User login
Syncope not associated with increased risk for car crash
In a case-crossover study that examined health and driving data for about 3,000 drivers in British Columbia, researchers found similar rates of ED visits for syncope before the dates of car crashes (1.6%) and before control dates (1.2%).
“An emergency visit for syncope did not appear to increase the risk of subsequent traffic crash,” lead author John A. Staples, MD, MPH, clinical associate professor of general internal medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
Case-crossover study
Syncope prompts more than 1 million visits to EDs in the United States each year. About 9% of patients with syncope have recurrence within 1 year.
Some jurisdictions legally require clinicians to advise patients at higher risk for syncope recurrence to stop driving temporarily. But guidelines about when and whom to restrict are not standardized, said Dr. Staples.
“I came to this topic because I work as a physician in a hospital and, a few years ago, I advised a young woman who suffered a serious injury after she passed out while driving and crashed her car,” he added. “She wanted to know if she could drive again and when. I found out that there wasn’t much evidence that could guide my advice to her. That is what planted the seed that eventually grew into this study.”
The researchers examined driving data from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and detailed ED visit data from regional health authorities. They included licensed drivers who were diagnosed with syncope and collapse at an ED between 2010 and 2015 in their study. The researchers focused on eligible participants who were involved in a motor vehicle collision between August 2011 and December 2015.
For each patient, the date of the crash was used to establish three control dates without crashes. The control dates were 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 78 weeks before the crash. The investigators compared the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before the crash with the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before each control date.
An emergency visit for syncope occurred in 47 of 3,026 precrash intervals and 112 of 9,078 control intervals. This result indicated that syncope was not significantly associated with subsequent crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; P = .18).
In addition, there was no significant association between syncope and crash in subgroups considered to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes after syncope, such as patients older than 65 years and patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiac syncope.
Gaps in data
“It’s a complicated study design but one that’s helpful to understand the temporal relationship between syncope and crash,” said Dr. Staples. “If we had found that the syncope visit was more likely to occur in the 4 weeks before the crash than in earlier matched 4-week control periods, we would have concluded that syncope transiently increases crash risk.”
Dr. Staples emphasized that this was a real-world study and that some patients with syncope at higher risk for a car crash likely stopped driving. “This study doesn’t say there’s no relationship between syncope and subsequent crash, just that our current practices, including current driving restrictions, seem to do an acceptable job of preventing some crashes.”
Limitations of the study influence the interpretation of the results. For example, the data sources did not indicate how patients modified their driving, said Dr. Staples.
Also lacking is information about how physicians identified which patients were at heightened risk for another syncope episode and advised those patients not to drive. “Now would be a good time to start to think about what other studies are needed to better tailor driving restrictions for the right patient,” said Dr. Staples.
‘A messy situation’
In a comment, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the conclusions “well thought out.” He said the study addressed a common, often perplexing problem in a practical way. Dr. Bhatt was not involved in the research.
“This study is trying to address the issue of what to do with people who have had syncope or fainting and have had a car crash. In general, we don’t really know what to do with those people, but there’s a lot of concern for many reasons, for both the patient and the public. There are potential legal liabilities, and the whole thing, generally speaking, tends to be a messy situation. Usually, the default position physicians take is to be very cautious and conservative, and restrict driving,” said Dr. Bhatt.
The study is reassuring, he added. “The authors have contextualized this risk very nicely. Physicians worry a lot about patients who have had an episode of syncope while driving and restrict their patients’ driving, at least temporarily. But as a society, we are much more permissive about people who drive drunk or under the influence, or who drive without seat belts, or who speed, or text while driving. So, within that larger context, we are extremely worried about this one source of risk that is probably less than these other sources of risk.”
Most of the time, the cause of the syncope is benign, said Dr. Bhatt. “We rule out the bad things, like a heart attack or cardiac arrest, seizure, and arrhythmia. Afterwards, the risk from driving is relatively small.” The study results support current practices and suggest “that we probably don’t need to be excessive with our restrictions.
“There is going to be a wide variation in practice, with some physicians wanting to be more restrictive, but there is a lot of subjectivity in how these recommendations are acted on in real life. That’s why I think this study really should reassure physicians that it’s okay to use common sense and good medical judgment when giving advice on driving to their patients,” Dr. Bhatt concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation Canada. Dr. Staples and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a case-crossover study that examined health and driving data for about 3,000 drivers in British Columbia, researchers found similar rates of ED visits for syncope before the dates of car crashes (1.6%) and before control dates (1.2%).
“An emergency visit for syncope did not appear to increase the risk of subsequent traffic crash,” lead author John A. Staples, MD, MPH, clinical associate professor of general internal medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
Case-crossover study
Syncope prompts more than 1 million visits to EDs in the United States each year. About 9% of patients with syncope have recurrence within 1 year.
Some jurisdictions legally require clinicians to advise patients at higher risk for syncope recurrence to stop driving temporarily. But guidelines about when and whom to restrict are not standardized, said Dr. Staples.
“I came to this topic because I work as a physician in a hospital and, a few years ago, I advised a young woman who suffered a serious injury after she passed out while driving and crashed her car,” he added. “She wanted to know if she could drive again and when. I found out that there wasn’t much evidence that could guide my advice to her. That is what planted the seed that eventually grew into this study.”
The researchers examined driving data from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and detailed ED visit data from regional health authorities. They included licensed drivers who were diagnosed with syncope and collapse at an ED between 2010 and 2015 in their study. The researchers focused on eligible participants who were involved in a motor vehicle collision between August 2011 and December 2015.
For each patient, the date of the crash was used to establish three control dates without crashes. The control dates were 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 78 weeks before the crash. The investigators compared the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before the crash with the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before each control date.
An emergency visit for syncope occurred in 47 of 3,026 precrash intervals and 112 of 9,078 control intervals. This result indicated that syncope was not significantly associated with subsequent crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; P = .18).
In addition, there was no significant association between syncope and crash in subgroups considered to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes after syncope, such as patients older than 65 years and patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiac syncope.
Gaps in data
“It’s a complicated study design but one that’s helpful to understand the temporal relationship between syncope and crash,” said Dr. Staples. “If we had found that the syncope visit was more likely to occur in the 4 weeks before the crash than in earlier matched 4-week control periods, we would have concluded that syncope transiently increases crash risk.”
Dr. Staples emphasized that this was a real-world study and that some patients with syncope at higher risk for a car crash likely stopped driving. “This study doesn’t say there’s no relationship between syncope and subsequent crash, just that our current practices, including current driving restrictions, seem to do an acceptable job of preventing some crashes.”
Limitations of the study influence the interpretation of the results. For example, the data sources did not indicate how patients modified their driving, said Dr. Staples.
Also lacking is information about how physicians identified which patients were at heightened risk for another syncope episode and advised those patients not to drive. “Now would be a good time to start to think about what other studies are needed to better tailor driving restrictions for the right patient,” said Dr. Staples.
‘A messy situation’
In a comment, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the conclusions “well thought out.” He said the study addressed a common, often perplexing problem in a practical way. Dr. Bhatt was not involved in the research.
“This study is trying to address the issue of what to do with people who have had syncope or fainting and have had a car crash. In general, we don’t really know what to do with those people, but there’s a lot of concern for many reasons, for both the patient and the public. There are potential legal liabilities, and the whole thing, generally speaking, tends to be a messy situation. Usually, the default position physicians take is to be very cautious and conservative, and restrict driving,” said Dr. Bhatt.
The study is reassuring, he added. “The authors have contextualized this risk very nicely. Physicians worry a lot about patients who have had an episode of syncope while driving and restrict their patients’ driving, at least temporarily. But as a society, we are much more permissive about people who drive drunk or under the influence, or who drive without seat belts, or who speed, or text while driving. So, within that larger context, we are extremely worried about this one source of risk that is probably less than these other sources of risk.”
Most of the time, the cause of the syncope is benign, said Dr. Bhatt. “We rule out the bad things, like a heart attack or cardiac arrest, seizure, and arrhythmia. Afterwards, the risk from driving is relatively small.” The study results support current practices and suggest “that we probably don’t need to be excessive with our restrictions.
“There is going to be a wide variation in practice, with some physicians wanting to be more restrictive, but there is a lot of subjectivity in how these recommendations are acted on in real life. That’s why I think this study really should reassure physicians that it’s okay to use common sense and good medical judgment when giving advice on driving to their patients,” Dr. Bhatt concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation Canada. Dr. Staples and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a case-crossover study that examined health and driving data for about 3,000 drivers in British Columbia, researchers found similar rates of ED visits for syncope before the dates of car crashes (1.6%) and before control dates (1.2%).
“An emergency visit for syncope did not appear to increase the risk of subsequent traffic crash,” lead author John A. Staples, MD, MPH, clinical associate professor of general internal medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.
The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
Case-crossover study
Syncope prompts more than 1 million visits to EDs in the United States each year. About 9% of patients with syncope have recurrence within 1 year.
Some jurisdictions legally require clinicians to advise patients at higher risk for syncope recurrence to stop driving temporarily. But guidelines about when and whom to restrict are not standardized, said Dr. Staples.
“I came to this topic because I work as a physician in a hospital and, a few years ago, I advised a young woman who suffered a serious injury after she passed out while driving and crashed her car,” he added. “She wanted to know if she could drive again and when. I found out that there wasn’t much evidence that could guide my advice to her. That is what planted the seed that eventually grew into this study.”
The researchers examined driving data from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and detailed ED visit data from regional health authorities. They included licensed drivers who were diagnosed with syncope and collapse at an ED between 2010 and 2015 in their study. The researchers focused on eligible participants who were involved in a motor vehicle collision between August 2011 and December 2015.
For each patient, the date of the crash was used to establish three control dates without crashes. The control dates were 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 78 weeks before the crash. The investigators compared the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before the crash with the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before each control date.
An emergency visit for syncope occurred in 47 of 3,026 precrash intervals and 112 of 9,078 control intervals. This result indicated that syncope was not significantly associated with subsequent crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; P = .18).
In addition, there was no significant association between syncope and crash in subgroups considered to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes after syncope, such as patients older than 65 years and patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiac syncope.
Gaps in data
“It’s a complicated study design but one that’s helpful to understand the temporal relationship between syncope and crash,” said Dr. Staples. “If we had found that the syncope visit was more likely to occur in the 4 weeks before the crash than in earlier matched 4-week control periods, we would have concluded that syncope transiently increases crash risk.”
Dr. Staples emphasized that this was a real-world study and that some patients with syncope at higher risk for a car crash likely stopped driving. “This study doesn’t say there’s no relationship between syncope and subsequent crash, just that our current practices, including current driving restrictions, seem to do an acceptable job of preventing some crashes.”
Limitations of the study influence the interpretation of the results. For example, the data sources did not indicate how patients modified their driving, said Dr. Staples.
Also lacking is information about how physicians identified which patients were at heightened risk for another syncope episode and advised those patients not to drive. “Now would be a good time to start to think about what other studies are needed to better tailor driving restrictions for the right patient,” said Dr. Staples.
‘A messy situation’
In a comment, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the conclusions “well thought out.” He said the study addressed a common, often perplexing problem in a practical way. Dr. Bhatt was not involved in the research.
“This study is trying to address the issue of what to do with people who have had syncope or fainting and have had a car crash. In general, we don’t really know what to do with those people, but there’s a lot of concern for many reasons, for both the patient and the public. There are potential legal liabilities, and the whole thing, generally speaking, tends to be a messy situation. Usually, the default position physicians take is to be very cautious and conservative, and restrict driving,” said Dr. Bhatt.
The study is reassuring, he added. “The authors have contextualized this risk very nicely. Physicians worry a lot about patients who have had an episode of syncope while driving and restrict their patients’ driving, at least temporarily. But as a society, we are much more permissive about people who drive drunk or under the influence, or who drive without seat belts, or who speed, or text while driving. So, within that larger context, we are extremely worried about this one source of risk that is probably less than these other sources of risk.”
Most of the time, the cause of the syncope is benign, said Dr. Bhatt. “We rule out the bad things, like a heart attack or cardiac arrest, seizure, and arrhythmia. Afterwards, the risk from driving is relatively small.” The study results support current practices and suggest “that we probably don’t need to be excessive with our restrictions.
“There is going to be a wide variation in practice, with some physicians wanting to be more restrictive, but there is a lot of subjectivity in how these recommendations are acted on in real life. That’s why I think this study really should reassure physicians that it’s okay to use common sense and good medical judgment when giving advice on driving to their patients,” Dr. Bhatt concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation Canada. Dr. Staples and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE CANADIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Rehabilitation improves walk test results for post–pulmonary embolism patients with persistent dyspnea
In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.
