapel, Pa., must pay $1.7 million in restitution and other penalties and undergo 3 years of supervised release after prison.

“Dr. Shah risked the health of his patients so he could make millions of dollars through unnecessary procedures, and lied and fabricated records for years to perpetuate his fraud scheme,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman said in an Aug. 5 statement from the Department of Justice.

As previously reported, Dr. Shah was convicted June 14, 2019, of submitting fraudulent claims to private and federal insurance programs between 2008 and 2013 for external counterpulsation (ECP) therapy, a lower limb compression treatment approved for patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina.

Dr. Shah, however, advertised ECP as the “fountain of youth,” claimed it made patients “younger and smarter,” and offered the treatment for conditions such as obesity, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.

Patients were required to undergo diagnostic ultrasounds as a precautionary measure prior to starting ECP, but witness testimony established that Dr. Shah did not review any of the imaging before approving new patients for ECP, placing his patients at risk for serious injury or even death, the DOJ stated.

The evidence also showed that Dr. Shah double-billed insurers, routinely submitted fabricated patient files, and made false statements concerning his practice, patient population, recording keeping, and compliance with coverage guidelines, the government said.

During the scheme, Dr. Shah submitted ECP-related claims for Medicare Part B, UPMC Health Plan, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Gateway Health Plan beneficiaries totalling more than $13 million and received reimbursement payments in excess of $3.5 million.

“Rather than upholding the oath he swore and providing care for patients who trusted him, this defendant misled patients and drained critical Medicaid funds from families who needed it,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro. “We will not let anyone put their patients’ lives at risk for a profit.”

“Today’s sentence holds Mr. Shah accountable for his appalling actions,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Mr. Shah used his position as a doctor to illegally profit from a health care program paid for by taxpayers. Fraud of this magnitude will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Shah has been in custody since July 15, 2021, after skipping out on his original July 14 sentencing date. The Tribune-Review reported that Dr. Shah filed a last-minute request for a continuance, claiming he had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and was advised by his doctor that he needed “strict bedrest for at least 6 weeks.”

Dr. Shah reportedly turned himself after presiding U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone denied the motion and issued an arrest warrant.

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

Cardiologist Samirkumar J. Shah, MD, was sentenced to 78 months in prison after his conviction on two counts of federal health care fraud involving more than $13 million.

Instants/Getty Images

As part of his sentence, Dr. Shah, 58, of Fox Chapel, Pa., must pay $1.7 million in restitution and other penalties and undergo 3 years of supervised release after prison.

“Dr. Shah risked the health of his patients so he could make millions of dollars through unnecessary procedures, and lied and fabricated records for years to perpetuate his fraud scheme,” acting U.S. Attorney Stephen R. Kaufman said in an Aug. 5 statement from the Department of Justice.

As previously reported, Dr. Shah was convicted June 14, 2019, of submitting fraudulent claims to private and federal insurance programs between 2008 and 2013 for external counterpulsation (ECP) therapy, a lower limb compression treatment approved for patients with coronary artery disease and refractory angina.

Dr. Shah, however, advertised ECP as the “fountain of youth,” claimed it made patients “younger and smarter,” and offered the treatment for conditions such as obesity, hypertension, hypotension, diabetes, and erectile dysfunction.

Patients were required to undergo diagnostic ultrasounds as a precautionary measure prior to starting ECP, but witness testimony established that Dr. Shah did not review any of the imaging before approving new patients for ECP, placing his patients at risk for serious injury or even death, the DOJ stated.

The evidence also showed that Dr. Shah double-billed insurers, routinely submitted fabricated patient files, and made false statements concerning his practice, patient population, recording keeping, and compliance with coverage guidelines, the government said.

During the scheme, Dr. Shah submitted ECP-related claims for Medicare Part B, UPMC Health Plan, Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Gateway Health Plan beneficiaries totalling more than $13 million and received reimbursement payments in excess of $3.5 million.

“Rather than upholding the oath he swore and providing care for patients who trusted him, this defendant misled patients and drained critical Medicaid funds from families who needed it,” said Attorney General Josh Shapiro. “We will not let anyone put their patients’ lives at risk for a profit.”

