Cardiology

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using a cell phone for at least one call per week is linked to a higher risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), especially among smokers and patients with diabetes, according to a new UK Biobank analysis.

“We found that a poor sleep pattern, psychological distress, and neuroticism significantly mediated the positive association between weekly mobile phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD, with a mediating proportion of 5.11%, 11.50%, and 2.25%, respectively,” said principal investigator Xianhui Qin, MD, professor of nephrology at Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Poor sleep patterns and poor mental health could disrupt circadian rhythms and endocrine and metabolic functions, as well as increase inflammation, he explained.

In addition, chronic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) emitted from cell phones could lead to oxidative stress and an inflammatory response. Combined with smoking and diabetes, this exposure “may have a synergistic effect in increasing CVD risk,” Dr. Qin suggested.

The study was published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Risk Underestimated?

The researchers aimed to examine the association of regular cell phone use with incident CVD and explore the mediating effects of sleep and mental health using linked hospital and mortality records.

Their analysis included 444,027 participants (mean age, 56 years; 44% men) without a history of CVD from the UK Biobank. A total of 378,161 participants were regular cell phone users.

Regular cell phone use was defined as at least one call per week. Weekly use was self-reported as the average time of calls per week during the previous 3 months.

The primary outcome was incident CVD. Secondary outcomes were each component of CVD (ie, coronary heart disease, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) and increased carotid intima media thickness (CIMT).

Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users were younger, had higher proportions of current smokers and urban residents, and had lower proportions of history of hypertension and diabetes. They also had higher income, Townsend deprivation index, and body mass index, and lower education levels.

During a median follow-up of 12.3 years, 56,181 participants developed incident CVD. Compared with nonregular cell phone users, regular users had a significantly higher risk for incident CVD (hazard ratio, 1.04) and increased CIMT (odds ratio, 1.11).

Among regular cell phone users, the duration of cell phone use and hands-free device/speakerphone use during calls was not significantly associated with incident CVD. Yet a significant and positive dose-response relationship was seen between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for CVD. The positive association was stronger in current vs noncurrent smokers and people with vs without diabetes.

To different extents, sleep patterns (5.11%), psychologic distress (11.5%), and neuroticism (2.25%) mediated the relationship between weekly cell phone usage time and the risk for incident CVD.

“Our study suggests that despite the advantages of mobile phone use, we should also pay attention to the potential harm of mobile phone use to cardiovascular health,” Dr. Qin said. “Future studies to assess the risk-benefit balance will help promote mobile phone use patterns that are conducive to cardiovascular health.”

Meanwhile, he added, “We encourage measures to reduce time spent on mobile phones to promote the primary prevention of CVD. On the other hand, improving sleep and mental health status may help reduce the higher risk of CVD associated with mobile phone use.”

There are several limitations to the study in addition to its observational nature, which cannot show cause and effect. The questionnaires on cell phone use were restricted to phone calls; other use patterns of cell phones (eg, messaging, watching videos, and browsing the web) were not considered. Although the researchers adjusted for many potential confounders, unmeasured confounding bias (eg, the type of cell phone used and other sources of RF-EMF) cannot be eliminated.
 

Weak Link?

In a comment, Nicholas Grubic, MSc, a PhD student in epidemiology at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and coauthor of a related editorial, said, “I found it interesting that there was a connection observed between mobile phone use and CVD. However, it is crucial to understand that this link appeared to be much weaker compared with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, diabetes, and high blood pressure. For now, mobile phone use should not be a major concern for most people.”

Nevertheless, clinicians should encourage patients to practice healthy habits around their screen time, he advised. “This could include limiting mobile phone use before bedtime and taking regular breaks to engage in activities that promote heart health, such as exercising or spending time outdoors.

“For the time being, we probably won’t see mobile phone use included in standard assessments for cardiovascular risk or as a focal point of cardiovascular health promotion initiatives,” he added. Instead, clinicians should “focus on established risk factors that have a stronger impact on patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City and American Heart Association volunteer expert, had a similar message. “You don’t have to go back to using a landline,” she said. “Instead, patients should be more mindful of how much phone use is taking away from their physical activity, keeping them from sleeping, and causing them stress.” Clinicians should also remember to counsel smokers on smoking cessation.

“It would be important for future studies to look at time spent on the phone and the type of activities patients are doing on their phones, such as social media, calls, texts, movies, or streaming TV shows,” she said. “It would be important to see how phone use is leading to a sedentary lifestyle” and what that means for a larger, more diverse population.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the Outstanding Youth Development Scheme of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University. Dr. Qin, Dr. Grubic, and Dr. Goldberg reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

LONDON — Potassium supplementation does not alter the risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery, contrary to expectations and popular clinical practice, new trial results demonstrate.

“The widespread practice of giving patients potassium after bypass heart surgery even though their blood levels are within the normal range can be abandoned,” said Benjamin O’Brien, MD, PhD, director of the Clinic for Cardioanesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany.

Results from the randomized TIGHT-K trial that assessed two levels of potassium supplementation were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the tight-control group, supplementation was provided to maintain high-normal levels of potassium (> 4.5 mEq/L). In the relaxed-control group, supplementation was provided only when potassium levels fell below the low-normal threshold (< 3.6 mEq/L). 
 

Trial Upending Popular Practice

The multinational trial involved 23 centers in Germany and the United Kingdom. All 1690 participants enrolled were scheduled to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft procedure, but Dr. O’Brien said he considers the results of TIGHT-K to be broadly applicable.

“There is no physiological basis to expect a different result in patients undergoing different types of cardiac surgery,” he said.

The primary endpoint was clinically and electrocardiography confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation that occurred in the 5 days after the bypass procedure.

For the primary atrial fibrillation endpoint, event rates were similar in the tight-control and the relaxed-control groups (26.2% vs 27.8%); the 1.7% difference did not approach statistical significance (P = .44). The difference in dysrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation, although numerically lower in the tight-control group, was also not significant (19.1% vs 21.1%; P = .26).

There were no significant differences in several secondary endpoints, including length of hospital stay and in-patient mortality, but cost, a prespecified secondary endpoint, was approximately $120 lower per patient in the relaxed-control group than in the tight-control group (P < .001).
 

Lowering Cost Across Cardiac Surgeries

During the 5-day follow-up, median potassium levels were higher in the tight-control group. Levels in both groups fell gradually, but essentially in parallel, over the study period, so median potassium levels were always higher in the tight-control group than in the relaxed-control group. At the end of the observation period, mean potassium levels were 4.34 mEq/L in the tight-control group and 4.08 mEq/L in the relaxed-control group.

Prior to the development of atrial fibrillation, participants in the tight-control group received a medium of seven potassium administrations (range, 4-12), whereas those in the relaxed-control group received a medium of zero.

There were no significant differences in episodes in any subgroup evaluated, including those divided by age, sex, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and the absence or presence of beta blockers or loop diuretics. A per-protocol analysis also failed to show any advantage for tight potassium control.