The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown.
The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.
Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.
Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.
“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.
The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.
Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”
The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.
The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown.
The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.
Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.
Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.
“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.
The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.
Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”
The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
In patients with persistent dyspnea following a pulmonary embolism, rehabilitation should be considered as a treatment option, according to findings from a randomized, controlled trial comparing usual care to a twice-weekly, 8-week physical exercise program.
The prevalence of persistent dyspnea, functional limitations, and reduced quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE) ranges from 30% to 50% in published studies. While the underlying mechanisms remain unclear and are likely multifactorial, Øyvind Jervan, MD, and colleagues reported, research suggests that deconditioning and psychological factors contribute substantially to post-PE impairment. Optimal management remains unknown.
The investigators randomized adult patients 1:1 from two hospitals (Osfold Hospital and Akershus University Hospital) with PE identified via computed tomography pulmonary angiography 6-72 months prior to study inclusion to either a supervised outpatient exercise program or usual care. The once- or twice-weekly home-based program was tailored to each participant and included a 90-minute educational session on the cardiopulmonary system, diagnosis and treatment of PE and its possible long-term effects, the benefits of exercise and physical activity, and the management of breathlessness. Also during the intervention period, participants were given a simple home-based exercise program to be performed once or twice weekly. Differences between groups in the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT), a standardized walking test that assesses exercise capacity, was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included an endurance walk test (ESWT) and measures of symptoms and QoL.
Among 211 participants (median age 57 years; 56% men), the median time from diagnosis to inclusion was 10.3 months. Median baseline walking distance on the ISWT was 695 m with 21% achieving the 1,020-m maximum distance. At follow-up, a between-group difference of 53.0 m favored the rehabilitation group (89 evaluable subjects; 87 in usual care) (P = .0035). While subgroup analysis revealed a greater difference for those with shorter time from diagnosis (6-12 months vs. 12.1-72 months), the between-group differences were nonsignificant. Also, no ISWT differences between the intervention and control group were found for those with higher pulmonary embolism severity and dyspnea scores. The walk endurance test revealed no between-group differences.
Scores at follow-up on the Pulmonary Embolism-QoL questionnaire favored the rehabilitation group (mean difference –4%; P = .041), but there were no differences in generic QoL, dyspnea scores, or the ESWT.
“The present study adds to the growing evidence of the benefits of rehabilitation after PE,” the researchers stated. Although several recent studies have shown rehabilitation after PE results that were promising, the authors pointed out that most of these studies have been small or have lacked a control group, with great variations between them with respect to time, mode, and duration of intervention. In addition, the current study is the largest one addressing the effect of rehabilitation after PE to demonstrate in subjects with persistent dyspnea a positive effect on exercise capacity and QoL.
The researchers also commented that the small detected mean difference of 53 m in walking distance was lower than has been considered a worthwhile improvement by some, and its clinical relevance can be debated. Other studies, however, have used mean group differences of 40-62 m as clinically meaningful. The authors underscored also that the ISWT data were subject to a considerable ceiling effect which may underestimate the effect size.
Addressing study limitations, the researchers added that: “The rehabilitation program in the present study consisted mainly of exercise training. It is unknown whether the addition of occupational therapy, psychology, or dietary therapy would provide additional benefits for the participants. Most participants had mild symptoms, which may have limited the potential benefits of our rehabilitation program.”
The project was funded by Østfold Hospital Trust. Dr. Jervan reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM THE JOURNAL CHEST
Depression drives metabolic syndrome
Previous research has established a connection between metabolic syndrome and depression, but data on the increased risk for depressed individuals to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS) are lacking, wrote Lara Onofre Ferriani, PhD, of Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil, and colleagues.
“Individuals with MetS and depression have increased levels of inflammatory markers, and it is speculated that inflammation could mediate this comorbidity,” they said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 13,883 participants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health; all were civil servants at universities in Brazil. The participants ranged from 35 to 74 years of age, with a mean age of 51.9 years; 54.3% were women; and 52.4% were white; the mean follow-up period was 3.8 years.
The primary outcome was the association between depression diagnosis and severity on components of MetS at baseline and over a 4-year period. Participants were classified by MetS trajectory as recovered, incident, or persistent, and classified by depression status as without depression or with a mild, moderate, or severe current depressive episode. Depression status was based on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised. MetS components and diagnosis were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.
In a logistic regression analysis, baseline depression was positively associated with recovered, incident, and persistent MetS (odds ratios, 1.59, 1.45, and 1.70, respectively).
Depression at baseline also was significantly associated with separate components of MetS: large waist circumference, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hyperglycemia, with odds ratios of 1.47, 1.23, 1.30, and 1.38, respectively.
Although not seen at baseline, a significant positive association between baseline depression and the presence of three or more MetS components was noted at follow-up, with a positive dose-response effect, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
Not all associations were statistically significant, but this was mainly because of the small number of cases of moderate and severe depression, they said. However, the magnitude of associations was greater in severe depression, when compared with moderate and mild, which suggests that the risk of MetS may be higher in this population, they added.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible misclassification of depression, inability to differentiate among depressive subtypes, and the potential lack of generalizability to other populations beyond Brazilian civil servants, the researchers noted.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the role of depression as a risk factor for MetS, they said. More research is needed to determine a bidirectional relationship and to assess the trajectory of depression after MetS develops, but the findings “highlight the need to investigate and manage metabolic and cardiovascular alterations in the presence of depression in clinical settings,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Science and Technology Department) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation FINEP and CNPq, and by the Coordenaçaõ de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Previous research has established a connection between metabolic syndrome and depression, but data on the increased risk for depressed individuals to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS) are lacking, wrote Lara Onofre Ferriani, PhD, of Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil, and colleagues.
“Individuals with MetS and depression have increased levels of inflammatory markers, and it is speculated that inflammation could mediate this comorbidity,” they said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 13,883 participants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health; all were civil servants at universities in Brazil. The participants ranged from 35 to 74 years of age, with a mean age of 51.9 years; 54.3% were women; and 52.4% were white; the mean follow-up period was 3.8 years.
The primary outcome was the association between depression diagnosis and severity on components of MetS at baseline and over a 4-year period. Participants were classified by MetS trajectory as recovered, incident, or persistent, and classified by depression status as without depression or with a mild, moderate, or severe current depressive episode. Depression status was based on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised. MetS components and diagnosis were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.
In a logistic regression analysis, baseline depression was positively associated with recovered, incident, and persistent MetS (odds ratios, 1.59, 1.45, and 1.70, respectively).
Depression at baseline also was significantly associated with separate components of MetS: large waist circumference, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hyperglycemia, with odds ratios of 1.47, 1.23, 1.30, and 1.38, respectively.
Although not seen at baseline, a significant positive association between baseline depression and the presence of three or more MetS components was noted at follow-up, with a positive dose-response effect, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
Not all associations were statistically significant, but this was mainly because of the small number of cases of moderate and severe depression, they said. However, the magnitude of associations was greater in severe depression, when compared with moderate and mild, which suggests that the risk of MetS may be higher in this population, they added.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible misclassification of depression, inability to differentiate among depressive subtypes, and the potential lack of generalizability to other populations beyond Brazilian civil servants, the researchers noted.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the role of depression as a risk factor for MetS, they said. More research is needed to determine a bidirectional relationship and to assess the trajectory of depression after MetS develops, but the findings “highlight the need to investigate and manage metabolic and cardiovascular alterations in the presence of depression in clinical settings,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Science and Technology Department) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation FINEP and CNPq, and by the Coordenaçaõ de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Previous research has established a connection between metabolic syndrome and depression, but data on the increased risk for depressed individuals to develop metabolic syndrome (MetS) are lacking, wrote Lara Onofre Ferriani, PhD, of Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil, and colleagues.
“Individuals with MetS and depression have increased levels of inflammatory markers, and it is speculated that inflammation could mediate this comorbidity,” they said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 13,883 participants in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health; all were civil servants at universities in Brazil. The participants ranged from 35 to 74 years of age, with a mean age of 51.9 years; 54.3% were women; and 52.4% were white; the mean follow-up period was 3.8 years.
The primary outcome was the association between depression diagnosis and severity on components of MetS at baseline and over a 4-year period. Participants were classified by MetS trajectory as recovered, incident, or persistent, and classified by depression status as without depression or with a mild, moderate, or severe current depressive episode. Depression status was based on the Clinical Interview Schedule Revised. MetS components and diagnosis were based on the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III.
In a logistic regression analysis, baseline depression was positively associated with recovered, incident, and persistent MetS (odds ratios, 1.59, 1.45, and 1.70, respectively).
Depression at baseline also was significantly associated with separate components of MetS: large waist circumference, high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hyperglycemia, with odds ratios of 1.47, 1.23, 1.30, and 1.38, respectively.
Although not seen at baseline, a significant positive association between baseline depression and the presence of three or more MetS components was noted at follow-up, with a positive dose-response effect, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
Not all associations were statistically significant, but this was mainly because of the small number of cases of moderate and severe depression, they said. However, the magnitude of associations was greater in severe depression, when compared with moderate and mild, which suggests that the risk of MetS may be higher in this population, they added.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible misclassification of depression, inability to differentiate among depressive subtypes, and the potential lack of generalizability to other populations beyond Brazilian civil servants, the researchers noted.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and support the role of depression as a risk factor for MetS, they said. More research is needed to determine a bidirectional relationship and to assess the trajectory of depression after MetS develops, but the findings “highlight the need to investigate and manage metabolic and cardiovascular alterations in the presence of depression in clinical settings,” they concluded.
The study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Science and Technology Department) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation FINEP and CNPq, and by the Coordenaçaõ de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Support for minimally invasive mitral valve repair: Mini Mitral published
The trial, which was first presented earlier this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting, showed that minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks, compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation.
The full results are now published online in JAMA.
The authors, led by Enoch Akowuah, MD, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, explain that mitral valve repair surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation and is routinely performed via full sternotomy, enabling easy access to the heart, flexibility in myocardial protection strategies, and multiple ways of accessing the mitral valve and easing de-airing to prevent air emboli, which cause cerebrovascular accidents.
However, the invasiveness of sternotomy is associated with delayed return to presurgery physical function levels and an increase in postoperative complications.
An alternative new video-guided minimally invasive approach involving a 4- to 7-cm lateral thoracotomy, completely avoiding sternotomy, has been developed, with the hope that it should speed physical recovery function after surgery and reduce postoperative complications and costs by reducing hospital stay.
Dr. Akowuah et al. note that uptake of minithoracotomy is variable, with low rates in the United States and the United Kingdom but high rates in Germany. They say that this variation is attributable to the absence of high-quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating equivalent or superior benefits, compared with sternotomy, and there are also concerns that the increased technical complexity of minithoracotomy may impair the ability to repair complex valve lesions or increase perioperative complications, particularly vascular injuries and stroke.
The U.K. Mini Mitral trial was therefore conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy versus sternotomy mitral valve repair.
For the trial, 330 patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation were randomized to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.
The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the surgery.
This failed to show superiority of minithoracotomy, with a mean difference of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, −1.89 to 3.26) between the two groups.
Analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated that time spent undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity was higher among participants receiving minithoracotomy at 6 weeks, although the treatment effect was small at an average of 9 minutes and was not different at 12 weeks.
Postoperative length of hospital stay was reduced after minithoracotomy by 1 day, with a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days after sternotomy.
Although repair techniques were at the discretion of the surgeons and differed between the two procedures, high rates of valve repair and low rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation were observed in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer with minithoracotomy, but postoperative complications and adverse events were similar.
There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the prespecified safety outcome of death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year, which occurred in 5.4% of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% of those undergoing sternotomy.
“These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines,” the authors conclude.
Approach ‘may appeal to patients’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the study in JAMA, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minnesota, says the results should be integrated into patient management.
“Mini-thoracotomy mitral repair carried low risk and was highly effective compared with sternotomy. It can thus be applied successfully by surgeons who achieve the necessary expertise,” he notes.
“Mini-thoracotomy may appeal to patients because the procedure is less disfiguring than sternotomy. The early (6-week) benefit, albeit small and transient, is important to patients,” he adds.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reports no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Enriquez-Sarano reports receiving consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Artivion, ChemImage, HighLife, and Corcym.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial, which was first presented earlier this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting, showed that minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks, compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation.
The full results are now published online in JAMA.