“Today’s sentence holds Mr. Shah accountable for his appalling actions,” said FBI Pittsburgh Special Agent in Charge Mike Nordwall. “Mr. Shah used his position as a doctor to illegally profit from a health care program paid for by taxpayers. Fraud of this magnitude will not be tolerated.”

Dr. Shah has been in custody since July 15, 2021, after skipping out on his original July 14 sentencing date. The Tribune-Review reported that Dr. Shah filed a last-minute request for a continuance, claiming he had an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and was advised by his doctor that he needed “strict bedrest for at least 6 weeks.”

Dr. Shah reportedly turned himself after presiding U.S. District Judge David S. Cercone denied the motion and issued an arrest warrant.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who had been hospitalized for heart attack or cardiovascular revascularization procedures commonly were overweight (46%) or had obesity (35%), but at a follow-up visit, few had lost weight or planned to do so, according to researchers who conduced a large European study.

Creatas Images/ThinkStockPhotos

The findings emphasize that obesity needs to be recognized as a disease that has to be optimally managed to lessen the risk for a secondary cardiovascular event, the authors stressed.

The study, by Dirk De Bacquer, PhD, professor, department of public health, Ghent (Belgium) University, and colleagues, was published recently in the European Heart Journal – Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes.

The researchers analyzed data from more than 10,000 patients in the EUROASPIRE IV and V studies who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and answered a survey 16 months later on average.

Although 20% of the patients with obesity had lost 5% or more of their initial weight, 16% had gained 5% or more of their initial weight.

Notably, “the discharge letter did not record the weight status in a quarter of [the patients with obesity] and a substantial proportion reported to have never been told by a healthcare professional [that they were] overweight,” the investigators wrote.

“It seems,” Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues noted, “that obesity is not considered by physicians as a serious medical problem, which requires attention, recommendations, and obvious advice on personal weight targets.”

However, “the benefits for patients who lost weight in our study, resulting in a healthier cardiovascular risk profile, are really worthwhile,” they pointed out.
 

Cardiovascular rehabilitation should include weight loss intervention

“The safest and most effective approach for managing body weight” in patients with coronary artery disease and obesity “is adopting a healthy eating pattern and increasing levels of physical activity,” they wrote.

Their findings that “patients who reported reducing their fat and sugar intake, consuming more fruit, vegetables, and fish and doing more regular physical activity, had significant weight loss,” support this.

Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues recommend that cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programs “should include weight loss intervention, including different forms of self-support, as a specific component of a comprehensive intervention to reduce total cardiovascular risk, extend life expectancy, and improve quality of life.”

Clinicians should “consider the incremental value of telehealth intervention as well as recently described pharmacological interventions,” they added, noting that the study did not look at these options or at metabolic surgery.

Invited to comment, one expert pointed out that two new observational studies of metabolic surgery in patients with obesity and coronary artery disease reported positive outcomes.

Another expert took issue with the “patient blaming” tone of the article and the lack of actionable ways to help patients lose weight. 
 

Medical therapy or bariatric surgery as other options?

“The study demonstrated how prevalent obesity is in patients with heart disease“ and “confirmed how difficult it is to achieve weight loss, in particular, in patients with heart disease, where weight loss would be beneficial,” Erik Näslund, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Even though “current guidelines stress weight-loss counseling, some patients actually gained weight,” observed Dr. Näslund, of Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.

On the other hand, patients who lost 5% or more of their initial weight had reduced comorbidities that are associated with cardiovascular disease.

“The best way to achieve long-term weight loss in patients with severe obesity is metabolic (bariatric) surgery,” noted Dr. Näslund, who was not involved in the study. “There are now two recent papers in the journal Circulation that demonstrate that metabolic surgery has a role in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with severe obesity” – one study from Dr. Näslund’s group (Circulation. 2021;143:1458-67), as previously reported, and one study from researchers in Ontario, Canada (Circulation. 2021;143:1468-80).

However, those were observational studies, and the findings would need to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial before they could be used as recommended practice of care, he cautioned. In addition, most patients in the current study would not fulfill the minimum body weight criteria for metabolic surgery.