Atrial fibrillation occurs in about one third of patients after bypass surgery, as it does after many types of cardiac surgery. Institutions often have strategies in place to reduce the risk after cardiac surgery, and potassium supplementation is one of the most common, despite the lack of supportive evidence, Dr. O’Brien said.
 

Narrow Window for Optimal Potassium Levels

The difference in potassium levels between the tight-control group and the relaxed-control group were modest in this study, said Subodh Verma, MD, a cardiac surgeon at St Michael’s Hospital and professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

However, this is unavoidable and central to the question being posed, Dr. O’Brien pointed out. Because of the risks for both hypokalemia and hyperkalemia, the window for safe supplementation is short. Current practice is to achieve high-normal levels to reduce atrial fibrillation, but TIGHT-K demonstrates this has no benefit.

The conclusion of TIGHT-K is appropriate, said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics in the Division of Cardiology at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, who praised the design and conduct of the study.

He acknowledged an unmet need for effective methods to reduce the risk for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but the ESC invited discussant said it is now necessary to look at other strategies. Several are under current evaluation, such as supplementary magnesium and the use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors.

Although Dr. Zannad encouraged more studies of methods to reduce atrial fibrillation risk after cardiac surgery, he said that TIGHT-K has answered the question of whether potassium supplementation is beneficial.

Potassium supplementation should no longer be offered, he said, which will “reduce healthcare costs and decrease patient risk from an unnecessary intervention.”

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

LONDON — Potassium supplementation does not alter the risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery, contrary to expectations and popular clinical practice, new trial results demonstrate.

“The widespread practice of giving patients potassium after bypass heart surgery even though their blood levels are within the normal range can be abandoned,” said Benjamin O’Brien, MD, PhD, director of the Clinic for Cardioanesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany.

Results from the randomized TIGHT-K trial that assessed two levels of potassium supplementation were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the tight-control group, supplementation was provided to maintain high-normal levels of potassium (> 4.5 mEq/L). In the relaxed-control group, supplementation was provided only when potassium levels fell below the low-normal threshold (< 3.6 mEq/L). 
 

Trial Upending Popular Practice

The multinational trial involved 23 centers in Germany and the United Kingdom. All 1690 participants enrolled were scheduled to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft procedure, but Dr. O’Brien said he considers the results of TIGHT-K to be broadly applicable.

“There is no physiological basis to expect a different result in patients undergoing different types of cardiac surgery,” he said.

The primary endpoint was clinically and electrocardiography confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation that occurred in the 5 days after the bypass procedure.

For the primary atrial fibrillation endpoint, event rates were similar in the tight-control and the relaxed-control groups (26.2% vs 27.8%); the 1.7% difference did not approach statistical significance (P = .44). The difference in dysrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation, although numerically lower in the tight-control group, was also not significant (19.1% vs 21.1%; P = .26).

There were no significant differences in several secondary endpoints, including length of hospital stay and in-patient mortality, but cost, a prespecified secondary endpoint, was approximately $120 lower per patient in the relaxed-control group than in the tight-control group (P < .001).
 

Lowering Cost Across Cardiac Surgeries

During the 5-day follow-up, median potassium levels were higher in the tight-control group. Levels in both groups fell gradually, but essentially in parallel, over the study period, so median potassium levels were always higher in the tight-control group than in the relaxed-control group. At the end of the observation period, mean potassium levels were 4.34 mEq/L in the tight-control group and 4.08 mEq/L in the relaxed-control group.

Prior to the development of atrial fibrillation, participants in the tight-control group received a medium of seven potassium administrations (range, 4-12), whereas those in the relaxed-control group received a medium of zero.

There were no significant differences in episodes in any subgroup evaluated, including those divided by age, sex, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and the absence or presence of beta blockers or loop diuretics. A per-protocol analysis also failed to show any advantage for tight potassium control.

Atrial fibrillation occurs in about one third of patients after bypass surgery, as it does after many types of cardiac surgery. Institutions often have strategies in place to reduce the risk after cardiac surgery, and potassium supplementation is one of the most common, despite the lack of supportive evidence, Dr. O’Brien said.
 

Narrow Window for Optimal Potassium Levels

The difference in potassium levels between the tight-control group and the relaxed-control group were modest in this study, said Subodh Verma, MD, a cardiac surgeon at St Michael’s Hospital and professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

However, this is unavoidable and central to the question being posed, Dr. O’Brien pointed out. Because of the risks for both hypokalemia and hyperkalemia, the window for safe supplementation is short. Current practice is to achieve high-normal levels to reduce atrial fibrillation, but TIGHT-K demonstrates this has no benefit.

The conclusion of TIGHT-K is appropriate, said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics in the Division of Cardiology at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, who praised the design and conduct of the study.

He acknowledged an unmet need for effective methods to reduce the risk for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but the ESC invited discussant said it is now necessary to look at other strategies. Several are under current evaluation, such as supplementary magnesium and the use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors.

Although Dr. Zannad encouraged more studies of methods to reduce atrial fibrillation risk after cardiac surgery, he said that TIGHT-K has answered the question of whether potassium supplementation is beneficial.

Potassium supplementation should no longer be offered, he said, which will “reduce healthcare costs and decrease patient risk from an unnecessary intervention.”

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

LONDON — Potassium supplementation does not alter the risk for postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery, contrary to expectations and popular clinical practice, new trial results demonstrate.

“The widespread practice of giving patients potassium after bypass heart surgery even though their blood levels are within the normal range can be abandoned,” said Benjamin O’Brien, MD, PhD, director of the Clinic for Cardioanesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine at Charité Hospital in Berlin, Germany.

Results from the randomized TIGHT-K trial that assessed two levels of potassium supplementation were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

In the tight-control group, supplementation was provided to maintain high-normal levels of potassium (> 4.5 mEq/L). In the relaxed-control group, supplementation was provided only when potassium levels fell below the low-normal threshold (< 3.6 mEq/L). 
 

Trial Upending Popular Practice

The multinational trial involved 23 centers in Germany and the United Kingdom. All 1690 participants enrolled were scheduled to undergo a coronary artery bypass graft procedure, but Dr. O’Brien said he considers the results of TIGHT-K to be broadly applicable.

“There is no physiological basis to expect a different result in patients undergoing different types of cardiac surgery,” he said.

The primary endpoint was clinically and electrocardiography confirmed new-onset atrial fibrillation that occurred in the 5 days after the bypass procedure.

For the primary atrial fibrillation endpoint, event rates were similar in the tight-control and the relaxed-control groups (26.2% vs 27.8%); the 1.7% difference did not approach statistical significance (P = .44). The difference in dysrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation, although numerically lower in the tight-control group, was also not significant (19.1% vs 21.1%; P = .26).

There were no significant differences in several secondary endpoints, including length of hospital stay and in-patient mortality, but cost, a prespecified secondary endpoint, was approximately $120 lower per patient in the relaxed-control group than in the tight-control group (P < .001).
 