The authors, led by Enoch Akowuah, MD, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, explain that mitral valve repair surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation and is routinely performed via full sternotomy, enabling easy access to the heart, flexibility in myocardial protection strategies, and multiple ways of accessing the mitral valve and easing de-airing to prevent air emboli, which cause cerebrovascular accidents.
However, the invasiveness of sternotomy is associated with delayed return to presurgery physical function levels and an increase in postoperative complications.
An alternative new video-guided minimally invasive approach involving a 4- to 7-cm lateral thoracotomy, completely avoiding sternotomy, has been developed, with the hope that it should speed physical recovery function after surgery and reduce postoperative complications and costs by reducing hospital stay.
Dr. Akowuah et al. note that uptake of minithoracotomy is variable, with low rates in the United States and the United Kingdom but high rates in Germany. They say that this variation is attributable to the absence of high-quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating equivalent or superior benefits, compared with sternotomy, and there are also concerns that the increased technical complexity of minithoracotomy may impair the ability to repair complex valve lesions or increase perioperative complications, particularly vascular injuries and stroke.
The U.K. Mini Mitral trial was therefore conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy versus sternotomy mitral valve repair.
For the trial, 330 patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation were randomized to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.
The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the surgery.
This failed to show superiority of minithoracotomy, with a mean difference of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, −1.89 to 3.26) between the two groups.
Analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated that time spent undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity was higher among participants receiving minithoracotomy at 6 weeks, although the treatment effect was small at an average of 9 minutes and was not different at 12 weeks.
Postoperative length of hospital stay was reduced after minithoracotomy by 1 day, with a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days after sternotomy.
Although repair techniques were at the discretion of the surgeons and differed between the two procedures, high rates of valve repair and low rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation were observed in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer with minithoracotomy, but postoperative complications and adverse events were similar.
There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the prespecified safety outcome of death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year, which occurred in 5.4% of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% of those undergoing sternotomy.
“These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines,” the authors conclude.
Approach ‘may appeal to patients’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the study in JAMA, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minnesota, says the results should be integrated into patient management.
“Mini-thoracotomy mitral repair carried low risk and was highly effective compared with sternotomy. It can thus be applied successfully by surgeons who achieve the necessary expertise,” he notes.
“Mini-thoracotomy may appeal to patients because the procedure is less disfiguring than sternotomy. The early (6-week) benefit, albeit small and transient, is important to patients,” he adds.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reports no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Enriquez-Sarano reports receiving consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Artivion, ChemImage, HighLife, and Corcym.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial, which was first presented earlier this year at the American College of Cardiology meeting, showed that minimally invasive mitral valve repair does not improve physical function at 12 weeks, compared with sternotomy, but outcomes at 1 year show minimally invasive repair is as safe and effective as sternotomy for degenerative mitral regurgitation.
The full results are now published online in JAMA.
The authors, led by Enoch Akowuah, MD, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom, explain that mitral valve repair surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation and is routinely performed via full sternotomy, enabling easy access to the heart, flexibility in myocardial protection strategies, and multiple ways of accessing the mitral valve and easing de-airing to prevent air emboli, which cause cerebrovascular accidents.
However, the invasiveness of sternotomy is associated with delayed return to presurgery physical function levels and an increase in postoperative complications.
An alternative new video-guided minimally invasive approach involving a 4- to 7-cm lateral thoracotomy, completely avoiding sternotomy, has been developed, with the hope that it should speed physical recovery function after surgery and reduce postoperative complications and costs by reducing hospital stay.
Dr. Akowuah et al. note that uptake of minithoracotomy is variable, with low rates in the United States and the United Kingdom but high rates in Germany. They say that this variation is attributable to the absence of high-quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating equivalent or superior benefits, compared with sternotomy, and there are also concerns that the increased technical complexity of minithoracotomy may impair the ability to repair complex valve lesions or increase perioperative complications, particularly vascular injuries and stroke.
The U.K. Mini Mitral trial was therefore conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of minithoracotomy versus sternotomy mitral valve repair.
For the trial, 330 patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation were randomized to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon.
The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the surgery.
This failed to show superiority of minithoracotomy, with a mean difference of 0.68 (95% confidence interval, −1.89 to 3.26) between the two groups.
Analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated that time spent undertaking moderate to vigorous physical activity was higher among participants receiving minithoracotomy at 6 weeks, although the treatment effect was small at an average of 9 minutes and was not different at 12 weeks.
Postoperative length of hospital stay was reduced after minithoracotomy by 1 day, with a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days after sternotomy.
Although repair techniques were at the discretion of the surgeons and differed between the two procedures, high rates of valve repair and low rates of recurrent mitral regurgitation were observed in both groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were longer with minithoracotomy, but postoperative complications and adverse events were similar.
There was no difference between the two groups with respect to the prespecified safety outcome of death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year, which occurred in 5.4% of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% of those undergoing sternotomy.
“These findings can inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines,” the authors conclude.
Approach ‘may appeal to patients’
In an editorial accompanying the publication of the study in JAMA, Maurice Enriquez-Sarano, MD, Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minnesota, says the results should be integrated into patient management.
“Mini-thoracotomy mitral repair carried low risk and was highly effective compared with sternotomy. It can thus be applied successfully by surgeons who achieve the necessary expertise,” he notes.
“Mini-thoracotomy may appeal to patients because the procedure is less disfiguring than sternotomy. The early (6-week) benefit, albeit small and transient, is important to patients,” he adds.
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Research. Dr. Akowuah reports no relevant financial relationships with industry. Dr. Enriquez-Sarano reports receiving consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Artivion, ChemImage, HighLife, and Corcym.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Alcohol may curb stress signaling in brain to protect heart
The study shows that light to moderate drinking was associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and this was partly mediated by decreased stress signaling in the brain.
In addition, the benefit of light to moderate drinking with respect to MACE was most pronounced among people with a history of anxiety, a condition known to be associated with higher stress signaling in the brain.
However, the apparent CVD benefits of light to moderate drinking were counterbalanced by an increased risk of cancer.
“There is no safe level of alcohol consumption,” senior author and cardiologist Ahmed Tawakol, MD, codirector of the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“We see cancer risk even at the level that we see some protection from heart disease. And higher amounts of alcohol clearly increase heart disease risk,” Dr. Tawakol said.
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Clear mechanistic link
Chronic stress is associated with MACE via stress-related neural network activity (SNA). Light to moderate alcohol consumption has been linked to lower MACE risk, but the mechanisms behind this connection remain unclear.
“We know that when the neural centers of stress are activated, they trigger downstream changes that result in heart disease. And we’ve long appreciated that alcohol in the short term reduces stress, so we hypothesized that maybe alcohol impacts those stress systems chronically and that might explain its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Tawakol explained.
The study included roughly 53,000 adults (mean age, 60 years; 60% women) from the Mass General Brigham Biobank. The researchers first evaluated the relationship between light to moderate alcohol consumption and MACE after adjusting for a range of genetic, clinical, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors.
During mean follow-up of 3.4 years, 1,914 individuals experienced MACE. Light to moderate alcohol consumption (compared to none/minimal) was associated with lower MACE risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.786; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717-0.862; P < .0001) after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.
The researchers then studied a subset of 713 individuals who had undergone previous PET/CT brain imaging (primarily for cancer surveillance) to determine the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on resting SNA.
They found that light to moderate alcohol consumption correlated with decreased SNA (standardized beta, –0.192; 95% CI, –0.338 to 0.046; P = .01). Lower SNA partially mediated the beneficial effect of light to moderate alcohol intake on MACE risk (odds ratio [OR], –0.040; 95% CI, –0.097 to –0.003; P < .05).
Light to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with larger decreases in MACE risk among individuals with a history of anxiety (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72, vs. HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80; P = .003).
The coauthors of an editorial say the discovery of a “new possible mechanism of action” for why light to moderate alcohol consumption might protect the heart “deserves closer attention in future investigations.”
However, Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology and prevention, IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, one of the authors, emphasized that individuals who consume alcohol should not “exceed the recommended daily dose limits suggested in many countries and that no abstainer should start to drink, even in moderation, solely for the purpose of improving his/her health outcomes.”
Dr. Tawakol and colleagues said that, given alcohol’s adverse health effects, such as heightened cancer risk, new interventions that have positive effects on the neurobiology of stress but without the harmful effects of alcohol are needed.
To that end, they are studying the effect of exercise, stress-reduction interventions such as meditation, and pharmacologic therapies on stress-associated neural networks, and how they might induce CV benefits.
Dr. Tawakol said in an interview that one “additional important message is that anxiety and other related conditions like depression have really substantial health consequences, including increased MACE. Safer interventions that reduce anxiety may yet prove to reduce the risk of heart disease very nicely.”
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Tawakol and Dr. de Gaetano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The study shows that light to moderate drinking was associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and this was partly mediated by decreased stress signaling in the brain.
In addition, the benefit of light to moderate drinking with respect to MACE was most pronounced among people with a history of anxiety, a condition known to be associated with higher stress signaling in the brain.
However, the apparent CVD benefits of light to moderate drinking were counterbalanced by an increased risk of cancer.
“There is no safe level of alcohol consumption,” senior author and cardiologist Ahmed Tawakol, MD, codirector of the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“We see cancer risk even at the level that we see some protection from heart disease. And higher amounts of alcohol clearly increase heart disease risk,” Dr. Tawakol said.
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Clear mechanistic link
Chronic stress is associated with MACE via stress-related neural network activity (SNA). Light to moderate alcohol consumption has been linked to lower MACE risk, but the mechanisms behind this connection remain unclear.
“We know that when the neural centers of stress are activated, they trigger downstream changes that result in heart disease. And we’ve long appreciated that alcohol in the short term reduces stress, so we hypothesized that maybe alcohol impacts those stress systems chronically and that might explain its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Tawakol explained.
The study included roughly 53,000 adults (mean age, 60 years; 60% women) from the Mass General Brigham Biobank. The researchers first evaluated the relationship between light to moderate alcohol consumption and MACE after adjusting for a range of genetic, clinical, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors.
During mean follow-up of 3.4 years, 1,914 individuals experienced MACE. Light to moderate alcohol consumption (compared to none/minimal) was associated with lower MACE risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.786; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717-0.862; P < .0001) after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.
The researchers then studied a subset of 713 individuals who had undergone previous PET/CT brain imaging (primarily for cancer surveillance) to determine the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on resting SNA.
They found that light to moderate alcohol consumption correlated with decreased SNA (standardized beta, –0.192; 95% CI, –0.338 to 0.046; P = .01). Lower SNA partially mediated the beneficial effect of light to moderate alcohol intake on MACE risk (odds ratio [OR], –0.040; 95% CI, –0.097 to –0.003; P < .05).
Light to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with larger decreases in MACE risk among individuals with a history of anxiety (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72, vs. HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80; P = .003).
The coauthors of an editorial say the discovery of a “new possible mechanism of action” for why light to moderate alcohol consumption might protect the heart “deserves closer attention in future investigations.”
However, Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology and prevention, IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, one of the authors, emphasized that individuals who consume alcohol should not “exceed the recommended daily dose limits suggested in many countries and that no abstainer should start to drink, even in moderation, solely for the purpose of improving his/her health outcomes.”
Dr. Tawakol and colleagues said that, given alcohol’s adverse health effects, such as heightened cancer risk, new interventions that have positive effects on the neurobiology of stress but without the harmful effects of alcohol are needed.
To that end, they are studying the effect of exercise, stress-reduction interventions such as meditation, and pharmacologic therapies on stress-associated neural networks, and how they might induce CV benefits.
Dr. Tawakol said in an interview that one “additional important message is that anxiety and other related conditions like depression have really substantial health consequences, including increased MACE. Safer interventions that reduce anxiety may yet prove to reduce the risk of heart disease very nicely.”
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Tawakol and Dr. de Gaetano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The study shows that light to moderate drinking was associated with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and this was partly mediated by decreased stress signaling in the brain.
In addition, the benefit of light to moderate drinking with respect to MACE was most pronounced among people with a history of anxiety, a condition known to be associated with higher stress signaling in the brain.
However, the apparent CVD benefits of light to moderate drinking were counterbalanced by an increased risk of cancer.
“There is no safe level of alcohol consumption,” senior author and cardiologist Ahmed Tawakol, MD, codirector of the Cardiovascular Imaging Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.
“We see cancer risk even at the level that we see some protection from heart disease. And higher amounts of alcohol clearly increase heart disease risk,” Dr. Tawakol said.
The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Clear mechanistic link
Chronic stress is associated with MACE via stress-related neural network activity (SNA). Light to moderate alcohol consumption has been linked to lower MACE risk, but the mechanisms behind this connection remain unclear.