“Therefore, there is a need for intensified medical therapy for these patients,” as another treatment option, said Dr. Näslund.

“It would be interesting,” he speculated, “to study how the new glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist therapies could work in this setting as a weight loss agent and perhaps have a positive independent cardiovascular benefit.”
 

Obesity is a disease; clinicians need to be respectful

Meanwhile, Obesity Society fellow and spokesperson Fatima Cody Stanford, MD, said in an interview that she didn’t think the language and tone of the article was respectful for patients with obesity, and the researchers “talked about the old narrative of how we support patients with obesity.”

Lifestyle modification can be at the core of treatment, but medication or bariatric surgery may be other options to “help patients get to their best selves.

“Patients with obesity deserve to be cared for and treated with respect,” said Dr. Stanford, an obesity medicine physician scientist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Treatment needs to be individualized and clinicians need to listen to patient concerns. For example, a patient with obesity may not be able to follow advice to walk more. “I can barely stand up,” one patient with obesity and osteoarthritis told Dr. Stanford.

And patients’ insurance may not cover cardiac rehabilitation – especially patients from racial minorities or those with lower socioeconomic status, she noted.

“My feeling has always been that it is important to be respectful to all patients,” Dr. Näslund agreed. “I do agree that we need to recognize obesity as a chronic disease, and the paper in EHJ demonstrates this, as obesity was not registered in many of the discharge notes.

“If we as healthcare workers measured a weight of our patients the same way that we take a blood pressure,” he said, “perhaps the [stigma] of obesity would be reduced.”
 

Study findings

The researchers examined pooled data from EUROASPIRE IV (2012-13) and EUROASPIRE V (2016-17) surveys of patients who were overweight or had obesity who had been discharged from hospital after MI, CABG, or PCI to determine if they had received lifestyle advice for weight loss, if they had acted on this advice, and if losing weight altered their cardiovascular disease risk factors.

They identified 10,507 adult patients in 29 mainly European countries who had complete survey data.

The mean age of the patients was 63 at the time of their hospitalization; 25% were women. Many had hypertension (66%-88%), dyslipidemia (69%-80%), or diabetes (16%-37%).

The prevalence of obesity varied from 8% to 46% in men and from 18% to 57% in women, in different countries. Patients with obesity had a mean body weight of 97 kg (213 pounds).

One of the most “striking” findings was the “apparent lack of motivation” to lose weight, Dr. De Bacquer and colleagues wrote. Half of the patients with obesity had not attempted to lose weight in the month before the follow-up visit and most did not plan to do so in the following month.

Goal setting is an important aspect of behavior modification techniques, they wrote, yet 7% of the patients did not know their body weight and 21% did not have an optimal weight target.

Half of the patients had been advised to follow a cardiac rehabilitation program and two-thirds had been advised to follow dietary recommendations and move more.

Those who made positive dietary changes and were more physically active were more likely to lose at least 5% of their weight.

And patients who lost at least 5% of their initial weight were less likely to have hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes compared with patients who had gained this much weight, which “is likely to translate into improved prognosis on the long term,” the authors wrote.

EUROASPIRE IV and V were supported through research grants to the European Society of Cardiology from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Emea Sarl, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme (EUROASPIRE IV) and Amarin, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ferrer, and Novo Nordisk (EUROASPIRE V). Dr. De Bacquer, Dr. Näslund, and Dr. Stanford have no disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Consumption of a plant-based diet rich in lignans is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), new research suggests.

Kirby Hamilton/iStockphoto

In a prospective cohort study that followed almost 214,108 men and women who were free of CHD and cancer at baseline, increased long-term intake of lignans, polyphenolic substances produced by plants, was associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD in both men and women.

The benefit was increased in participants with a greater intake of fiber, suggesting that synergistic effects between the two might exist in relation to CHD reduction.

The results were published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Lignan is an estrogen-like molecule, so it exerts some estrogenic effects which are cardioprotective. It also has anti-inflammatory properties,” first author Yang Hu, ScD, a research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said in an interview.

