Cardiology

Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

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

Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

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

Datascope/Getinge is recalling certain Cardiosave Hybrid and Cardiosave Rescue Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumps (IABPs) because the coiled cable connecting the display and base on some units may fail, causing an unexpected shutdown without warnings or alarms to alert the user.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified this as a class I recall, the most serious type of recall, because of the risk for serious injury or death.

The FDA warns that an unexpected pump shutdown and any interruption to therapy that occurs can lead to hemodynamic instability, organ damage, and/or death, especially in patients who are critically ill and most likely to receive therapy using these devices.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

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

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Providing care for individuals with both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity necessitates addressing both conditions at the same time, say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.

“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.

And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.

Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”

They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
 

Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results

“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.

The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.

Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m². In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.

“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
 

Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently

A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.

Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.

Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.

Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity

Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.

But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.

“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.

The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”

Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.

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

Providing care for individuals with both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity necessitates addressing both conditions at the same time, say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.

“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.

And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.

Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”

They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
 

Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results

“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.

The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.

Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m². In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.

“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
 

Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently

A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.

Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.

Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.

Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity

Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.

But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.

“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.

The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”

Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.

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

Providing care for individuals with both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and obesity necessitates addressing both conditions at the same time, say the authors of a new state-of-the-art review.

“CVD and obesity are common conditions that frequently coexist. We cannot treat one of these conditions while ignoring the other,” Rosana G. Bianchettin, MD, of the division of cardiovascular diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues wrote in their review, recently published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The review outlines, for example, how obesity can impair common imaging tests used to diagnose heart disease, potentially reducing their accuracy.

And cardiac procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, open heart surgery, and revascularization all involve greater risk in the setting of obesity, while procedures such as valve replacement and heart transplantation carry a greater likelihood of failure.

Obesity can also alter drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Weight reduction is an important part of the management of patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity, and “cardiac rehabilitation programs represent a potential opportunity for structured interventions,” the authors noted. However, “when other measures are insufficient, bariatric surgery can improve outcomes.”

They also advised against relying solely on body mass index (BMI) to assess adiposity: “It is prudent to investigate a range of complementary ... parameters alongside standard BMI calculations (accounting for age, race, and sex), including measures of central obesity, such as waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, and weight-to-height ratio.”
 

Excess fat acts as filter and can skew diagnostic results

“Obesity affects nearly all the diagnostic tests used in cardiology, such as ECG, CT scan, MRI, and echocardiogram,” senior author Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, MD, director of preventive cardiology at Mayo Clinic, explained in a statement.

The review includes a detailed table of these key obesity-related challenges. With electrocardiograms, for example, obesity can cause displacement of the heart, increased cardiac workload, and widening of the distance between the heart and the recording electrodes.

Obesity also lowers the sensitivity of exercise echocardiography, and use of CT coronary angiogram is completely precluded in people with a BMI above 40 kg/m². In interventional radiology, there may be poor visualization of target areas.

“Excess fat acts as a kind of filter and can skew test readings to under- or overdiagnosis,” noted Dr. Lopez-Jimenez.
 

Therapeutic challenges: Drugs may work differently

A longer table in the review summarizes the therapeutic challenges involved in lifestyle modification, pharmacology, cardiac procedures, and other therapeutic measures for people with the two conditions.

Obesity can limit a person’s ability to exercise, for example, and smoking cessation may promote overeating and further weight gain.

Moreover, “tailoring pharmacotherapy is difficult because of unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors in people with obesity that alter distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. Each drug also has special properties that must be considered when it is administrated,” the authors wrote.

Examples include the higher volume of distribution of lipophilic drugs in those with increased fat mass, alterations in liver metabolism, and difficulties with anticoagulant dosing.
 

Cardiac rehabilitation is an intervention opportunity

Although cardiac rehabilitation is “a cornerstone in secondary prevention” for people who have experienced a cardiac event, only 8% of such programs include formal in-house behavioral weight-loss programs.

But that could be remedied and expanded with the use of options such as home-based rehabilitation and telephone counseling, particularly in rural communities, Dr. Bianchettin and colleagues said.

“Motivated individuals will benefit from multicomponent approaches and should be encouraged to set specific, proximal, shared goals with their health care professional. A multitude of tools are available to support self-monitoring (e.g., smartphone applications, food diaries), and scheduled regular follow-up and feedback on progress can help to maintain motivation,” they wrote.

The bottom line, said Dr. Lopez-Jimenez: “Obesity is an important risk factor to address in patients with heart disease and it requires us to do something. ... The patient needs to know that their clinician can help them lose weight. Overall, weight-loss solutions come down to finding the right therapy for the patient.”