“We know that when the neural centers of stress are activated, they trigger downstream changes that result in heart disease. And we’ve long appreciated that alcohol in the short term reduces stress, so we hypothesized that maybe alcohol impacts those stress systems chronically and that might explain its cardiovascular effects,” Dr. Tawakol explained.
The study included roughly 53,000 adults (mean age, 60 years; 60% women) from the Mass General Brigham Biobank. The researchers first evaluated the relationship between light to moderate alcohol consumption and MACE after adjusting for a range of genetic, clinical, lifestyle, and socioeconomic factors.
During mean follow-up of 3.4 years, 1,914 individuals experienced MACE. Light to moderate alcohol consumption (compared to none/minimal) was associated with lower MACE risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.786; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717-0.862; P < .0001) after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors.
The researchers then studied a subset of 713 individuals who had undergone previous PET/CT brain imaging (primarily for cancer surveillance) to determine the effect of light to moderate alcohol consumption on resting SNA.
They found that light to moderate alcohol consumption correlated with decreased SNA (standardized beta, –0.192; 95% CI, –0.338 to 0.046; P = .01). Lower SNA partially mediated the beneficial effect of light to moderate alcohol intake on MACE risk (odds ratio [OR], –0.040; 95% CI, –0.097 to –0.003; P < .05).
Light to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with larger decreases in MACE risk among individuals with a history of anxiety (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.72, vs. HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80; P = .003).
The coauthors of an editorial say the discovery of a “new possible mechanism of action” for why light to moderate alcohol consumption might protect the heart “deserves closer attention in future investigations.”
However, Giovanni de Gaetano, MD, PhD, department of epidemiology and prevention, IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy, one of the authors, emphasized that individuals who consume alcohol should not “exceed the recommended daily dose limits suggested in many countries and that no abstainer should start to drink, even in moderation, solely for the purpose of improving his/her health outcomes.”
Dr. Tawakol and colleagues said that, given alcohol’s adverse health effects, such as heightened cancer risk, new interventions that have positive effects on the neurobiology of stress but without the harmful effects of alcohol are needed.
To that end, they are studying the effect of exercise, stress-reduction interventions such as meditation, and pharmacologic therapies on stress-associated neural networks, and how they might induce CV benefits.
Dr. Tawakol said in an interview that one “additional important message is that anxiety and other related conditions like depression have really substantial health consequences, including increased MACE. Safer interventions that reduce anxiety may yet prove to reduce the risk of heart disease very nicely.”
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Tawakol and Dr. de Gaetano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
The cardiopulmonary effects of mask wearing
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
There was a time when I would have had to explain to you what an N95 mask is, how it is designed to filter out 95% of fine particles, defined as stuff in the air less than 2.5 microns in size.
But of course, you know that now. The N95 had its moment – a moment that seemed to be passing as the concentration of airborne coronavirus particles decreased.
But, as the poet said, all that is less than 2.5 microns in size is not coronavirus. Wildfire smoke is also chock full of fine particulate matter. And so, N95s are having something of a comeback.
That’s why an article that took a deep look at what happens to our cardiovascular system when we wear N95 masks caught my eye.
Mask wearing has been the subject of intense debate around the country. While the vast majority of evidence, as well as the personal experience of thousands of doctors, suggests that wearing a mask has no significant physiologic effects, it’s not hard to find those who suggest that mask wearing depletes oxygen levels, or leads to infection, or has other bizarre effects.
In a world of conflicting opinions, a controlled study is a wonderful thing, and that’s what appeared in JAMA Network Open.
This isn’t a huge study, but it’s big enough to make some important conclusions. Thirty individuals, all young and healthy, half female, were enrolled. Each participant spent 3 days in a metabolic chamber; this is essentially a giant, airtight room where all the inputs (oxygen levels and so on) and outputs (carbon dioxide levels and so on) can be precisely measured.
After a day of getting used to the environment, the participants spent a day either wearing an N95 mask or not for 16 waking hours. On the next day, they switched. Every other variable was controlled, from the calories in their diet to the temperature of the room itself.
They engaged in light exercise twice during the day – riding a stationary bike – and a host of physiologic parameters were measured. The question being, would the wearing of the mask for 16 hours straight change anything?
And the answer is yes, some things changed, but not by much.
Here’s a graph of the heart rate over time. You can see some separation, with higher heart rates during the mask-wearing day, particularly around 11 a.m. – when light exercise was scheduled.
Zooming in on the exercise period makes the difference more clear. The heart rate was about eight beats/min higher while masked and engaging in exercise. Systolic blood pressure was about 6 mm Hg higher. Oxygen saturation was lower by 0.7%.
So yes, exercising while wearing an N95 mask might be different from exercising without an N95 mask. But nothing here looks dangerous to me. The 0.7% decrease in oxygen saturation is smaller than the typical measurement error of a pulse oximeter. The authors write that venous pH decreased during the masked day, which is of more interest to me as a nephrologist, but they don’t show that data even in the supplement. I suspect it didn’t decrease much.
They also showed that respiratory rate during exercise decreased in the masked condition. That doesn’t really make sense when you think about it in the context of the other findings, which are all suggestive of increased metabolic rate and sympathetic drive. Does that call the whole procedure into question? No, but it’s worth noting.
These were young, healthy people. You could certainly argue that those with more vulnerable cardiopulmonary status might have had different effects from mask wearing, but without a specific study in those people, it’s just conjecture. Clearly, this study lets us conclude that mask wearing at rest has less of an effect than mask wearing during exercise.
But remember that, in reality, we are wearing masks for a reason. One could imagine a study where this metabolic chamber was filled with wildfire smoke at a concentration similar to what we saw in New York. In that situation, we might find that wearing an N95 is quite helpful. The thing is, studying masks in isolation is useful because you can control so many variables. But masks aren’t used in isolation. In fact, that’s sort of their defining characteristic.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
There was a time when I would have had to explain to you what an N95 mask is, how it is designed to filter out 95% of fine particles, defined as stuff in the air less than 2.5 microns in size.
But of course, you know that now. The N95 had its moment – a moment that seemed to be passing as the concentration of airborne coronavirus particles decreased.
But, as the poet said, all that is less than 2.5 microns in size is not coronavirus. Wildfire smoke is also chock full of fine particulate matter. And so, N95s are having something of a comeback.
That’s why an article that took a deep look at what happens to our cardiovascular system when we wear N95 masks caught my eye.
Mask wearing has been the subject of intense debate around the country. While the vast majority of evidence, as well as the personal experience of thousands of doctors, suggests that wearing a mask has no significant physiologic effects, it’s not hard to find those who suggest that mask wearing depletes oxygen levels, or leads to infection, or has other bizarre effects.
In a world of conflicting opinions, a controlled study is a wonderful thing, and that’s what appeared in JAMA Network Open.
This isn’t a huge study, but it’s big enough to make some important conclusions. Thirty individuals, all young and healthy, half female, were enrolled. Each participant spent 3 days in a metabolic chamber; this is essentially a giant, airtight room where all the inputs (oxygen levels and so on) and outputs (carbon dioxide levels and so on) can be precisely measured.
After a day of getting used to the environment, the participants spent a day either wearing an N95 mask or not for 16 waking hours. On the next day, they switched. Every other variable was controlled, from the calories in their diet to the temperature of the room itself.
They engaged in light exercise twice during the day – riding a stationary bike – and a host of physiologic parameters were measured. The question being, would the wearing of the mask for 16 hours straight change anything?
And the answer is yes, some things changed, but not by much.
Here’s a graph of the heart rate over time. You can see some separation, with higher heart rates during the mask-wearing day, particularly around 11 a.m. – when light exercise was scheduled.
Zooming in on the exercise period makes the difference more clear. The heart rate was about eight beats/min higher while masked and engaging in exercise. Systolic blood pressure was about 6 mm Hg higher. Oxygen saturation was lower by 0.7%.
So yes, exercising while wearing an N95 mask might be different from exercising without an N95 mask. But nothing here looks dangerous to me. The 0.7% decrease in oxygen saturation is smaller than the typical measurement error of a pulse oximeter. The authors write that venous pH decreased during the masked day, which is of more interest to me as a nephrologist, but they don’t show that data even in the supplement. I suspect it didn’t decrease much.
They also showed that respiratory rate during exercise decreased in the masked condition. That doesn’t really make sense when you think about it in the context of the other findings, which are all suggestive of increased metabolic rate and sympathetic drive. Does that call the whole procedure into question? No, but it’s worth noting.
These were young, healthy people. You could certainly argue that those with more vulnerable cardiopulmonary status might have had different effects from mask wearing, but without a specific study in those people, it’s just conjecture. Clearly, this study lets us conclude that mask wearing at rest has less of an effect than mask wearing during exercise.
But remember that, in reality, we are wearing masks for a reason. One could imagine a study where this metabolic chamber was filled with wildfire smoke at a concentration similar to what we saw in New York. In that situation, we might find that wearing an N95 is quite helpful. The thing is, studying masks in isolation is useful because you can control so many variables. But masks aren’t used in isolation. In fact, that’s sort of their defining characteristic.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
There was a time when I would have had to explain to you what an N95 mask is, how it is designed to filter out 95% of fine particles, defined as stuff in the air less than 2.5 microns in size.
But of course, you know that now. The N95 had its moment – a moment that seemed to be passing as the concentration of airborne coronavirus particles decreased.
But, as the poet said, all that is less than 2.5 microns in size is not coronavirus. Wildfire smoke is also chock full of fine particulate matter. And so, N95s are having something of a comeback.
That’s why an article that took a deep look at what happens to our cardiovascular system when we wear N95 masks caught my eye.
Mask wearing has been the subject of intense debate around the country. While the vast majority of evidence, as well as the personal experience of thousands of doctors, suggests that wearing a mask has no significant physiologic effects, it’s not hard to find those who suggest that mask wearing depletes oxygen levels, or leads to infection, or has other bizarre effects.
In a world of conflicting opinions, a controlled study is a wonderful thing, and that’s what appeared in JAMA Network Open.
This isn’t a huge study, but it’s big enough to make some important conclusions. Thirty individuals, all young and healthy, half female, were enrolled. Each participant spent 3 days in a metabolic chamber; this is essentially a giant, airtight room where all the inputs (oxygen levels and so on) and outputs (carbon dioxide levels and so on) can be precisely measured.
After a day of getting used to the environment, the participants spent a day either wearing an N95 mask or not for 16 waking hours. On the next day, they switched. Every other variable was controlled, from the calories in their diet to the temperature of the room itself.
They engaged in light exercise twice during the day – riding a stationary bike – and a host of physiologic parameters were measured. The question being, would the wearing of the mask for 16 hours straight change anything?
And the answer is yes, some things changed, but not by much.
Here’s a graph of the heart rate over time. You can see some separation, with higher heart rates during the mask-wearing day, particularly around 11 a.m. – when light exercise was scheduled.
Zooming in on the exercise period makes the difference more clear. The heart rate was about eight beats/min higher while masked and engaging in exercise. Systolic blood pressure was about 6 mm Hg higher. Oxygen saturation was lower by 0.7%.
So yes, exercising while wearing an N95 mask might be different from exercising without an N95 mask. But nothing here looks dangerous to me. The 0.7% decrease in oxygen saturation is smaller than the typical measurement error of a pulse oximeter. The authors write that venous pH decreased during the masked day, which is of more interest to me as a nephrologist, but they don’t show that data even in the supplement. I suspect it didn’t decrease much.
They also showed that respiratory rate during exercise decreased in the masked condition. That doesn’t really make sense when you think about it in the context of the other findings, which are all suggestive of increased metabolic rate and sympathetic drive. Does that call the whole procedure into question? No, but it’s worth noting.
These were young, healthy people. You could certainly argue that those with more vulnerable cardiopulmonary status might have had different effects from mask wearing, but without a specific study in those people, it’s just conjecture. Clearly, this study lets us conclude that mask wearing at rest has less of an effect than mask wearing during exercise.
But remember that, in reality, we are wearing masks for a reason. One could imagine a study where this metabolic chamber was filled with wildfire smoke at a concentration similar to what we saw in New York. In that situation, we might find that wearing an N95 is quite helpful. The thing is, studying masks in isolation is useful because you can control so many variables. But masks aren’t used in isolation. In fact, that’s sort of their defining characteristic.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cuffless blood pressure monitors: Still a numbers game
Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”
He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.
Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?
Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
Burned before
Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.
Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.
His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
Devices, indications differ
Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.
PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.