Lowering Cost Across Cardiac Surgeries

During the 5-day follow-up, median potassium levels were higher in the tight-control group. Levels in both groups fell gradually, but essentially in parallel, over the study period, so median potassium levels were always higher in the tight-control group than in the relaxed-control group. At the end of the observation period, mean potassium levels were 4.34 mEq/L in the tight-control group and 4.08 mEq/L in the relaxed-control group.

Prior to the development of atrial fibrillation, participants in the tight-control group received a medium of seven potassium administrations (range, 4-12), whereas those in the relaxed-control group received a medium of zero.

There were no significant differences in episodes in any subgroup evaluated, including those divided by age, sex, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, and the absence or presence of beta blockers or loop diuretics. A per-protocol analysis also failed to show any advantage for tight potassium control.

Atrial fibrillation occurs in about one third of patients after bypass surgery, as it does after many types of cardiac surgery. Institutions often have strategies in place to reduce the risk after cardiac surgery, and potassium supplementation is one of the most common, despite the lack of supportive evidence, Dr. O’Brien said.
 

Narrow Window for Optimal Potassium Levels

The difference in potassium levels between the tight-control group and the relaxed-control group were modest in this study, said Subodh Verma, MD, a cardiac surgeon at St Michael’s Hospital and professor at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

However, this is unavoidable and central to the question being posed, Dr. O’Brien pointed out. Because of the risks for both hypokalemia and hyperkalemia, the window for safe supplementation is short. Current practice is to achieve high-normal levels to reduce atrial fibrillation, but TIGHT-K demonstrates this has no benefit.

The conclusion of TIGHT-K is appropriate, said Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, professor of therapeutics in the Division of Cardiology at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France, who praised the design and conduct of the study.

He acknowledged an unmet need for effective methods to reduce the risk for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, but the ESC invited discussant said it is now necessary to look at other strategies. Several are under current evaluation, such as supplementary magnesium and the use of sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors.

Although Dr. Zannad encouraged more studies of methods to reduce atrial fibrillation risk after cardiac surgery, he said that TIGHT-K has answered the question of whether potassium supplementation is beneficial.

Potassium supplementation should no longer be offered, he said, which will “reduce healthcare costs and decrease patient risk from an unnecessary intervention.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

TOPLINE: 

Patients with both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk for ischemic stroke than those with only AF. They are also less likely to receive oral anticoagulant treatment, which may contribute to this increased stroke risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a registry-based retrospective cohort study using the Norwegian Cardio-Rheuma Register to evaluate the risk for ischemic stroke following the diagnosis of AF in patients with or without RA.
• They included 163,595 patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2010 and 2017, of whom 2750 had RA. Patients had to be diagnosed with RA before the diagnosis of AF.
• They also assessed whether patients with RA were less likely to receive oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention within 3 months of AF diagnosis than those without RA.
• The median follow-up time was 2.5 years for patients with RA and 3.0 years for those without RA.
• The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke, which was identified through hospital admissions and visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, patients with both RA and AF showed a higher cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke than those with only AF (7.3% vs 5.0%).
• Among patients with AF, the risk of having a stroke was 25% higher in those with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
• Patients with RA were also less likely to receive treatment with oral anticoagulants than those without RA, driven by concerns over potential interactions with RA medications, bleeding risk, or other factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study prompts preventive measures such as meticulous cardiovascular risk factor control among patients with RA and AF and raises the question whether the presence of RA should be taken into account when considering OAC [oral anticoagulant] treatment for AF patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Anne M. Kerola, MD, PhD, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki in Finland. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked data on smoking, blood pressure measurements, alcohol use, and obesity, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the findings. The study population was limited to Norway and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Olav Thon Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. Some authors received speaker fees, participated in advisory boards, served as consultants, or had other ties with some pharmaceutical companies and institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Patients with both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk for ischemic stroke than those with only AF. They are also less likely to receive oral anticoagulant treatment, which may contribute to this increased stroke risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a registry-based retrospective cohort study using the Norwegian Cardio-Rheuma Register to evaluate the risk for ischemic stroke following the diagnosis of AF in patients with or without RA.
• They included 163,595 patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2010 and 2017, of whom 2750 had RA. Patients had to be diagnosed with RA before the diagnosis of AF.
• They also assessed whether patients with RA were less likely to receive oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention within 3 months of AF diagnosis than those without RA.
• The median follow-up time was 2.5 years for patients with RA and 3.0 years for those without RA.
• The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke, which was identified through hospital admissions and visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, patients with both RA and AF showed a higher cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke than those with only AF (7.3% vs 5.0%).
• Among patients with AF, the risk of having a stroke was 25% higher in those with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
• Patients with RA were also less likely to receive treatment with oral anticoagulants than those without RA, driven by concerns over potential interactions with RA medications, bleeding risk, or other factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study prompts preventive measures such as meticulous cardiovascular risk factor control among patients with RA and AF and raises the question whether the presence of RA should be taken into account when considering OAC [oral anticoagulant] treatment for AF patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Anne M. Kerola, MD, PhD, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki in Finland. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked data on smoking, blood pressure measurements, alcohol use, and obesity, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the findings. The study population was limited to Norway and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Olav Thon Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. Some authors received speaker fees, participated in advisory boards, served as consultants, or had other ties with some pharmaceutical companies and institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Patients with both rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have a higher risk for ischemic stroke than those with only AF. They are also less likely to receive oral anticoagulant treatment, which may contribute to this increased stroke risk.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a registry-based retrospective cohort study using the Norwegian Cardio-Rheuma Register to evaluate the risk for ischemic stroke following the diagnosis of AF in patients with or without RA.
• They included 163,595 patients with newly diagnosed AF between 2010 and 2017, of whom 2750 had RA. Patients had to be diagnosed with RA before the diagnosis of AF.
• They also assessed whether patients with RA were less likely to receive oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention within 3 months of AF diagnosis than those without RA.
• The median follow-up time was 2.5 years for patients with RA and 3.0 years for those without RA.
• The primary endpoint was ischemic stroke, which was identified through hospital admissions and visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years, patients with both RA and AF showed a higher cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke than those with only AF (7.3% vs 5.0%).
• Among patients with AF, the risk of having a stroke was 25% higher in those with RA than in those without RA (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50).
• Patients with RA were also less likely to receive treatment with oral anticoagulants than those without RA, driven by concerns over potential interactions with RA medications, bleeding risk, or other factors (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97). 