Dr. Bianchettin reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lopez-Jimenez has reported conducting research related to 3D body assessment with Select Research, Mayo Clinic, and may benefit in the future if the technology is commercialized; he has not received any relevant monetary, financial, or other type of compensation to date, in relationship to this arrangement. He is a member of the scientific advisory board for Novo Nordisk.

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

NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.

Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,

“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm⁻⁵ reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.

“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.

Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH

Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.

“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.

The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
 

Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%

STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.

In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.

The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.

The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.

“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.

Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH

Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.

“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”

Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.

Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.

STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.

Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,

“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm⁻⁵ reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.

“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.

Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH

Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.

“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.

The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
 

Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%

STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.

In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.

The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.

The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.

“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.

Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH

Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.

“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”

Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.

Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.

STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – An investigational, first-in class agent that delivers a completely new type of intervention to patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) scored a clear win in the STELLAR trial, the first to complete among three phase 3 trials that are testing this agent.

Sotatercept, administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks for 24 weeks, improved from baseline average 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by a significant and clinically meaningful 40.8 meters, compared with placebo, for the trial’s primary efficacy endpoint (P < .001). The treatment also “delivered broad clinical benefit across multiple domains including hemodynamics, World Health Organization functional class, disease biomarkers, risk scores and patient-reported outcomes,” Marius M. Hoeper, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“These results establish the clinical utility of sotatercept, administered in combination with approved PAH therapies, as a new treatment for PAH,” added Dr. Hoeper, professor and deputy director of the department of respiratory medicine at Hannover (Germany) Medical School,

“The most important aspect was the hemodynamic improvement,” with sotatercept treatment, which led to an average 235 dyn/sec per cm⁻⁵ reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance from baseline and an average cut in pulmonary artery pressure of 13.9 mm Hg from baseline, compared with placebo, a result that’s “unheard of,” Dr. Hoeper said in a press conference during the meeting.

“With other tested agents we usually see very little improvement in pulmonary artery pressure. This is a signal that we achieved some reversing of the pathological changes in the pulmonary vessels that lead to” PAH, he added.

Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

‘A new hope’ for patients with PAH

Based on the reported findings, sotatercept is a “very exciting boutique molecule” that will “offer patients with PAH a very exciting new treatment,” commented Rhonda Cooper-DeHoff, PharmD, a designated discussant and a researcher at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“This study is a new hope for patients with PAH. Until now, they’ve had really bad outcomes, but [in this study] we see significant differences in 6MWD, hemodynamics, and risk factors. Overall, I think the benefit is greater than the risk” it may pose to patients through potential adverse effects, commented Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at St. Thomas Hospital in London, and another discussant at the meeting.

“The results are impressive” and “encouraging,” and “suggest that sotatercept may represent a new and clinically consequential addition to current medications for PAH,” wrote three clinicians from Canyons Region Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah, in an editorial that accompanied the published report.

But the authors of the editorial also raised several cautions and concerns. They questioned the generalizability of the findings, noting that the patients with PAH enrolled in the study were all adults who were clinically stable and an average of more than 8 years out from their initial PAH diagnosis, and more than 90% were on stable treatment for PAH with two or three agents specific for treating the disorder. The study cohort also had a disproportionately high enrollment of patients with idiopathic (59%) or heritable (18%) forms of PAH, and the 15% of patients in the trial with connective tissue disease represented a disproportionately low prevalence of this PAH subtype.

The editorialists also called for “ongoing vigilance” for adverse effects from sotatercept treatment, although they acknowledged that the adverse effects reported to date from sotatercept are “largely reassuring.”
 

Death or clinical worsening cut by 84%

STELLAR randomized 323 patients at 91 sites in 21 countries with WHO Group 1 PAH and with WHO functional class II or III disease to receive either sotatercept or placebo for 24 weeks, with an option for treatment to continue beyond that until the last patient in the study reached 24 weeks on treatment, resulting in an overall median treatment duration of nearly 33 weeks.

In addition to the significant result for the primary endpoint, the 163 patients who received sotatercept had significant improvements, compared with 160 placebo-treated patients, for eight of nine secondary endpoints. The only secondary endpoint with a neutral result was for a measure of cognitive and emotional wellbeing, a parameter that was already at a normal level at baseline in most enrolled patients, Dr. Hoeper explained.

The incidence of either death or an event indicative of clinical worsening during the overall median follow-up of almost 33 weeks was 26.3% among the control patients and 5.5% among those who received sotatercept. This translated into a significant reduction for this endpoint of 84% with sotatercept treatment, compared with placebo.

The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events leading to discontinuation were roughly the same in the control and sotatercept arms, and the incidence of severe or serious treatment-emergent adverse events was higher among the control patients.