The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.
Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.
This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.
They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”
The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
IEEE and FDA validation
Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.
However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.
Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”
“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”
The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.
“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.
Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.
Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.
“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
Moving toward validation, standards
Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.
And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”
Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.
The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”
This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.
Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
Device makers take the initiative
In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.
For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”
Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.
“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”
The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”
The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.
“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.
Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”
Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”
“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”
Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”
He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.
Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?
Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
Burned before
Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.
Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.
His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
Devices, indications differ
Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.
PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.
The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.
Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.
This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.
They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”
The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
IEEE and FDA validation
Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.
However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.
Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”
“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”
The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.
“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.
Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.
Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.
“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
Moving toward validation, standards
Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.
And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”
Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.
The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”
This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.
Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
Device makers take the initiative
In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.
For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”
Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.
“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”
The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”
The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.
“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.
Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”
Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”
“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”
Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medscape’s Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD, referred to continual noninvasive, cuffless, accurate blood pressure devices as “a holy grail in sensor technology.”
He personally tested a cuff-calibrated, over-the-counter device available in Europe that claims to monitor daily blood pressure changes and produce data that can help physicians titrate medications.
Dr. Topol does not believe that it is ready for prime time. Yes, cuffless devices are easy to use, and generate lots of data. But are those data accurate?
Many experts say not yet, even as the market continues to grow and more devices are introduced and highlighted at high-profile consumer events.
Burned before
Limitations of cuffed devices are well known, including errors related to cuff size, patient positioning, patient habits or behaviors (for example, caffeine/nicotine use, acute meal digestion, full bladder, very recent physical activity) and clinicians’ failure to take accurate measurements.
Like many clinicians, Timothy B. Plante, MD, MHS, assistant professor at the University of Vermont Medical Center thrombosis & hemostasis program in Burlington, is very excited about cuffless technology. However, “we’ve been burned by it before,” he said in an interview.
Dr. Plante’s 2016 validation study of an instant blood pressure smartphone app found that its measurements were “highly inaccurate,” with such low sensitivity that more than three-quarters of individuals with hypertensive blood levels would be falsely reassured that their blood pressure was in the normal range.
His team’s 2023 review of the current landscape, which includes more sophisticated devices, concluded that accuracy remains an issue: “Unfortunately, the pace of regulation of these devices has failed to match the speed of innovation and direct availability to patient consumers. There is an urgent need to develop a consensus on standards by which cuffless BP devices can be tested for accuracy.”
Devices, indications differ
Cuffless devices estimate blood pressure indirectly. Most operate based on pulse wave analysis and pulse arrival time (PWA-PAT), explained Ramakrishna Mukkamala, PhD, in a commentary. Dr. Mukkamala is a professor in the departments of bioengineering and anesthesiology and perioperative medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.
PWA involves measuring a peripheral arterial waveform using an optical sensor such as the green lights on the back of a wrist-worn device, or a ‘force sensor’ such as a finger cuff or pressing on a smartphone. Certain features are extracted from the waveform using machine learning and calibrated to blood pressure values.
PAT techniques work together with PWA; they record the ECG and extract features from that signal as well as the arterial waveform for calibration to blood pressure values.
The algorithm used to generate the BP numbers comprises a proprietary baseline model that may include demographics and other patient characteristics. A cuff measurement is often part of the baseline model because most cuffless devices require periodic (typically weekly or monthly) calibration using a cuffed device.
Cuffless devices that require cuff calibration compare the estimate they get to the cuff-calibrated number. In this scenario, the cuffless device may come up with the same blood pressure numbers simply because the baseline model – which is made up of thousands of data points relevant to the patient – has not changed.
This has led some experts to question whether PWA-PAT cuffless device readings actually add anything to the baseline model.
They don’t, according to Microsoft Research in what Dr. Mukkamala and coauthors referred to (in a review published in Hypertension) as “a complex article describing perhaps the most important and highest resource project to date (Aurora Project) on assessing the accuracy of PWA and PWA devices.”
The Microsoft article was written for bioengineers. The review in Hypertension explains the project for clinicians, and concludes that, “Cuffless BP devices based on PWA and PWA-PAT, which are similar to some regulatory-cleared devices, were of no additional value in measuring auscultatory or 24-hour ambulatory cuff BP when compared with a baseline model in which BP was predicted without an actual measurement.”
IEEE and FDA validation
Despite these concerns, several cuffless devices using PWA and PAT have been cleared by the Food and Drug Administration.
Validating cuffless devices is no simple matter. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published a validation protocol for cuffless blood pressure devices in 2014 that was amended in 2019 to include a requirement to evaluate performance in different positions and in the presence of motion with varying degrees of noise artifact.
However, Daichi Shimbo, MD, codirector of the Columbia Hypertension Center in New York and vice chair of the American Heart Association Statement on blood pressure monitoring, and colleagues point out limitations, even in the updated standard. These include not requiring evaluation for drift over time; lack of specific dynamic testing protocols for stressors such as exercise or environmental temperatures; and an unsuitable reference standard (oscillometric cuff-based devices) during movement.
Dr. Shimbo said in an interview that, although he is excited about them, “these cuffless devices are not aligned with regulatory bodies. If a device gives someone a wrong blood pressure, they might be diagnosed with hypertension when they don’t have it or might miss the fact that they’re hypertensive because they get a normal blood pressure reading. If there’s no yardstick by which you say these devices are good, what are we really doing – helping, or causing a problem?”
“The specifics of how a device estimates blood pressure can determine what testing is needed to ensure that it is providing accurate performance in the intended conditions of use,” Jeremy Kahn, an FDA press officer, said in an interview. “For example, for cuffless devices that are calibrated initially with a cuff-based blood pressure device, the cuffless device needs to specify the period over which it can provide accurate readings and have testing to demonstrate that it provides accurate results over that period of use.”
The FDA said its testing is different from what the Microsoft Aurora Project used in their study.
“The intent of that testing, as the agency understands it, is to evaluate whether the device is providing useful input based on the current physiology of the patient rather than relying on predetermined values based on calibration or patient attributes. We evaluate this clinically in two separate tests: an induced change in blood pressure test and tracking of natural blood pressure changes with longer term device use,” Mr. Kahn explained.
Analyzing a device’s performance on individuals who have had natural changes in blood pressure as compared to a calibration value or initial reading “can also help discern if the device is using physiological data from the patient to determine their blood pressure accurately,” he said.
Experts interviewed for this article who remain skeptical about cuffless BP monitoring question whether the numbers that appear during the induced blood pressure change, and with the natural blood pressure changes that may occur over time, accurately reflect a patient’s blood pressure.
“The FDA doesn’t approve these devices; they clear them,” Dr. Shimbo pointed out. “Clearing them means they can be sold to the general public in the U.S. It’s not a strong statement that they’re accurate.”
Moving toward validation, standards
Ultimately, cuffless BP monitors may require more than one validation protocol and standard, depending on their technology, how and where they will be used, and by whom.
And as Dr. Plante and colleagues write, “Importantly, validation should be performed in diverse and special populations, including pregnant women and individuals across a range of heart rates, skin tones, wrist sizes, common arrhythmias, and beta-blocker use.”
Organizations that might be expected to help move validation and standards forward have mostly remained silent. The American Medical Association’s US Blood Pressure Validated Device Listing website includes only cuffed devices, as does the website of the international scientific nonprofit STRIDE BP.
The European Society of Hypertension 2022 consensus statement on cuffless devices concluded that, until there is an internationally accepted accuracy standard and the devices have been tested in healthy people and those with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, “cuffless BP devices should not be used for the evaluation or management of hypertension in clinical practice.”
This month, ESH published recommendations for “specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices” that will be presented at their upcoming annual meeting June 26.
Updated protocols from IEEE “are coming out soon,” according to Dr. Shimbo. The FDA says currently cleared devices won’t need to revalidate according to new standards unless the sponsor makes significant modifications in software algorithms, device hardware, or targeted patient populations.
Device makers take the initiative
In the face of conflicting reports on accuracy and lack of a robust standard, some device makers are publishing their own tests or encouraging validation by potential customers.
For example, institutions that are considering using the Biobeat cuffless blood pressure monitor watch “usually start with small pilots with our devices to do internal validation,” Lior Ben Shettrit, the company’s vice president of business development, said in an interview. “Only after they complete the internal validation are they willing to move forward to full implementation.”
Cardiologist Dean Nachman, MD, is leading validation studies of the Biobeat device at the Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center in Jerusalem. For the first validation, the team recruited 1,057 volunteers who did a single blood pressure measurement with the cuffless device and with a cuffed device.
“We found 96.3% agreement in identifying hypertension and an interclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 and 0.97 for systolic and diastolic measurements, respectively,” he said. “Then we took it to the next level and compared the device to ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure monitoring and found comparable measurements.”
The investigators are not done yet. “We need data from thousands of patients, with subgroups, to not have any concerns,” he says. “Right now, we are using the device as a general monitor – as an EKG plus heart rate plus oxygen saturation level monitor – and as a blood pressure monitor for 24-hour blood pressure monitoring.”
The developers of the Aktiia device, which is the one Dr. Topol tested, take a different perspective. “When somebody introduces a new technology that is disrupting something that has been in place for over 100 years, there will always be some grumblings, ruffling of feathers, people saying it’s not ready, it’s not ready, it’s not ready,” Aktiia’s chief medical officer Jay Shah, MD, noted.
“But a lot of those comments are coming from the isolation of an ivory tower,” he said.
Aktiia cofounder and chief technology officer Josep Solà said that “no device is probably as accurate as if you have an invasive catheter,” adding that “we engage patients to look at their blood pressure day by day. … If each individual measurement of each of those patient is slightly less accurate than a cuff, who cares? We have 40 measurements per day on each patient. The accuracy and precision of each of those is good.”
Researchers from the George Institute for Global Health recently compared the Aktiia device to conventional ambulatory monitoring in 41 patients and found that “it did not accurately track night-time BP decline and results suggested it was unable to track medication-induced BP changes.”
“In the context of 24/7 monitoring of hypertensive patients,” Mr. Solà said, “whatever you do, if it’s better than a sham device or a baseline model and you track the blood pressure changes, it’s a hundred times much better than doing nothing.”
Dr. Nachman and Dr. Plante reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Shimbo reported that he received funding from NIH and has consulted for Abbott Vascular, Edward Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Tryton Medical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Early hysterectomy linked to higher CVD, stroke risk
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
- Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
- Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
- The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.
TAKEAWAY:
- During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
- The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
- This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.
IN PRACTICE:
Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
- Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
- Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
- The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.
TAKEAWAY:
- During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
- The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
- This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.
IN PRACTICE:
Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Risk of CVD rapidly increases after menopause, possibly owing to loss of protective effects of female sex hormones and hemorheologic changes.
- Results of previous studies of the association between hysterectomy and CVD were mixed.
- Using national health insurance data, this cohort study included 55,539 South Korean women (median age, 45 years) who underwent a hysterectomy and a propensity-matched group of women.
- The primary outcome was CVD, including myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery revascularization, and stroke.
TAKEAWAY:
- During follow-up of just under 8 years, the hysterectomy group had an increased risk of CVD compared with the non-hysterectomy group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.44; P = .002)
- The incidence of MI and coronary revascularization was comparable between groups, but the risk of stroke was significantly higher among those who had had a hysterectomy (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.53; P < .001)
- This increase in risk was similar after excluding patients who also underwent adnexal surgery.
IN PRACTICE:
Early hysterectomy was linked to higher CVD risk, especially stroke, but since the CVD incidence wasn’t high, a change in clinical practice may not be needed, said the authors.
STUDY DETAILS:
The study was conducted by Jin-Sung Yuk, MD, PhD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues. It was published online June 12 in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The study was retrospective and observational and used administrative databases that may be prone to inaccurate coding. The findings may not be generalizable outside Korea.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korea government. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is there benefit to adding ezetimibe to a statin for the secondary prevention of CVD?
Evidence summary
Adding ezetimibe reduces nonfatal events but does not improve mortality
A 2018 Cochrane meta-analysis included 10 RCTs (N = 21,919 patients) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe plus a statin (dual therapy) vs a statin alone or plus placebo (monotherapy) for the secondary prevention of CVD. Mean age of patients ranged from 55 to 84 years. Almost all of the patients (> 99%) included in the analyses had existing ASCVD. The dose of ezetimibe was 10 mg; statins used included atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg, pitavastatin 2 to 4 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, and simvastatin 20 to 80 mg.1
The primary outcomes were MACE and all-cause mortality. MACE is defined as a composite of CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization procedures. The TABLE1 provides a detailed breakdown of each of the outcomes.