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study prompts preventive measures such as meticulous cardiovascular risk factor control among patients with RA and AF and raises the question whether the presence of RA should be taken into account when considering OAC [oral anticoagulant] treatment for AF patients,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Anne M. Kerola, MD, PhD, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki in Finland. It was published online in Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

This study lacked data on smoking, blood pressure measurements, alcohol use, and obesity, which may have affected the comprehensiveness of the findings. The study population was limited to Norway and may not be generalizable to other populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Olav Thon Foundation, the Research Council of Norway, and the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology. Some authors received speaker fees, participated in advisory boards, served as consultants, or had other ties with some pharmaceutical companies and institutions.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ABYSS trial found that interruption of beta-blocker therapy in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) was not noninferior to continuing the drugs. 

I will argue why I think it is okay to stop beta-blockers after MI — despite this conclusion. The results of ABYSS are, in fact, similar to REDUCE-AMI, which compared beta-blocker use or nonuse immediately after MI, and found no difference in a composite endpoint of death or MI. 

Translation of the ABYSS trial results to patient care is a case where we must look past the paper’s abstract and conclusions. The key problem is the authors’ choice of primary endpoint, which obscures the correct clinical answer.
 

The ABYSS Trial

ABYSS investigators randomly assigned nearly 3700 patients who had MI and were prescribed a beta-blocker to either continue (control arm) or stop (active arm) the drug at 1 year. 

Patients had to have a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at least 40%; the median was 60%. 

The composite primary endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason. ABYSS authors chose a noninferiority design. The assumption must have been that the interruption arm offered an easier option for patients — eg, fewer pills. 

Over 3 years, a primary endpoint occurred in 23.8% of the interruption group vs 21.1% in the continuation group. 

In ABYSS, the noninferiority margin was set at a 3% absolute risk increase. The 2.7% absolute risk increase had an upper bound of the 95% CI (worst case) of 5.5% leading to the not-noninferior conclusion (5.5% exceeds the noninferiority margins). 

More simply stated, the primary outcome event rate was higher in the interruption arm. 
 

Does This Mean we Should Continue Beta-Blockers in Post-MI Patients?

This led some to conclude that we should continue beta-blockers. I disagree. To properly interpret the ABYSS trial, you must consider trial procedures, components of the primary endpoint, and then compare ABYSS with REDUCE-AMI. 

It’s also reasonable to have extremely pessimistic prior beliefs about post-MI beta-blockade because the evidence establishing benefit comes from trials conducted before urgent revascularization became the standard therapy. 

ABYSS was a pragmatic open-label trial. The core problem with this design is that one of the components of the primary outcome (hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons) requires clinical judgment — and is therefore susceptible to bias, particularly in an open-label trial. 

This becomes apparent when we look at the components of the primary outcome in the two arms of the trial (interrupt vs continue): 

• For death, the rates were 4.1 and 4.0%
• For MI, the rates were 2.5 and 2.4%
• For stroke, the rates were 1.0% in both arms
• For CV hospitalization, the rates were 18.9% vs 16.6%

The higher rate CV hospitalization alone drove the results of ABYSS. Death, MI, and stroke rates were nearly identical. 

The most common reason for admission to the hospital in this category was for angiography. In fact, the rate of angiography was 2.3% higher in the interruption arm — identical to the rate increase in the CV hospitalization component of the primary endpoint. 

The results of ABYSS, therefore, were driven by higher rates of angiography in the interrupt arm. 

You need not imply malfeasance to speculate that patients who had their beta-blocker stopped might be treated differently regarding hospital admissions or angiography than those who stayed on beta-blockers. Researchers from Imperial College London called such a bias in unblinded trials “subtraction anxiety and faith healing.”

Had the ABYSS investigators chosen the simpler, less bias-prone endpoints of death, MI, or stroke, their results would have been the same as REDUCE-AMI. 
 

My Final Two Conclusions

I would conclude that interruption of beta-blockers at 1 year vs continuation in post-MI patients did not lead to an increase in death, MI, or stroke. 

ABYSS, therefore, is consistent with REDUCE-AMI. Taken together, along with the pessimistic priors, these are important findings because they allow us to stop a medicine and reduce the work of being a patient. 

My second conclusion concerns ways of knowing in medicine. I’ve long felt that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best way to sort out causation. This idea led me to the believe that medicine should have more RCTs rather than follow expert opinion or therapeutic fashion. 

I’ve now modified my love of RCTs — a little. The ABYSS trial is yet another example of the need to be super careful with their design.

Something as seemingly simple as choosing what to measure can alter the way clinicians interpret and use the data. 

So, let’s have (slightly) more trials, but we should be really careful in their design. Slow and careful is the best way to practice medicine. And it’s surely the best way to do research as well.

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON — It may not be advisable for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function to discontinue long-term beta-blocker therapy, warn investigators.

In the randomized ABYSS trial, although there was no difference in death, MI, or stroke between patients who discontinued and those who continued taking beta-blockers, those who stopped taking the drugs had a higher rate of cardiovascular hospitalization.

Discontinuation was also associated with an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, without any improvement in quality of life.

“We thought we would be able to withdraw beta-blockers safely and that this would result in improved quality of life, but our trial results suggest this is not the case,” said lead investigator Johanne Silvain, MD, PhD, from Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital in Paris, who presented the ABYSS findings here at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress. 

The results, which were simultaneously published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, call into question current guidelines, which suggest that beta-blockers may be discontinued after 1 year in certain patient groups.

Beta-blockers have long been considered the standard of care for patients after MI, but trials showing the benefit of these drugs were conducted before the modern era of myocardial reperfusion and pharmacotherapy, which have led to sharp decreases in the risk for heart failure and for death after MI, Dr. Silvain explained. 

This has led to questions about the add-on benefits of lifelong beta-blocker treatment for patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no other primary indication for beta-blocker therapy.
 

The ABYSS Trial

To explore this issue, the open-label, non-inferiority ABYSS trial randomly assigned 3698 patients with a history of MI to the discontinuation or continuation of beta-blocker treatment. All study participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, were receiving long-term beta-blocker treatment, and had experienced no cardiovascular event in the previous 6 months. 

At a median follow-up of 3 years, the primary endpoint — a composite of death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons — occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (23.8% vs 21.1%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33). This did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of discontinuation, compared with continuation, of beta-blocker therapy (P for non-inferiority = .44).

The difference in event rates between the two groups was driven by cardiovascular hospitalizations, which occurred more often in the discontinuation group than in the continuation group (18.9% vs 16.6%).

Other key results showed that there was no difference in quality of life between the two groups.

However, 6 months after randomization, there were increases in blood pressure and heart rate in the discontinuation group. Systolic blood pressure increased by 3.7 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure increased by 3.9 mm Hg. Resting heart rate increased by 9.8 beats per minute.

“We were not able to show the non-inferiority of stopping beta-blockers in terms of cardiovascular events, [but we] showed a safety signal with this strategy of an increase in blood pressure and heart rate, with no improvement in quality of life,” Dr. Sylvain said.

“While recent guidelines suggest it may be reasonable to stop beta-blockers in this population, after these results, I will not be stopping these drugs if they are being well tolerated,” he said.