“Our results that showed an inverse association between lignan consumption and heart disease risk were expected, because it is known that lignans, which are predominantly from plant-based foods, like whole grains, fruit, vegetables, red wine, and coffee, are all associated with lower CHD risk,” Dr. Hu said.

What is novel about the current study is that it established a threshold for lignan consumption, above which there is no CHD benefit, he said.

“It is not a matter of the more you consume, the lower your risk. There is a certain amount of lignan you have to reach, after which there is no more benefit,” Dr. Hu said.

Dr. Hu and associates prospectively followed 214,108 men and women in three cohorts who did not have cardiovascular disease or cancer at baseline. The cohorts were the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, Nurses’ Health Study, and Nurses’ Health Study II.

Diets were assessed using the Food Frequency Questionnaire every 2-4 years at follow-up visits.

During 5.5 million person-years of follow-up, Dr. Hu and associates documented 10,244 CHD cases, including 6,283 nonfatal myocardial infarctions and 3,961 fatal CHD cases.

The results showed that higher total lignan intake, and all individual lignan intake as well, were associated with significantly lower risk of total CHD.

Participants with higher total lignan intake were older and had more favorable health and lifestyle profiles including lower body mass index, lower prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, high levels of physical activity, and better diet quality.

Overall, the pooled hazard ratios of CHD were 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.92) for total lignans, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.82) for matairesinol, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93) for secoisolariciresinol, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95) for pinoresinol, and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.83- 0.95) for lariciresinol (all P values for trend ≤ .003).

In addition, nonlinear relationships were found for total lignan, matairesinol, and secoisolariciresinol: The risk reduction plateaued at intakes above approximately 300 mcg/d for total lignan; 10 mcg/d for matairesinol, and 100 mcg/d for secoisolariciresinol.

The inverse associations for total lignan intake were more apparent among participants with higher total fiber intake.

In addition, lignan intake was more strongly associated with plasma concentrations of enterolactone when fiber intake was higher.

Dr. Hu said a next avenue of research will explore the synergistic association between lignans and fiber in further lowering CHD risk.

Lignans are exclusively metabolized by gut microbiota, Dr. Hu noted. “This opens another avenue of research because we can take further steps to see how the gut microbiota compositions and fiber interact with the production of lignans and how these might affect disease risk for other conditions, such as diabetes.”
 

An important study

“The evidence is building that there is an association between polyphenol intake and chronic disease, especially for CVD [cardiovascular disease],” David J.A. Jenkins, MD, PhD, and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Plant polyphenols may be important components of healthy plant-based diets that contribute to freedom from chronic diseases such as CVD, diabetes, and possibly cancer and so are associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality,” they wrote.

“I think this is an important study even though the results are not unexpected,” Dr. Jenkins, professor in the departments of medicine and nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“We do know that plant polyphenols are important sources of antioxidants and may have many protective roles in preventing destruction of proteins and DNA destruction, so the results here reinforce very strongly the concept of plant foods and their importance in the diet,” he said.

The data reaffirmed the value of eating a variety of plant foods and eating them in a less processed form, because they have higher amounts of their phenolic compounds, Dr. Jenkins said.

“Things like wheat, oats, barley, [and] whole grain foods will have more phenolic components with them, as do fruits and vegetables,” he said.

Dr. Hu and Dr. Jenkins disclosed no relevant financial relationships.  

Aversion of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Low dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA) may have some protective benefit against cognitive decline, but only if started well before symptoms begin, according to a retrospective analysis of two large cohorts. The association with all-cause dementia was weak, but much more pronounced in subjects with coronary heart disease.

The results underscore that individuals with cardiovascular disease risk factors should be prescribed LDASA, and they should be encouraged to be compliant. The study differed from previous observational and randomized, controlled trials, which yielded mixed results. Many looked at individuals older than age 65. The pathological changes associated with dementia may occur up to 2 decades before symptom onset, and it appears that LDASA cannot counter cognitive decline after a diagnosis is made. “The use of LDASA at this age may be already too late,” said Thi Ngoc Mai Nguyen, a PhD student at Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Germany. She presented the results at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Previous studies also included individuals using LDASA to prevent cardiovascular disease, and they didn’t always adjust for these risk factors. The current work used two large databases, UK Biobank and ESTHER, with a follow-up time of over 10 years for both. “We were able to balance out the distribution of measured baseline covariates (to be) similar between LDASA users and nonusers, and thus, we were able to adjust for confounders more comprehensively,” said Ms. Nguyen.
 