The dual-therapy group compared to the monotherapy group had a lower risk for MACE (26.6% vs 28.3%; 1.7% absolute risk reduction; 6% relative risk reduction; NNT = 59) and little or no difference in the reduction of all-cause mortality. For secondary outcomes, the dual-therapy group had a lower risk for nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. There was no difference in cardiovascular mortality or adverse events between the 2 groups. The quality of evidence was high for all-cause mortality and moderate for cardiovascular mortality, MACE, MI, and stroke.1
The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study, the largest included in the Cochrane review, was a double-blind RCT (N = 18,144) conducted at 1147 sites in 39 countries comparing simvastatin 40 mg/d plus ezetimibe 10 mg/d (dual therapy) vs simvastatin 40 mg/d plus placebo (monotherapy). Patients were at least 50 years old (average age, 64 years) and had been hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within the previous 10 days; 76% were male and 84% were White. The average low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentration at baseline was 94 mg/dL in both groups.2
The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, a major coronary event (nonfatal MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization at least 30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke, with a median follow-up of 6 years. The simvastatin plus ezetimibe group compared to the simvastatin-only group had a lower risk for the primary end point (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99; NNT = 50), but no differences in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Since the study only recruited patients with recent ACS, results are only applicable to that specific population.2
The 2022 RACING study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial that evaluated the combination of ezetimibe 10 mg and a moderate-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg) compared to a high-intensity statin alone (rosuvastatin 20 mg) in adults (N = 3780) with ASCVD. Included patients were ages 19 to 80 years (mean, 64 years) and had a baseline LDL concentration of 80 mg/dL (standard deviation, 64-100 mg/dL) with known ASCVD (defined by prior MI, ACS, history of coronary or other arterial revascularization, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease); 75% were male.3
The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. At 3 years, an intention-to-treat analysis found no significant difference between the combination and monotherapy groups (9% vs 9.9%; absolute difference, –0.78%; 95% CI, –2.39% to 0.83%). Dose reduction or discontinuation of the study drug(s) due to intolerance was lower in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (4.8% vs 8.2%; P < 0.0001). The study may be limited by the fact that it was nonblinded and all participants were South Korean, which limits generalizability.3
Recommendations from others
A 2022 evidence-based clinical practice guideline published in BMJ recommends adding ezetimibe to a statin to decrease all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal MI in patients with known CVD, regardless of their LDL concentration (weak recommendation based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis).4
In 2019, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology recommended ezetimibe for patients with clinical ASCVD who are on maximally tolerated statin therapy and have an LDL concentration of 70 mg/dL or higher (Class 2b recommendation [meaning it can be considered] based on a meta-analysis of moderate-quality RCTs).5
Editor’s takeaway
The data on this important and well-studied question have inched closer to firm and clear answers. First, adding ezetimibe to a lower-intensity statin when a higher-intensity statin is not tolerated is an effective treatment. Second, adding ezetimibe to a statin improves nonfatal ASCVD outcomes but not fatal ones. What has not yet been made clear, because a noninferiority trial does not answer this question, is whether the highest intensity statin plus ezetimibe is superior to that high-intensity statin alone, regardless of LDL concentration.
1. Zhan S, Tang M, Liu F, et al. Ezetimibe for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and all‐cause mortality events. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2018;11:CD012502. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012502.pub2
2. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al; IMPROVE-IT Investigators. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1410489 pmid:26039521
3. Kim BK, Hong SJ, Lee YJ, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RACING): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2022;400:380-390. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00916-3
4. Hao Q, Aertgeerts B, Guyatt G, et al. PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations. BMJ. 2022;377:e069066. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069066
5. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:e285-e350. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003
Evidence summary
Adding ezetimibe reduces nonfatal events but does not improve mortality
A 2018 Cochrane meta-analysis included 10 RCTs (N = 21,919 patients) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe plus a statin (dual therapy) vs a statin alone or plus placebo (monotherapy) for the secondary prevention of CVD. Mean age of patients ranged from 55 to 84 years. Almost all of the patients (> 99%) included in the analyses had existing ASCVD. The dose of ezetimibe was 10 mg; statins used included atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg, pitavastatin 2 to 4 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, and simvastatin 20 to 80 mg.1
The primary outcomes were MACE and all-cause mortality. MACE is defined as a composite of CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization procedures. The TABLE1 provides a detailed breakdown of each of the outcomes.
The dual-therapy group compared to the monotherapy group had a lower risk for MACE (26.6% vs 28.3%; 1.7% absolute risk reduction; 6% relative risk reduction; NNT = 59) and little or no difference in the reduction of all-cause mortality. For secondary outcomes, the dual-therapy group had a lower risk for nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. There was no difference in cardiovascular mortality or adverse events between the 2 groups. The quality of evidence was high for all-cause mortality and moderate for cardiovascular mortality, MACE, MI, and stroke.1
The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study, the largest included in the Cochrane review, was a double-blind RCT (N = 18,144) conducted at 1147 sites in 39 countries comparing simvastatin 40 mg/d plus ezetimibe 10 mg/d (dual therapy) vs simvastatin 40 mg/d plus placebo (monotherapy). Patients were at least 50 years old (average age, 64 years) and had been hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within the previous 10 days; 76% were male and 84% were White. The average low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentration at baseline was 94 mg/dL in both groups.2
The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, a major coronary event (nonfatal MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization at least 30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke, with a median follow-up of 6 years. The simvastatin plus ezetimibe group compared to the simvastatin-only group had a lower risk for the primary end point (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99; NNT = 50), but no differences in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Since the study only recruited patients with recent ACS, results are only applicable to that specific population.2
The 2022 RACING study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial that evaluated the combination of ezetimibe 10 mg and a moderate-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg) compared to a high-intensity statin alone (rosuvastatin 20 mg) in adults (N = 3780) with ASCVD. Included patients were ages 19 to 80 years (mean, 64 years) and had a baseline LDL concentration of 80 mg/dL (standard deviation, 64-100 mg/dL) with known ASCVD (defined by prior MI, ACS, history of coronary or other arterial revascularization, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease); 75% were male.3
The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. At 3 years, an intention-to-treat analysis found no significant difference between the combination and monotherapy groups (9% vs 9.9%; absolute difference, –0.78%; 95% CI, –2.39% to 0.83%). Dose reduction or discontinuation of the study drug(s) due to intolerance was lower in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (4.8% vs 8.2%; P < 0.0001). The study may be limited by the fact that it was nonblinded and all participants were South Korean, which limits generalizability.3
Recommendations from others
A 2022 evidence-based clinical practice guideline published in BMJ recommends adding ezetimibe to a statin to decrease all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal MI in patients with known CVD, regardless of their LDL concentration (weak recommendation based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis).4
In 2019, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology recommended ezetimibe for patients with clinical ASCVD who are on maximally tolerated statin therapy and have an LDL concentration of 70 mg/dL or higher (Class 2b recommendation [meaning it can be considered] based on a meta-analysis of moderate-quality RCTs).5
Editor’s takeaway
The data on this important and well-studied question have inched closer to firm and clear answers. First, adding ezetimibe to a lower-intensity statin when a higher-intensity statin is not tolerated is an effective treatment. Second, adding ezetimibe to a statin improves nonfatal ASCVD outcomes but not fatal ones. What has not yet been made clear, because a noninferiority trial does not answer this question, is whether the highest intensity statin plus ezetimibe is superior to that high-intensity statin alone, regardless of LDL concentration.
Evidence summary
Adding ezetimibe reduces nonfatal events but does not improve mortality
A 2018 Cochrane meta-analysis included 10 RCTs (N = 21,919 patients) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe plus a statin (dual therapy) vs a statin alone or plus placebo (monotherapy) for the secondary prevention of CVD. Mean age of patients ranged from 55 to 84 years. Almost all of the patients (> 99%) included in the analyses had existing ASCVD. The dose of ezetimibe was 10 mg; statins used included atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg, pitavastatin 2 to 4 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, and simvastatin 20 to 80 mg.1
The primary outcomes were MACE and all-cause mortality. MACE is defined as a composite of CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization procedures. The TABLE1 provides a detailed breakdown of each of the outcomes.
The dual-therapy group compared to the monotherapy group had a lower risk for MACE (26.6% vs 28.3%; 1.7% absolute risk reduction; 6% relative risk reduction; NNT = 59) and little or no difference in the reduction of all-cause mortality. For secondary outcomes, the dual-therapy group had a lower risk for nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. There was no difference in cardiovascular mortality or adverse events between the 2 groups. The quality of evidence was high for all-cause mortality and moderate for cardiovascular mortality, MACE, MI, and stroke.1
The 2015 IMPROVE-IT study, the largest included in the Cochrane review, was a double-blind RCT (N = 18,144) conducted at 1147 sites in 39 countries comparing simvastatin 40 mg/d plus ezetimibe 10 mg/d (dual therapy) vs simvastatin 40 mg/d plus placebo (monotherapy). Patients were at least 50 years old (average age, 64 years) and had been hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within the previous 10 days; 76% were male and 84% were White. The average low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentration at baseline was 94 mg/dL in both groups.2
The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, a major coronary event (nonfatal MI, unstable angina requiring hospitalization, coronary revascularization at least 30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke, with a median follow-up of 6 years. The simvastatin plus ezetimibe group compared to the simvastatin-only group had a lower risk for the primary end point (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99; NNT = 50), but no differences in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Since the study only recruited patients with recent ACS, results are only applicable to that specific population.2
The 2022 RACING study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial that evaluated the combination of ezetimibe 10 mg and a moderate-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg) compared to a high-intensity statin alone (rosuvastatin 20 mg) in adults (N = 3780) with ASCVD. Included patients were ages 19 to 80 years (mean, 64 years) and had a baseline LDL concentration of 80 mg/dL (standard deviation, 64-100 mg/dL) with known ASCVD (defined by prior MI, ACS, history of coronary or other arterial revascularization, ischemic stroke, or peripheral artery disease); 75% were male.3
The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke. At 3 years, an intention-to-treat analysis found no significant difference between the combination and monotherapy groups (9% vs 9.9%; absolute difference, –0.78%; 95% CI, –2.39% to 0.83%). Dose reduction or discontinuation of the study drug(s) due to intolerance was lower in the combination group than in the monotherapy group (4.8% vs 8.2%; P < 0.0001). The study may be limited by the fact that it was nonblinded and all participants were South Korean, which limits generalizability.3
Recommendations from others
A 2022 evidence-based clinical practice guideline published in BMJ recommends adding ezetimibe to a statin to decrease all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal stroke, and nonfatal MI in patients with known CVD, regardless of their LDL concentration (weak recommendation based on a systematic review and network meta-analysis).4
In 2019, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology recommended ezetimibe for patients with clinical ASCVD who are on maximally tolerated statin therapy and have an LDL concentration of 70 mg/dL or higher (Class 2b recommendation [meaning it can be considered] based on a meta-analysis of moderate-quality RCTs).5
Editor’s takeaway
The data on this important and well-studied question have inched closer to firm and clear answers. First, adding ezetimibe to a lower-intensity statin when a higher-intensity statin is not tolerated is an effective treatment. Second, adding ezetimibe to a statin improves nonfatal ASCVD outcomes but not fatal ones. What has not yet been made clear, because a noninferiority trial does not answer this question, is whether the highest intensity statin plus ezetimibe is superior to that high-intensity statin alone, regardless of LDL concentration.
1. Zhan S, Tang M, Liu F, et al. Ezetimibe for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and all‐cause mortality events. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2018;11:CD012502. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012502.pub2
2. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al; IMPROVE-IT Investigators. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1410489 pmid:26039521
3. Kim BK, Hong SJ, Lee YJ, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RACING): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2022;400:380-390. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00916-3
4. Hao Q, Aertgeerts B, Guyatt G, et al. PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations. BMJ. 2022;377:e069066. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069066
5. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:e285-e350. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003
1. Zhan S, Tang M, Liu F, et al. Ezetimibe for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and all‐cause mortality events. Cochrane Database System Rev. 2018;11:CD012502. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012502.pub2
2. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al; IMPROVE-IT Investigators. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2387-2397. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1410489 pmid:26039521
3. Kim BK, Hong SJ, Lee YJ, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RACING): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2022;400:380-390. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00916-3
4. Hao Q, Aertgeerts B, Guyatt G, et al. PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations. BMJ. 2022;377:e069066. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069066
5. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:e285-e350. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.003
EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEW:
YES. In patients with known cardio- vascular disease (CVD), ezetimibe with a statin decreases
In adults with atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD), the combination of ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg) was noninferior at decreasing cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, and nonfatal stroke, but was more tolerable, compared to a high-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg) alone (SOR, B; 1 RCT).