Sylvain said he was surprised that there was not an improvement in quality of life in the group that discontinued beta-blockers. “We are always told that beta-blockers have many side effects, so we expected to see an improvement in quality of life in the patients who stopped these drugs.”

One possible reason for the lack of improvement in quality of life is that the trial participants had been taking beta-blockers for several years. “We may have, therefore, selected patients who tolerate these drugs quite well. Those who had tolerance issues had probably already stopped taking them,” he explained.

In addition, the patient population had relatively high quality-of-life scores at baseline. “They were well treated and the therapies they were taking were well tolerated, so maybe it is difficult to improve quality of life further,” he said.
 

The REDUCE-AMI Trial

The ABYSS results appear at first to differ from results from the recent REDUCE-AMI trial, which failed to show the superiority of beta-blocker therapy, compared with no beta-blocker therapy, in acute MI patients with preserved ejection fraction.

But the REDUCE-AMI primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction; it did not include cardiovascular hospitalization, which was the main driver of the difference in outcomes in the ABYSS study, Dr. Sylvain pointed out.

“We showed an increase in coronary cases of hospitalization with stopping beta-blockers, and you have to remember that beta-blockers were developed to reduce coronary disease,” he said.
 

‘Slightly Inconclusive’

Jane Armitage, MBBS, University of Oxford, England, the ABYSS discussant for the ESC HOTLINE session, pointed out some limitations of the study, which led her to report that the result was “slightly inconclusive.” 

The open-label design may have allowed some bias regarding the cardiovascular hospitalization endpoint, she said.

“The decision whether to admit a patient to [the] hospital is somewhat subjective and could be influenced by a physician’s knowledge of treatment allocation. That is why, ideally, we prefer blinded trials. I think there are questions there,” she explained.

She also questioned whether the non-inferiority margin could have been increased, given the higher-than-expected event rate.

More data on this issue will come from several trials that are currently ongoing, Dr. Armitage said.

The ABYSS and REDUCE-AMI trials together suggest that it is safe, with respect to serious cardiac events, to stop beta-blocker treatment in MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, writes Tomas Jernberg, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, in an accompanying editorial.

However, “because of the anti-ischemic effects of beta-blockers, an interruption may increase the risk of recurrent angina and the need for rehospitalization,” he adds.

“It is prudent to wait for the results of additional ongoing trials of beta-blockers involving patients with MI and a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction before definitively updating guidelines,” Dr. Jernberg concludes.

The ABYSS trial was funded by the French Ministry of Health and the ACTION Study Group. Dr. Sylvain, Dr. Armitage, and Dr. Jernberg report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

In 490 BC, Pheidippides (or possibly Philippides) ran from Athens to Sparta to ask for military aid against the invading Persian army, then back to Athens, then off to the battlefield of Marathon, then back to Athens to announce the army’s victory, after which he promptly died. The story, if it is to be believed (there is some doubt among historians), raises an interesting question: Are some forms of exercise dangerous?

Running a marathon is a lot of work. The “worst parade ever,” as one spectator described it, is not without its risks. As a runner myself, I know that it doesn’t take much to generate a bloody sock at the end of a long run. 

But when most people think about the risks of exercise, they mean the cardiovascular risks, such as sudden deaths during marathons, probably because of the aforementioned ancient Greek’s demise. The reality is more reassuring. An analysis of 10 years’ worth of data from US marathons and half-marathons found that out of 10.9 million runners, there were 59 cardiac arrests, an incidence rate of 0.54 per 100,000 participants. Others have found incidence rates in the same range. An analysis of the annual Marine Corps and Twin Cities marathons found a sudden death rate of 0.002%.

Marathon runners do sometimes require medical attention. In the Twin Cities cohort, 25 out of every 1000 finishers required medical attention, but 90% of their problems were mild. The majority included issues such as dehydration, vasovagal syncope, hyperthermia, and exhaustion. Musculoskeletal problems and skin abrasions made up the rest. Objectively, long distance running is fairly safe.
 

Running and Coronary Calcium

Then a study comes around suggesting that marathon runners have more coronary artery calcium (CAC). In 2008, German researchers compared 108 healthy male marathon runners over 50 years of age with Framingham risk–matched controls. The marathoners had a higher median CAC score (36 vs 12; P =.02), but scores across the board were quite low and not all studies were in agreement. The MESA study and another from Korea found an inverse relationship between physical activity and coronary calcium, but they compared sedentary people with vigorous exercisers, not specifically marathoners.

Two later studies, published in 2017, generally corroborated that endurance exercise was associated with higher calcium — with some caveats. A group from the Netherlands looked at lifelong exercise volume and compared men who accumulated > 2000 MET-min/week with those who exercised < 1000 MET-min/week. Again, the analysis was limited to men, and CAC scores, though statistically different, were still very low (9.4 vs 0; P =.02). Importantly, in men with coronary plaques, the more active group had less mixed plaque and more calcified plaque. 

A UK study of middle-aged masters-level athletes at low cardiovascular risk had similar findings. Most of the study population (70%) were men, and 77% were runners (not all were marathoners). Overall, the male athletes had not only more plaque but more calcified plaque than their sedentary peers, even though most male athletes (60%) had a CAC score of zero. 

The findings from these two studies were interpreted as reassuring. They confirmed that athletes are a generally low-risk group with low calcium scores, and although they might have more plaque and coronary calcium on average, it tends to be the more benign calcified type.
 

Masters at Heart

But the 2023 Master@Heart study challenged that assertion. It analyzed lifelong endurance athletes, late-onset endurance athletes (those who came to the game later in life), and healthy nonathletic controls. The median number of plaques and the average CAC score were the same across groups, but the plaque burden was higher in lifelong athletes compared with controls. The study also found more coronary stenoses in lifelong athletes, but the breakdown of calcified vs noncalcified vs mixed plaques was the same across groups, thus contradicting the idea that exercise exerted its protective effect by calcifying and therefore stabilizing said plaques. The silver lining was fewer vulnerable plaques in the lifelong athletes (defined via high-risk features) but these were generally rare across the entire population.

Whether Master@Heart is groundbreaking or an outlier depends on your point of view. In 2024, a study from Portugal suggested that the relationship between exercise and coronary calcification is more complicated. Among 105 male veteran athletes, a high volume of exercise was associated with more coronary atherosclerosis in those at higher cardiovascular risk, but it tended to be protective in those deemed lower risk. In fact, the high-volume exercise group had fewer individuals with a CAC score > 100 (16% vs 4%; P =.029), though again, the vast majority had low CAC scores.

A limitation of all these studies is that they had cross-sectional designs, measuring coronary calcium at a single point in time and relying on questionnaires and patient recall to determine lifelong exposure to exercise. Recall bias could have been a problem, and exercise patterns vary over time. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether people at higher cardiovascular risk should start exercising to mitigate that risk. Granted, they might not start running marathons, but many of these studies looked only at physical activity levels. A study that measured the increase (or stability) of coronary calcium over time would be more helpful.