Not yet a definitive answer

Although the findings are promising, Ms. Nguyen noted that the study is not the final word. “Residual confounding is possible, and causation cannot be tested. The only way to answer this is to have clinical trials with at least 10 years of follow-up,” said Ms. Nguyen. She plans to conduct similar studies in non-White populations, and also to examine whether LDASA can help preserve cognitive function in middle-age adults.

The study is interesting, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, who was asked to comment, but she suggested that it is not practice changing. “There is not evidence from the dementia science perspective that should go against whatever the recommendations are for cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Sexton, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association. “I don’t think this study alone can provide a definitive answer on low-dose aspirin and its association with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but it’s an important addition to the literature,” she added.
 

Meta-analysis data

The researchers examined two prospective cohort studies, and combined them into a meta-analysis. It included the ESTHER cohort from Saarland, Germany, with 5,258 individuals and 14.3 years of follow-up, and the UK Biobank cohort, with 305,394 individuals and 11.6 years of follow-up. Subjects selected for analysis were 55 years old or older.

The meta-analysis showed no significant association between LDASA use and reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease, but there was an association between LDASA use and all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.99).

There were no sex differences with respect to Alzheimer’s dementia, but in males, LDASA was associated with lower risk of vascular dementia (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93) and all-cause dementia (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.92). However, in females, LDASA was tied to greater risk of both vascular dementia (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24) and all-cause dementia (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13).

The strongest association between LDASA and reduced dementia risk was found in subjects with coronary heart disease (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.80).

The researchers also used UK Biobank primary care data to analyze associations between longer use of LDASA and reduced dementia risk. Those who used LDASA for 0-5 years were at a higher than average risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.48-3.16), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.84-2.77), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 3.17-4.53). Long-term LDASA users, defined as 10 years or longer, had a lower risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.47-0.56), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68), and vascular dementia (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.56).

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Low dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA) may have some protective benefit against cognitive decline, but only if started well before symptoms begin, according to a retrospective analysis of two large cohorts. The association with all-cause dementia was weak, but much more pronounced in subjects with coronary heart disease.

The results underscore that individuals with cardiovascular disease risk factors should be prescribed LDASA, and they should be encouraged to be compliant. The study differed from previous observational and randomized, controlled trials, which yielded mixed results. Many looked at individuals older than age 65. The pathological changes associated with dementia may occur up to 2 decades before symptom onset, and it appears that LDASA cannot counter cognitive decline after a diagnosis is made. “The use of LDASA at this age may be already too late,” said Thi Ngoc Mai Nguyen, a PhD student at Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Germany. She presented the results at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Previous studies also included individuals using LDASA to prevent cardiovascular disease, and they didn’t always adjust for these risk factors. The current work used two large databases, UK Biobank and ESTHER, with a follow-up time of over 10 years for both. “We were able to balance out the distribution of measured baseline covariates (to be) similar between LDASA users and nonusers, and thus, we were able to adjust for confounders more comprehensively,” said Ms. Nguyen.
 

Not yet a definitive answer

Although the findings are promising, Ms. Nguyen noted that the study is not the final word. “Residual confounding is possible, and causation cannot be tested. The only way to answer this is to have clinical trials with at least 10 years of follow-up,” said Ms. Nguyen. She plans to conduct similar studies in non-White populations, and also to examine whether LDASA can help preserve cognitive function in middle-age adults.

The study is interesting, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, who was asked to comment, but she suggested that it is not practice changing. “There is not evidence from the dementia science perspective that should go against whatever the recommendations are for cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Sexton, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association. “I don’t think this study alone can provide a definitive answer on low-dose aspirin and its association with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but it’s an important addition to the literature,” she added.
 

Meta-analysis data

The researchers examined two prospective cohort studies, and combined them into a meta-analysis. It included the ESTHER cohort from Saarland, Germany, with 5,258 individuals and 14.3 years of follow-up, and the UK Biobank cohort, with 305,394 individuals and 11.6 years of follow-up. Subjects selected for analysis were 55 years old or older.