64-year-old woman • hot flashes, facial flushing, excessive sweating, and palpitations • daily headaches • history of hypertension • Dx?
THE CASE
A 64-year-old woman sought care after having hot flashes, facial flushing, excessive sweating, palpitations, and daily headaches for 1 month. She had a history of hypertension that was well controlled with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/d but over the previous month, it had become more difficult to control. Her blood pressure remained elevated to 150/100 mm Hg despite the addition of lisinopril 40 mg/d and amlodipine 10 mg/d, indicating resistant hypertension. She had no family history of hypertension, diabetes, or obesity or any other pertinent medical or surgical history. Physical examination was negative for weight gain, stretch marks, or muscle weakness.
Laboratory tests revealed a normal serum aldosterone-renin ratio, renal function, and thyroid function; however, she had elevated levels of normetanephrine (2429 pg/mL; normal range, 0-145 pg/mL) and metanephrine (143 pg/mL; normal range, 0-62 pg/mL). Computed tomography (CT) revealed an 8.6-cm complex, hemorrhagic, necrotic left adrenal mass with attenuation of 33.1 Hounsfield units (HU) (FIGURE 1). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a T2 hyperintense left adrenal mass. An evaluation for Cushing syndrome was negative, and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with gallium-68 dotatate was ordered. It showed intense radiotracer uptake in the left adrenal gland, with a maximum standardized uptake value of 70.1 (FIGURE 2).
THE DIAGNOSIS
After appropriate preparation with alpha blockade (phenoxybenzamine 20 mg twice daily for 7 days) and fluid resuscitation (normal saline run over 12 hours preoperatively), the patient underwent successful open surgical resection of the adrenal mass, during which her blood pressure was controlled with a nitroprusside infusion and boluses of esmolol and labetalol. Pathology results showed cells in a nested pattern with round to oval nuclei in a vascular background. There was no necrosis, increased mitotic figures, capsular invasion, or increased cellularity. Chromogranin immunohistochemical staining was positive. Given her resistant hypertension, clinical symptoms, and pathology results, the patient was given a diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.
DISCUSSION
Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure that is elevated above goal despite the use of 3 maximally titrated antihypertensive agents from different classes or that is well controlled with at least 4 antihypertensive medications.1 The prevalence of resistant hypertension is 12% to 18% in adults being treated for hypertension.1 Patients with resistant hypertension have a higher risk for cardiovascular events and death, are more likely to have a secondary cause of hypertension, and may benefit from special diagnostic testing or treatment approaches to control their blood pressure.1
There are many causes of resistant hypertension; primary aldosteronism is the most common cause (prevalence as high as 20%).2 Given the increased risk for cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, all patients with resistant hypertension should be screened for this condition.2 Other causes of resistant hypertension include renal parenchymal disease, renal artery stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, thyroid dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, paraganglioma, and as seen in our case, pheochromocytoma. Although pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of resistant hypertension (0.01%-4%),1 it is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality if left untreated and may be inherited, making it an essential diagnosis to consider in all patients with resistant hypertension.1,3
Common symptoms of pheochromocytoma are hypertension (paroxysmal or sustained), headaches, palpitations, pallor, and piloerection (or cold sweats).1 Patients with pheochromocytoma typically exhibit metanephrine levels that are more than 4 times the upper limit of normal.4 Therefore, measurement of plasma free metanephrines or urinary fractionated metanephrines is recommended.5 Elevated metanephrine levels also are caused by obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, and certain medications and should be ruled out.5
All pheochromocytomas are potentially malignant. Despite the existence of pathologic scoring systems6,7 and radiographic features that suggest malignancy,8,9 no single risk-stratification tool is recommended in the current literature.10 Ultimately, the only way to confirm malignancy is to see metastases where chromaffin tissue is not normally found on imaging.10
Continue to: Pathologic features to look for...
Pathologic features to look for include capsular/periadrenal adipose invasion, increased cellularity, necrosis, tumor cell spindling, increased/atypical mitotic figures, and nuclear pleomorphism. Radiographic features include larger size (≥ 4-6 cm),11 an irregular shape, necrosis, calcifications, attenuation of 10 HU or higher on noncontrast CT, absolute washout of 60% or lower, and relative washout of 40% or lower.8,12 On MRI, malignant lesions appear hypointense on T1-weighted imaging and hyperintense on T2-weighted imaging.9 Fluorodeoxyglucose avidity on PET scan also is indicative of malignancy.8,9
Treatment for pheochromocytoma is surgical resection. An experienced surgical team and proper preoperative preparation are necessary because the induction of anesthesia, endotracheal intubation, and tumor manipulation can lead to a release of catecholamines, potentially resulting in an intraoperative hypertensive crisis, cardiac arrhythmias, and multiorgan failure.
Proper preoperative preparation includes taking an alpha-adrenergic blocker, such as phenoxybenzamine, prazosin, terazosin, or doxazosin, for at least 7 days to normalize the patient’s blood pressure. Patients should be counseled that they may experience nasal congestion, orthostasis, and fatigue while taking these medications. Volume expansion with intravenous fluids also should be performed and a high-salt diet considered. Beta-adrenergic blockade can be initiated once appropriate alpha-adrenergic blockade is achieved to control the patient’s heart rate; beta-blockers should never be started first because of the risk for severe hypertension. Careful hemodynamic monitoring is vital intraoperatively and postoperatively.5,13 Because metastatic lesions can occur decades after resection, long-term follow-up is critical.5,10
Following tumor resection, our patient’s blood pressure was supported with intravenous fluids and phenylephrine. She was able to discontinue all her antihypertensive medications postoperatively, and her plasma free and urinary fractionated metanephrine levels returned to within normal limits 8 weeks after surgery. Five years after surgery, she continues to have no signs of recurrence, as evidenced by annual negative plasma free metanephrines testing and abdominal/pelvic CT.
THE TAKEAWAY
This case highlights the importance of recognizing resistant hypertension and a potential secondary cause of this disease—pheochromocytoma. Although rare, pheochromocytomas confer increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. Thus, swift recognition and proper preparation for surgical resection are necessary. Malignant lesions can be diagnosed only upon discovery of metastatic disease and can recur for decades after surgical resection, making diligent long-term follow-up imperative.
CORRESPONDENCE
Nicole O. Vietor, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889; [email protected]
1. Carey RM, Calhoun DA, Bakris GL, et al. Resistant hypertension: detection, evaluation, and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2018;72:e53-e90. doi: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000084
2. Young WF Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of primary aldosteronism: practical clinical perspectives. J Intern Med. 2019;285:126-148. doi: 10.1111/joim.12831
3. Young WF Jr, Calhoun DA, Lenders JWM, et al. Screening for endocrine hypertension: an Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. Endocr Rev. 2017;38:103-122. doi: 10.1210/er.2017-00054
4. Lenders JWM, Pacak K, Walther MM, et al. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: which test is best? JAMA. 2002;287:1427-1434. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.11.1427
5. Lenders JW, Duh Q-Y, Eisenhofer G, et al. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:1915-1942. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-1498
6. Kimura N, Takayanagi R, Takizawa N, et al. Pathological grading for predicting metastasis in phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:405-414. doi: 10.1530/ERC-13-0494
7. Thompson LDR. Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) to separate benign from malignant neoplasms: a clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic study of 100 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:551-566. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200205000-00002
8. Vaidya A, Hamrahian A, Bancos I, et al. The evaluation of incidentally discovered adrenal masses. Endocr Pract. 2019;25:178-192. doi: 10.4158/DSCR-2018-0565
9. Young WF Jr. Conventional imaging in adrenocortical carcinoma: update and perspectives. Horm Cancer. 2011;2:341-347. doi: 10.1007/s12672-011-0089-z
10. Neumann HPH, Young WF Jr, Eng C. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:552-565. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1806651
11. Iñiguez-Ariza NM, Kohlenberg JD, Delivanis DA, et al. Clinical, biochemical, and radiological characteristics of a single-center retrospective cohort of 705 large adrenal tumors. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2017;2:30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.11.002
12. Marty M, Gaye D, Perez P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography to identify adenomas among adrenal incidentalomas in an endocrinological population. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;178:439-446. doi: 10.1530/EJE-17-1056
13. Pacak K. Preoperative management of the pheochromocytoma patient. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:4069-4079. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-1720
THE CASE
A 64-year-old woman sought care after having hot flashes, facial flushing, excessive sweating, palpitations, and daily headaches for 1 month. She had a history of hypertension that was well controlled with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/d but over the previous month, it had become more difficult to control. Her blood pressure remained elevated to 150/100 mm Hg despite the addition of lisinopril 40 mg/d and amlodipine 10 mg/d, indicating resistant hypertension. She had no family history of hypertension, diabetes, or obesity or any other pertinent medical or surgical history. Physical examination was negative for weight gain, stretch marks, or muscle weakness.
Laboratory tests revealed a normal serum aldosterone-renin ratio, renal function, and thyroid function; however, she had elevated levels of normetanephrine (2429 pg/mL; normal range, 0-145 pg/mL) and metanephrine (143 pg/mL; normal range, 0-62 pg/mL). Computed tomography (CT) revealed an 8.6-cm complex, hemorrhagic, necrotic left adrenal mass with attenuation of 33.1 Hounsfield units (HU) (FIGURE 1). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a T2 hyperintense left adrenal mass. An evaluation for Cushing syndrome was negative, and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with gallium-68 dotatate was ordered. It showed intense radiotracer uptake in the left adrenal gland, with a maximum standardized uptake value of 70.1 (FIGURE 2).
THE DIAGNOSIS
After appropriate preparation with alpha blockade (phenoxybenzamine 20 mg twice daily for 7 days) and fluid resuscitation (normal saline run over 12 hours preoperatively), the patient underwent successful open surgical resection of the adrenal mass, during which her blood pressure was controlled with a nitroprusside infusion and boluses of esmolol and labetalol. Pathology results showed cells in a nested pattern with round to oval nuclei in a vascular background. There was no necrosis, increased mitotic figures, capsular invasion, or increased cellularity. Chromogranin immunohistochemical staining was positive. Given her resistant hypertension, clinical symptoms, and pathology results, the patient was given a diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.
DISCUSSION
Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure that is elevated above goal despite the use of 3 maximally titrated antihypertensive agents from different classes or that is well controlled with at least 4 antihypertensive medications.1 The prevalence of resistant hypertension is 12% to 18% in adults being treated for hypertension.1 Patients with resistant hypertension have a higher risk for cardiovascular events and death, are more likely to have a secondary cause of hypertension, and may benefit from special diagnostic testing or treatment approaches to control their blood pressure.1
There are many causes of resistant hypertension; primary aldosteronism is the most common cause (prevalence as high as 20%).2 Given the increased risk for cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, all patients with resistant hypertension should be screened for this condition.2 Other causes of resistant hypertension include renal parenchymal disease, renal artery stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, thyroid dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, paraganglioma, and as seen in our case, pheochromocytoma. Although pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of resistant hypertension (0.01%-4%),1 it is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality if left untreated and may be inherited, making it an essential diagnosis to consider in all patients with resistant hypertension.1,3
Common symptoms of pheochromocytoma are hypertension (paroxysmal or sustained), headaches, palpitations, pallor, and piloerection (or cold sweats).1 Patients with pheochromocytoma typically exhibit metanephrine levels that are more than 4 times the upper limit of normal.4 Therefore, measurement of plasma free metanephrines or urinary fractionated metanephrines is recommended.5 Elevated metanephrine levels also are caused by obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, and certain medications and should be ruled out.5
All pheochromocytomas are potentially malignant. Despite the existence of pathologic scoring systems6,7 and radiographic features that suggest malignancy,8,9 no single risk-stratification tool is recommended in the current literature.10 Ultimately, the only way to confirm malignancy is to see metastases where chromaffin tissue is not normally found on imaging.10
Continue to: Pathologic features to look for...
Pathologic features to look for include capsular/periadrenal adipose invasion, increased cellularity, necrosis, tumor cell spindling, increased/atypical mitotic figures, and nuclear pleomorphism. Radiographic features include larger size (≥ 4-6 cm),11 an irregular shape, necrosis, calcifications, attenuation of 10 HU or higher on noncontrast CT, absolute washout of 60% or lower, and relative washout of 40% or lower.8,12 On MRI, malignant lesions appear hypointense on T1-weighted imaging and hyperintense on T2-weighted imaging.9 Fluorodeoxyglucose avidity on PET scan also is indicative of malignancy.8,9
Treatment for pheochromocytoma is surgical resection. An experienced surgical team and proper preoperative preparation are necessary because the induction of anesthesia, endotracheal intubation, and tumor manipulation can lead to a release of catecholamines, potentially resulting in an intraoperative hypertensive crisis, cardiac arrhythmias, and multiorgan failure.