Prior research (in men again) showed that high levels of physical activity were associated with more coronary calcium, but not with all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. But it too looked only at a single time point. The most recent study added to the body of evidence included data on nearly 9000 men and women and found that higher exercise volume did not correlate with CAC progression over the mean follow-up of 7.8 years. The study measured physical activity of any variety and included physically taxing sports like golf (without a cart). So it was not an assessment of the dangers of endurance exercise.
 

Outstanding Questions and Bananas

Ultimately, many questions remain. Is the lack of risk seen in women a spurious finding because they are underrepresented in most studies, or might exercise affect men and women differently? Is it valid to combine studies on endurance exercise with those looking at physical activity more generally? How accurate are self-reports of exercise? Could endurance exercisers be using performance-enhancing drugs that are confounding the associations? Are people who engage in more physical activity healthier or just trying to mitigate a higher baseline cardiovascular risk? Why do they give out bananas at the end of marathons given that there are better sources of potassium? 

We have no randomized trials on the benefits and risks of endurance exercise. Even if you could get ethics approval, one imagines there would be few volunteers. In the end, we must make do with observational data and remember that coronary calcifications are a surrogate endpoint. 

When it comes to hard endpoints, an analysis of French Tour de France participants found a lower risk for both cardiovascular and cancer deaths compared with the general male population. So perhaps the most important take-home message is one that has been said many times: Beware of surrogate endpoints. And for those contemplating running a marathon, I am forced to agree with the person who wrote the sign I saw during my first race. It does seem like a lot of work for a free banana.
 

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Updated guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation released by the European Society of Cardiology are revamping the approach to care for this complex, multifactorial disease.

The identification and treatment of comorbidities and risk factors are the initial and central components of patient management, and are crucial for all other aspects of care for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), Isabelle Van Gelder, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University Medical Center in Groningen, the Netherlands, explained at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress.

It is not just appropriate to place the same emphasis on the control of comorbidities as on the rhythm disturbance, it is critical, said Dr. Van Gelder, who served as chair of the ESC-AF guidelines task force.

Comorbidities are the drivers of both the onset and recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and a dynamic approach to comorbidities is “central for the success of AF management.”
 

Class I Recommendation

In fact, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, a class I recommendation has been issued for a large number of goals in the comorbidity and risk factor management step of atrial fibrillation management, including those for hypertension, components of heart failure, obesity, diabetes, alcohol consumption, and exercise.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors “should be offered to all patients with AF,” according to Dr. Van Gelder, who identified this as a new class I recommendation.

Patients who are not managed aggressively for the listed comorbidities ultimately face “treatment failure, poor patient outcomes, and a waste of healthcare resources,” she said.

Control of sleep apnea is also noted as a key target, although Van Gelder acknowledged that the supporting evidence only allows for a class IIb recommendation.

Control of comorbidities is not a new idea. In the 2023 joint guideline, led by a consortium of professional groups, including the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the control of comorbidities, including most of those identified in the new ESC guidelines, was second in a list of 10 key take-home messages.

However, the new ESC guidelines have prioritized comorbidity management by listing it first in each of the specific patient-care pathways developed to define optimized care. 

These pathways, defined in algorithms for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF, always start with the assessment of comorbidities, followed by step A — avoiding stroke — largely with anticoagulation.

Direct oral anticoagulants should be used, “except in those with a mechanical valve or mitral stenosis,” Dr. Van Gelder said. This includes, essentially, all patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or greater, and it should be “considered” in those with a score of 1. 

The ESC framework has been identified with the acronym AF-CARE, in which the C stands for comorbidities.

In the A step of the framework, identifying and treating all modifiable bleeding risk factors in AF patients is a class I recommendation. On the basis of a class III recommendation, she cautioned against withholding anticoagulants because of CHA2DS2-VASc risk factors alone. Rather, Dr. Van Gelder called the decision to administer or withhold anticoagulation — like all decisions — one that should be individualized in consultation with the patient.

For reducing AF symptoms and rhythm control, the specific pathways diverge for newly diagnosed AF, paroxysmal AF, and persistent AF. Like all of the guidelines, the specific options for symptom management and AF ablation are color coded, with green signifying level 1 evidence.

The evaluation and dynamic reassessment step refers to the need to periodically assess patients for new modifiable risk factors related to comorbidities, risk for stroke, risk for bleeding, and risk for AF. 

The management of risk factors for AF has long been emphasized in guidelines, but a previous focus on AF with attention to comorbidities has been replaced by a focus on comorbidities with an expectation of more durable AF control. The success of this pivot is based on multidisciplinary care, chosen in collaboration with the patient, to reduce or eliminate the triggers of AF and the risks of its complications.
 

Pathways Are Appropriate for All Patients

A very important recommendation — and this is new — is “to treat all our patients with atrial fibrillation, whether they are young or old, men or women, Black or White, or at high or low risk, according to our patient-centered integrated AF-CARE approach,” Dr. Van Gelder said.

The changes reflect a shared appreciation for the tight relation between the control of comorbidities and the control of AF, according to José A. Joglar, MD, professor of cardiac electrophysiologic research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Dr. Joglar was chair of the writing committee for the joint 2023 AF guidelines released by the AHA, ACC, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy, and the Heart Rhythm Society.

“It is increasingly clear that AF in many cases is the consequence of underlying risk factors and comorbidities, which cannot be separated from AF alone,” Dr. Joglar explained in an interview.

This was placed first “to emphasize the importance of viewing AFib as a complex disease that requires a holistic, multidisciplinary approach to care, as opposed to being viewed just as a rhythm abnormality,” he said.
 

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

LONDON — Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology.

For most treated patients, the new systolic blood pressure goal is a target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg, which is a move away from the previous two-step recommendation.

Although the updated guidelines, presented here at the ESC Congress, continue to define hypertension as a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg, there is a new category — elevated BP. This is defined as a systolic BP of 120 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg, and cardiovascular risk assessment is advised to guide treatment, particularly in patients with a BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg.

The guidelines also introduce new recommendations for lifestyle options to help lower BP, including changes to exercise advice and the addition of potassium supplementation. And for the first time, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for the use of renal denervation to treat hypertension in certain circumstances.

The guidelines were produced by an international panel, led by Bill McEvoy, MB BCh, from the University of Galway, Ireland, and Rhian Touyz, MB BCh, PhD, from McGill University in Montreal.
 

Three Categories of Blood Pressure

There are now three categories for BP classification — non-elevated (< 120/70 mm Hg), elevated (120 mm Hg to139 mm Hg/70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) — Dr. McEvoy reported during a session on the new guidelines here at ESC.

The emphasis on out-of-office BP measurement is stronger than in previous guidelines, but office measurement will still be used, he said.

All patients in the hypertension category qualify for treatment, whereas those in the new elevated BP category will be subject to cardiovascular risk stratification before a treatment decision is made.