The meta-analysis showed no significant association between LDASA use and reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease, but there was an association between LDASA use and all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.99).

There were no sex differences with respect to Alzheimer’s dementia, but in males, LDASA was associated with lower risk of vascular dementia (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93) and all-cause dementia (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.92). However, in females, LDASA was tied to greater risk of both vascular dementia (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24) and all-cause dementia (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13).

The strongest association between LDASA and reduced dementia risk was found in subjects with coronary heart disease (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.80).

The researchers also used UK Biobank primary care data to analyze associations between longer use of LDASA and reduced dementia risk. Those who used LDASA for 0-5 years were at a higher than average risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.48-3.16), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.84-2.77), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 3.17-4.53). Long-term LDASA users, defined as 10 years or longer, had a lower risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.47-0.56), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68), and vascular dementia (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.56).

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Low dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA) may have some protective benefit against cognitive decline, but only if started well before symptoms begin, according to a retrospective analysis of two large cohorts. The association with all-cause dementia was weak, but much more pronounced in subjects with coronary heart disease.

The results underscore that individuals with cardiovascular disease risk factors should be prescribed LDASA, and they should be encouraged to be compliant. The study differed from previous observational and randomized, controlled trials, which yielded mixed results. Many looked at individuals older than age 65. The pathological changes associated with dementia may occur up to 2 decades before symptom onset, and it appears that LDASA cannot counter cognitive decline after a diagnosis is made. “The use of LDASA at this age may be already too late,” said Thi Ngoc Mai Nguyen, a PhD student at Network Aging Research, Heidelberg University, Germany. She presented the results at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Previous studies also included individuals using LDASA to prevent cardiovascular disease, and they didn’t always adjust for these risk factors. The current work used two large databases, UK Biobank and ESTHER, with a follow-up time of over 10 years for both. “We were able to balance out the distribution of measured baseline covariates (to be) similar between LDASA users and nonusers, and thus, we were able to adjust for confounders more comprehensively,” said Ms. Nguyen.
 

Not yet a definitive answer

Although the findings are promising, Ms. Nguyen noted that the study is not the final word. “Residual confounding is possible, and causation cannot be tested. The only way to answer this is to have clinical trials with at least 10 years of follow-up,” said Ms. Nguyen. She plans to conduct similar studies in non-White populations, and also to examine whether LDASA can help preserve cognitive function in middle-age adults.

The study is interesting, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, who was asked to comment, but she suggested that it is not practice changing. “There is not evidence from the dementia science perspective that should go against whatever the recommendations are for cardiovascular risk,” said Dr. Sexton, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association. “I don’t think this study alone can provide a definitive answer on low-dose aspirin and its association with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but it’s an important addition to the literature,” she added.
 

Meta-analysis data

The researchers examined two prospective cohort studies, and combined them into a meta-analysis. It included the ESTHER cohort from Saarland, Germany, with 5,258 individuals and 14.3 years of follow-up, and the UK Biobank cohort, with 305,394 individuals and 11.6 years of follow-up. Subjects selected for analysis were 55 years old or older.

The meta-analysis showed no significant association between LDASA use and reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease, but there was an association between LDASA use and all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.99).

There were no sex differences with respect to Alzheimer’s dementia, but in males, LDASA was associated with lower risk of vascular dementia (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.93) and all-cause dementia (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.92). However, in females, LDASA was tied to greater risk of both vascular dementia (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02-1.24) and all-cause dementia (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13).

The strongest association between LDASA and reduced dementia risk was found in subjects with coronary heart disease (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.59-0.80).

The researchers also used UK Biobank primary care data to analyze associations between longer use of LDASA and reduced dementia risk. Those who used LDASA for 0-5 years were at a higher than average risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.48-3.16), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.84-2.77), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.79; 95% CI, 3.17-4.53). Long-term LDASA users, defined as 10 years or longer, had a lower risk of all-cause dementia (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.47-0.56), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68), and vascular dementia (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.56).

Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.