Proper preoperative preparation includes taking an alpha-adrenergic blocker, such as phenoxybenzamine, prazosin, terazosin, or doxazosin, for at least 7 days to normalize the patient’s blood pressure. Patients should be counseled that they may experience nasal congestion, orthostasis, and fatigue while taking these medications. Volume expansion with intravenous fluids also should be performed and a high-salt diet considered. Beta-adrenergic blockade can be initiated once appropriate alpha-adrenergic blockade is achieved to control the patient’s heart rate; beta-blockers should never be started first because of the risk for severe hypertension. Careful hemodynamic monitoring is vital intraoperatively and postoperatively.5,13 Because metastatic lesions can occur decades after resection, long-term follow-up is critical.5,10
Following tumor resection, our patient’s blood pressure was supported with intravenous fluids and phenylephrine. She was able to discontinue all her antihypertensive medications postoperatively, and her plasma free and urinary fractionated metanephrine levels returned to within normal limits 8 weeks after surgery. Five years after surgery, she continues to have no signs of recurrence, as evidenced by annual negative plasma free metanephrines testing and abdominal/pelvic CT.
THE TAKEAWAY
This case highlights the importance of recognizing resistant hypertension and a potential secondary cause of this disease—pheochromocytoma. Although rare, pheochromocytomas confer increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. Thus, swift recognition and proper preparation for surgical resection are necessary. Malignant lesions can be diagnosed only upon discovery of metastatic disease and can recur for decades after surgical resection, making diligent long-term follow-up imperative.
CORRESPONDENCE
Nicole O. Vietor, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889; [email protected]
THE CASE
A 64-year-old woman sought care after having hot flashes, facial flushing, excessive sweating, palpitations, and daily headaches for 1 month. She had a history of hypertension that was well controlled with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg/d but over the previous month, it had become more difficult to control. Her blood pressure remained elevated to 150/100 mm Hg despite the addition of lisinopril 40 mg/d and amlodipine 10 mg/d, indicating resistant hypertension. She had no family history of hypertension, diabetes, or obesity or any other pertinent medical or surgical history. Physical examination was negative for weight gain, stretch marks, or muscle weakness.
Laboratory tests revealed a normal serum aldosterone-renin ratio, renal function, and thyroid function; however, she had elevated levels of normetanephrine (2429 pg/mL; normal range, 0-145 pg/mL) and metanephrine (143 pg/mL; normal range, 0-62 pg/mL). Computed tomography (CT) revealed an 8.6-cm complex, hemorrhagic, necrotic left adrenal mass with attenuation of 33.1 Hounsfield units (HU) (FIGURE 1). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a T2 hyperintense left adrenal mass. An evaluation for Cushing syndrome was negative, and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT with gallium-68 dotatate was ordered. It showed intense radiotracer uptake in the left adrenal gland, with a maximum standardized uptake value of 70.1 (FIGURE 2).
THE DIAGNOSIS
After appropriate preparation with alpha blockade (phenoxybenzamine 20 mg twice daily for 7 days) and fluid resuscitation (normal saline run over 12 hours preoperatively), the patient underwent successful open surgical resection of the adrenal mass, during which her blood pressure was controlled with a nitroprusside infusion and boluses of esmolol and labetalol. Pathology results showed cells in a nested pattern with round to oval nuclei in a vascular background. There was no necrosis, increased mitotic figures, capsular invasion, or increased cellularity. Chromogranin immunohistochemical staining was positive. Given her resistant hypertension, clinical symptoms, and pathology results, the patient was given a diagnosis of pheochromocytoma.
DISCUSSION
Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure that is elevated above goal despite the use of 3 maximally titrated antihypertensive agents from different classes or that is well controlled with at least 4 antihypertensive medications.1 The prevalence of resistant hypertension is 12% to 18% in adults being treated for hypertension.1 Patients with resistant hypertension have a higher risk for cardiovascular events and death, are more likely to have a secondary cause of hypertension, and may benefit from special diagnostic testing or treatment approaches to control their blood pressure.1
There are many causes of resistant hypertension; primary aldosteronism is the most common cause (prevalence as high as 20%).2 Given the increased risk for cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, all patients with resistant hypertension should be screened for this condition.2 Other causes of resistant hypertension include renal parenchymal disease, renal artery stenosis, coarctation of the aorta, thyroid dysfunction, Cushing syndrome, paraganglioma, and as seen in our case, pheochromocytoma. Although pheochromocytoma is a rare cause of resistant hypertension (0.01%-4%),1 it is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality if left untreated and may be inherited, making it an essential diagnosis to consider in all patients with resistant hypertension.1,3
Common symptoms of pheochromocytoma are hypertension (paroxysmal or sustained), headaches, palpitations, pallor, and piloerection (or cold sweats).1 Patients with pheochromocytoma typically exhibit metanephrine levels that are more than 4 times the upper limit of normal.4 Therefore, measurement of plasma free metanephrines or urinary fractionated metanephrines is recommended.5 Elevated metanephrine levels also are caused by obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, and certain medications and should be ruled out.5
All pheochromocytomas are potentially malignant. Despite the existence of pathologic scoring systems6,7 and radiographic features that suggest malignancy,8,9 no single risk-stratification tool is recommended in the current literature.10 Ultimately, the only way to confirm malignancy is to see metastases where chromaffin tissue is not normally found on imaging.10
Continue to: Pathologic features to look for...
Pathologic features to look for include capsular/periadrenal adipose invasion, increased cellularity, necrosis, tumor cell spindling, increased/atypical mitotic figures, and nuclear pleomorphism. Radiographic features include larger size (≥ 4-6 cm),11 an irregular shape, necrosis, calcifications, attenuation of 10 HU or higher on noncontrast CT, absolute washout of 60% or lower, and relative washout of 40% or lower.8,12 On MRI, malignant lesions appear hypointense on T1-weighted imaging and hyperintense on T2-weighted imaging.9 Fluorodeoxyglucose avidity on PET scan also is indicative of malignancy.8,9
Treatment for pheochromocytoma is surgical resection. An experienced surgical team and proper preoperative preparation are necessary because the induction of anesthesia, endotracheal intubation, and tumor manipulation can lead to a release of catecholamines, potentially resulting in an intraoperative hypertensive crisis, cardiac arrhythmias, and multiorgan failure.
Proper preoperative preparation includes taking an alpha-adrenergic blocker, such as phenoxybenzamine, prazosin, terazosin, or doxazosin, for at least 7 days to normalize the patient’s blood pressure. Patients should be counseled that they may experience nasal congestion, orthostasis, and fatigue while taking these medications. Volume expansion with intravenous fluids also should be performed and a high-salt diet considered. Beta-adrenergic blockade can be initiated once appropriate alpha-adrenergic blockade is achieved to control the patient’s heart rate; beta-blockers should never be started first because of the risk for severe hypertension. Careful hemodynamic monitoring is vital intraoperatively and postoperatively.5,13 Because metastatic lesions can occur decades after resection, long-term follow-up is critical.5,10
Following tumor resection, our patient’s blood pressure was supported with intravenous fluids and phenylephrine. She was able to discontinue all her antihypertensive medications postoperatively, and her plasma free and urinary fractionated metanephrine levels returned to within normal limits 8 weeks after surgery. Five years after surgery, she continues to have no signs of recurrence, as evidenced by annual negative plasma free metanephrines testing and abdominal/pelvic CT.
THE TAKEAWAY
This case highlights the importance of recognizing resistant hypertension and a potential secondary cause of this disease—pheochromocytoma. Although rare, pheochromocytomas confer increased risk for cardiovascular disease and death. Thus, swift recognition and proper preparation for surgical resection are necessary. Malignant lesions can be diagnosed only upon discovery of metastatic disease and can recur for decades after surgical resection, making diligent long-term follow-up imperative.
CORRESPONDENCE
Nicole O. Vietor, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, 8901 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20889; [email protected]
1. Carey RM, Calhoun DA, Bakris GL, et al. Resistant hypertension: detection, evaluation, and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2018;72:e53-e90. doi: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000084
2. Young WF Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of primary aldosteronism: practical clinical perspectives. J Intern Med. 2019;285:126-148. doi: 10.1111/joim.12831
3. Young WF Jr, Calhoun DA, Lenders JWM, et al. Screening for endocrine hypertension: an Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. Endocr Rev. 2017;38:103-122. doi: 10.1210/er.2017-00054
4. Lenders JWM, Pacak K, Walther MM, et al. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: which test is best? JAMA. 2002;287:1427-1434. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.11.1427
5. Lenders JW, Duh Q-Y, Eisenhofer G, et al. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:1915-1942. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-1498
6. Kimura N, Takayanagi R, Takizawa N, et al. Pathological grading for predicting metastasis in phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:405-414. doi: 10.1530/ERC-13-0494
7. Thompson LDR. Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) to separate benign from malignant neoplasms: a clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic study of 100 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:551-566. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200205000-00002
8. Vaidya A, Hamrahian A, Bancos I, et al. The evaluation of incidentally discovered adrenal masses. Endocr Pract. 2019;25:178-192. doi: 10.4158/DSCR-2018-0565
9. Young WF Jr. Conventional imaging in adrenocortical carcinoma: update and perspectives. Horm Cancer. 2011;2:341-347. doi: 10.1007/s12672-011-0089-z
10. Neumann HPH, Young WF Jr, Eng C. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:552-565. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1806651
11. Iñiguez-Ariza NM, Kohlenberg JD, Delivanis DA, et al. Clinical, biochemical, and radiological characteristics of a single-center retrospective cohort of 705 large adrenal tumors. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2017;2:30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.11.002
12. Marty M, Gaye D, Perez P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography to identify adenomas among adrenal incidentalomas in an endocrinological population. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;178:439-446. doi: 10.1530/EJE-17-1056
13. Pacak K. Preoperative management of the pheochromocytoma patient. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:4069-4079. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-1720
1. Carey RM, Calhoun DA, Bakris GL, et al. Resistant hypertension: detection, evaluation, and management: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2018;72:e53-e90. doi: 10.1161/HYP.0000000000000084
2. Young WF Jr. Diagnosis and treatment of primary aldosteronism: practical clinical perspectives. J Intern Med. 2019;285:126-148. doi: 10.1111/joim.12831
3. Young WF Jr, Calhoun DA, Lenders JWM, et al. Screening for endocrine hypertension: an Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. Endocr Rev. 2017;38:103-122. doi: 10.1210/er.2017-00054
4. Lenders JWM, Pacak K, Walther MM, et al. Biochemical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma: which test is best? JAMA. 2002;287:1427-1434. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.11.1427
5. Lenders JW, Duh Q-Y, Eisenhofer G, et al. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99:1915-1942. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-1498
6. Kimura N, Takayanagi R, Takizawa N, et al. Pathological grading for predicting metastasis in phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2014;21:405-414. doi: 10.1530/ERC-13-0494
7. Thompson LDR. Pheochromocytoma of the Adrenal gland Scaled Score (PASS) to separate benign from malignant neoplasms: a clinicopathologic and immunophenotypic study of 100 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:551-566. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200205000-00002
8. Vaidya A, Hamrahian A, Bancos I, et al. The evaluation of incidentally discovered adrenal masses. Endocr Pract. 2019;25:178-192. doi: 10.4158/DSCR-2018-0565
9. Young WF Jr. Conventional imaging in adrenocortical carcinoma: update and perspectives. Horm Cancer. 2011;2:341-347. doi: 10.1007/s12672-011-0089-z
10. Neumann HPH, Young WF Jr, Eng C. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:552-565. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1806651
11. Iñiguez-Ariza NM, Kohlenberg JD, Delivanis DA, et al. Clinical, biochemical, and radiological characteristics of a single-center retrospective cohort of 705 large adrenal tumors. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2017;2:30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2017.11.002
12. Marty M, Gaye D, Perez P, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography to identify adenomas among adrenal incidentalomas in an endocrinological population. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;178:439-446. doi: 10.1530/EJE-17-1056
13. Pacak K. Preoperative management of the pheochromocytoma patient. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92:4069-4079. doi: 10.1210/jc.2007-1720
► Hot flashes, facial flushing, excessive sweating, and palpitations
► Daily headaches
► History of hypertension