Patients in the elevated BP category who also have moderate or severe chronic kidney disease, established cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia are among those considered at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as are patients with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher. In such patients with a confirmed BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg, after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, pharmacologic treatment is recommended.

“This new category of elevated blood pressure recognizes that people do not go from normal blood pressure to hypertensive overnight,” Dr. McEvoy said. “It is, in most cases, a steady gradient of change, and different subgroups of patients — for example, those at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease — could benefit from more intensive treatment before their blood pressure reaches the traditional threshold of hypertension.”
 

New Lower Target

The major change in target pressures in these guidelines is based on new clinical trial data that confirm that lower pressures lead to lower cardiovascular event rates, resulting in the new systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg for most patients receiving antihypertensive medications.

This systolic target represents a major change from previous European guidelines, Dr. McEvoy said, which have generally recommended that patients be treated to a target of less than 140/90 mm Hg and, only after that has been reached, then treated to a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg (a two-step approach).

“This change is driven by new trial evidence confirming that more intensive blood pressure treatment targets reduce cardiovascular outcomes across a broad spectrum of eligible patients,” Dr. McEvoy said.

There are, however, several caveats to this recommendation, including the requirement that treatment to this target be well tolerated; more lenient targets can be considered in people with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, those 85 years and older, and those with moderate to severe frailty or a limited life expectancy. For these patients, the guidelines recommend a target “that is as low as reasonably achievable.”
 

More in Line With US Guidelines

The new European guidelines are now more in line with the American guidelines, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, who is chair of the Hypertension Writing Group at the American College of Cardiology.

“These new European guidelines have thoughtfully used the latest study data to simplify recommendations for a specific lower blood pressure target. This is a step forward. There is now a greater alignment of European and US guidelines. This is good to reduce confusion and build consensus across the world,” he said.

Both sets of guidelines now recommend a BP target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for most people. 

“I think the Europeans have now embraced this more aggressive target because there are many more studies now showing that these lower blood pressure levels do lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events,” Dr. Yang explained. “When the last European guidelines came out, there was only SPRINT. Now there are several more studies showing similar results.”
 

New Lifestyle Advice

The updated recommendation of 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week has been added as an alternative to the previous recommendation of at least 2.5 hours per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. This should be complemented with low- or moderate-intensity dynamic or isometric resistance training two to three times a week. 

It is also recommended that people with hypertension, but without moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease, increase potassium intake with salt substitutes or diets rich in fruits and vegetables.
 

Renal Denervation Included for First Time 

For the first time, the guidelines include the option of renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension — at medium- to high-volume centers — for patients with resistant hypertension that is uncontrolled despite a three-drug combination.

However, renal denervation is not recommended as a first-line treatment because of the lack of evidence of a benefit in cardiovascular outcomes. It is also not recommended for patients with highly impaired renal function or secondary causes of hypertension.

Dr. Yang said he approves of the inclusion of a frailty assessment in the new guidelines and less aggressive targets for people who are in poor health and older than age 85 years, but added that, “on the whole, they have less age-specific stratification than before, which is a significant change, and a good one in my view.” 

Again, this is like the American guidelines, which have no age cutoffs and a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all, with the caveat that clinical judgment may be needed for individuals who are institutionalized, he added.

Dr. Yang said he was not as keen on the requirement for a cardiovascular risk assessment to guide treatment decisions for people with a systolic BP in the 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg range, although this is also included in the current American guidelines.

“As a clinician, I think this complicates things a bit too much and, as such, will be a barrier to treatment. In my view, blood pressure treatment recommendations need to be as simple as possible, so I think we still have some work to do there,” he said.

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

LONDON — Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology.

For most treated patients, the new systolic blood pressure goal is a target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg, which is a move away from the previous two-step recommendation.

Although the updated guidelines, presented here at the ESC Congress, continue to define hypertension as a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg, there is a new category — elevated BP. This is defined as a systolic BP of 120 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg, and cardiovascular risk assessment is advised to guide treatment, particularly in patients with a BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg.

The guidelines also introduce new recommendations for lifestyle options to help lower BP, including changes to exercise advice and the addition of potassium supplementation. And for the first time, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for the use of renal denervation to treat hypertension in certain circumstances.

The guidelines were produced by an international panel, led by Bill McEvoy, MB BCh, from the University of Galway, Ireland, and Rhian Touyz, MB BCh, PhD, from McGill University in Montreal.
 

Three Categories of Blood Pressure

There are now three categories for BP classification — non-elevated (< 120/70 mm Hg), elevated (120 mm Hg to139 mm Hg/70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) — Dr. McEvoy reported during a session on the new guidelines here at ESC.

The emphasis on out-of-office BP measurement is stronger than in previous guidelines, but office measurement will still be used, he said.

All patients in the hypertension category qualify for treatment, whereas those in the new elevated BP category will be subject to cardiovascular risk stratification before a treatment decision is made.

Patients in the elevated BP category who also have moderate or severe chronic kidney disease, established cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia are among those considered at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as are patients with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher. In such patients with a confirmed BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg, after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, pharmacologic treatment is recommended.

“This new category of elevated blood pressure recognizes that people do not go from normal blood pressure to hypertensive overnight,” Dr. McEvoy said. “It is, in most cases, a steady gradient of change, and different subgroups of patients — for example, those at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease — could benefit from more intensive treatment before their blood pressure reaches the traditional threshold of hypertension.”
 

New Lower Target

The major change in target pressures in these guidelines is based on new clinical trial data that confirm that lower pressures lead to lower cardiovascular event rates, resulting in the new systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg for most patients receiving antihypertensive medications.

This systolic target represents a major change from previous European guidelines, Dr. McEvoy said, which have generally recommended that patients be treated to a target of less than 140/90 mm Hg and, only after that has been reached, then treated to a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg (a two-step approach).

“This change is driven by new trial evidence confirming that more intensive blood pressure treatment targets reduce cardiovascular outcomes across a broad spectrum of eligible patients,” Dr. McEvoy said.

There are, however, several caveats to this recommendation, including the requirement that treatment to this target be well tolerated; more lenient targets can be considered in people with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, those 85 years and older, and those with moderate to severe frailty or a limited life expectancy. For these patients, the guidelines recommend a target “that is as low as reasonably achievable.”
 

More in Line With US Guidelines

The new European guidelines are now more in line with the American guidelines, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, who is chair of the Hypertension Writing Group at the American College of Cardiology.

“These new European guidelines have thoughtfully used the latest study data to simplify recommendations for a specific lower blood pressure target. This is a step forward. There is now a greater alignment of European and US guidelines. This is good to reduce confusion and build consensus across the world,” he said.

Both sets of guidelines now recommend a BP target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for most people. 

“I think the Europeans have now embraced this more aggressive target because there are many more studies now showing that these lower blood pressure levels do lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events,” Dr. Yang explained. “When the last European guidelines came out, there was only SPRINT. Now there are several more studies showing similar results.”
 

New Lifestyle Advice

The updated recommendation of 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week has been added as an alternative to the previous recommendation of at least 2.5 hours per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. This should be complemented with low- or moderate-intensity dynamic or isometric resistance training two to three times a week. 

It is also recommended that people with hypertension, but without moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease, increase potassium intake with salt substitutes or diets rich in fruits and vegetables.
 

Renal Denervation Included for First Time 

For the first time, the guidelines include the option of renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension — at medium- to high-volume centers — for patients with resistant hypertension that is uncontrolled despite a three-drug combination.

However, renal denervation is not recommended as a first-line treatment because of the lack of evidence of a benefit in cardiovascular outcomes. It is also not recommended for patients with highly impaired renal function or secondary causes of hypertension.

Dr. Yang said he approves of the inclusion of a frailty assessment in the new guidelines and less aggressive targets for people who are in poor health and older than age 85 years, but added that, “on the whole, they have less age-specific stratification than before, which is a significant change, and a good one in my view.” 

Again, this is like the American guidelines, which have no age cutoffs and a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all, with the caveat that clinical judgment may be needed for individuals who are institutionalized, he added.

Dr. Yang said he was not as keen on the requirement for a cardiovascular risk assessment to guide treatment decisions for people with a systolic BP in the 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg range, although this is also included in the current American guidelines.

“As a clinician, I think this complicates things a bit too much and, as such, will be a barrier to treatment. In my view, blood pressure treatment recommendations need to be as simple as possible, so I think we still have some work to do there,” he said.

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

LONDON — Simplified and more aggressive targets are among the significant changes to the updated hypertension guidelines released by the European Society of Cardiology.

For most treated patients, the new systolic blood pressure goal is a target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg, which is a move away from the previous two-step recommendation.

Although the updated guidelines, presented here at the ESC Congress, continue to define hypertension as a systolic BP of at least 140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of at least 90 mm Hg, there is a new category — elevated BP. This is defined as a systolic BP of 120 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg or a diastolic BP of 70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg, and cardiovascular risk assessment is advised to guide treatment, particularly in patients with a BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg.

The guidelines also introduce new recommendations for lifestyle options to help lower BP, including changes to exercise advice and the addition of potassium supplementation. And for the first time, the ESC guidelines provide recommendations for the use of renal denervation to treat hypertension in certain circumstances.

The guidelines were produced by an international panel, led by Bill McEvoy, MB BCh, from the University of Galway, Ireland, and Rhian Touyz, MB BCh, PhD, from McGill University in Montreal.
 

Three Categories of Blood Pressure

There are now three categories for BP classification — non-elevated (< 120/70 mm Hg), elevated (120 mm Hg to139 mm Hg/70 mm Hg to 89 mm Hg), and hypertension (≥ 140/90 mm Hg) — Dr. McEvoy reported during a session on the new guidelines here at ESC.

The emphasis on out-of-office BP measurement is stronger than in previous guidelines, but office measurement will still be used, he said.

All patients in the hypertension category qualify for treatment, whereas those in the new elevated BP category will be subject to cardiovascular risk stratification before a treatment decision is made.

Patients in the elevated BP category who also have moderate or severe chronic kidney disease, established cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia are among those considered at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, as are patients with an estimated 10-year cardiovascular risk of 10% or higher. In such patients with a confirmed BP of at least 130/80 mm Hg, after 3 months of lifestyle intervention, pharmacologic treatment is recommended.

“This new category of elevated blood pressure recognizes that people do not go from normal blood pressure to hypertensive overnight,” Dr. McEvoy said. “It is, in most cases, a steady gradient of change, and different subgroups of patients — for example, those at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease — could benefit from more intensive treatment before their blood pressure reaches the traditional threshold of hypertension.”
 

New Lower Target

The major change in target pressures in these guidelines is based on new clinical trial data that confirm that lower pressures lead to lower cardiovascular event rates, resulting in the new systolic BP target of 120 mm Hg to 129 mm Hg for most patients receiving antihypertensive medications.

This systolic target represents a major change from previous European guidelines, Dr. McEvoy said, which have generally recommended that patients be treated to a target of less than 140/90 mm Hg and, only after that has been reached, then treated to a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg (a two-step approach).

“This change is driven by new trial evidence confirming that more intensive blood pressure treatment targets reduce cardiovascular outcomes across a broad spectrum of eligible patients,” Dr. McEvoy said.

There are, however, several caveats to this recommendation, including the requirement that treatment to this target be well tolerated; more lenient targets can be considered in people with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, those 85 years and older, and those with moderate to severe frailty or a limited life expectancy. For these patients, the guidelines recommend a target “that is as low as reasonably achievable.”
 

More in Line With US Guidelines

The new European guidelines are now more in line with the American guidelines, said Eugene Yang, MD, from the University of Washington in Seattle, who is chair of the Hypertension Writing Group at the American College of Cardiology.

“These new European guidelines have thoughtfully used the latest study data to simplify recommendations for a specific lower blood pressure target. This is a step forward. There is now a greater alignment of European and US guidelines. This is good to reduce confusion and build consensus across the world,” he said.

Both sets of guidelines now recommend a BP target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for most people. 

“I think the Europeans have now embraced this more aggressive target because there are many more studies now showing that these lower blood pressure levels do lead to a reduction in cardiovascular events,” Dr. Yang explained. “When the last European guidelines came out, there was only SPRINT. Now there are several more studies showing similar results.”
 

New Lifestyle Advice

The updated recommendation of 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week has been added as an alternative to the previous recommendation of at least 2.5 hours per week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. This should be complemented with low- or moderate-intensity dynamic or isometric resistance training two to three times a week. 

It is also recommended that people with hypertension, but without moderate or advanced chronic kidney disease, increase potassium intake with salt substitutes or diets rich in fruits and vegetables.
 

Renal Denervation Included for First Time 

For the first time, the guidelines include the option of renal denervation for the treatment of hypertension — at medium- to high-volume centers — for patients with resistant hypertension that is uncontrolled despite a three-drug combination.

However, renal denervation is not recommended as a first-line treatment because of the lack of evidence of a benefit in cardiovascular outcomes. It is also not recommended for patients with highly impaired renal function or secondary causes of hypertension.

Dr. Yang said he approves of the inclusion of a frailty assessment in the new guidelines and less aggressive targets for people who are in poor health and older than age 85 years, but added that, “on the whole, they have less age-specific stratification than before, which is a significant change, and a good one in my view.” 

Again, this is like the American guidelines, which have no age cutoffs and a target of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all, with the caveat that clinical judgment may be needed for individuals who are institutionalized, he added.

Dr. Yang said he was not as keen on the requirement for a cardiovascular risk assessment to guide treatment decisions for people with a systolic BP in the 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg range, although this is also included in the current American guidelines.

“As a clinician, I think this complicates things a bit too much and, as such, will be a barrier to treatment. In my view, blood pressure treatment recommendations need to be as simple as possible, so I think we still have some work to do there,” he said.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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