The most common adverse event on sotatercept was bleeding events, which occurred in 32% of those on sotatercept and in 16% of the control patients, but the events in the sotatercept arm were “mostly mild,” said Dr. Hoeper. The next most frequent adverse event during sotatercept treatment was appearance of telangiectasias, which occurred in 14% of those on sotatercept and in 4% of control patients.

“It’s an uncommon adverse event profile, but not unexpected for a drug with its mechanism of action,” he said.

Drug binds activin, a pathologic driver of PAH

Sotatercept is an engineered molecule that combines a section of a human immunoglobulin G molecule with a portion of the receptor for activin. This structure allows sotatercept to bind free activin molecules in a patient’s blood, thereby removing a key driver of the pulmonary vascular wall remodeling that is at the pathologic root of PAH.

“Hyperproliferation of blood vessel–wall cells” caused by activin signaling “is perhaps the most important driver of PAH,” Dr. Hoeper said. “Sotatercept allows us for the first time to target the underlying mechanism behind PAH.”

Still ongoing are the HYPERION and ZENITH phase 3 trials of sotatercept. HYPERION is enrolling patients with newly diagnosed or high-risk PAH and is expected to complete in 2028. ZENITH is enrolling patients with more advanced PAH and a higher mortality risk, with results expected in 2026.

Sotatercept has received “Breakthrough Therapy” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the Food and Drug Administration, and “Priority Medicines” designation and “Orphan Drug” designation by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of PAH. One recent review estimated a worldwide PAH prevalence of about 3-4 cases/100,000, which for the United States translates into a total prevalence of perhaps 10,000-15,000 affected people.

STELLAR was funded by Acceleron Pharma, a subsidiary of Merck. Dr. Hoeper is a consultant to Acceleron. Dr. Cooper-DeHoff, Dr. Grapsa, and the authors of the editorial on STELLAR have no relevant disclosures.

As a lifeguard during college and then a physician assistant in emergency medicine for almost 3 decades, people often ask how I deal with emergency situations. I tell them the emotions turn off; skills and training take over. That is exactly what happened one day while I was surfing.

There’s a famous surf spot called Old Man’s on San Onofre beach in north San Diego County. It has nice, gentle waves that people say are similar to Waikiki in Hawaii. Since the waves are so forgiving, a lot of older people surf there. I taught my boys and some friends how to surf there. Everyone enjoys the water. It’s just a really fun vibe.

In September of 2008, I was at Old Man’s surfing with friends. After a while, I told them I was going to catch the next wave in. When I rode the wave to the beach, I saw an older guy waving his arms above his head, trying to get the lifeguard’s attention. His friend was lying on the sand at the water’s edge, unconscious. The lifeguards were about 200 yards away in their truck. Since it was off-season, they weren’t in the nearby towers.

I threw my board down on the sand and ran over. The guy was blue in the face and had some secretions around his mouth. He wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. I told his friend to get the lifeguards.

I gave two rescue breaths, and then started CPR. The waves were still lapping against his feet. I could sense people gathering around, so I said, “Okay, we’re going to be hooking him up to electricity, let’s get him out of the water.” I didn’t want him in contact with the water that could potentially transmit that electricity to anyone else.

Many hands reached in and we dragged him up to dry sand. When we pulled down his wetsuit, I saw an old midline sternotomy incision on his chest and I thought: “Oh man, he’s got a cardiac history.” I said, “I need a towel,” and suddenly there was a towel in my hand. I dried him off and continued doing CPR.

The lifeguard truck pulled up and in my peripheral vision I saw two lifeguards running over with their first aid kit. While doing compressions, I yelled over my shoulder: “Bring your AED! Get your oxygen!” They ran back to the truck.

At that point, a young woman came up and said: “I’m a nuclear medicine tech. What can I do?” I asked her to help me keep his airway open. I positioned her at his head, and she did a chin lift.

The two lifeguards came running back. One was very experienced, and he started getting the AED ready and putting the pads on. The other lifeguard was younger. He was nervous and shaking, trying to figure out how to turn on the oxygen tank. I told him: “Buddy, you better figure that out real fast.”

The AED said there was a shockable rhythm so it delivered a shock. I started compressions again. The younger lifeguard finally figured out how to turn on the oxygen tank. Now we had oxygen, a bag valve mask, and an AED. We let our training take over and quickly melded together as an efficient team.

Two minutes later the AED analyzed the rhythm and administered another shock. More compressions. Then another shock and compressions. I had so much adrenaline going through my body that I wasn’t even getting tired.

By then I had been doing compressions for a good 10 minutes. Finally, I asked: “Hey, when are the paramedics going to get here?” And the lifeguard said: “They’re on their way.” But we were all the way down on a very remote section of beach.

We did CPR on him for what seemed like eternity, probably only 15-20 minutes. Sometimes he would get a pulse back and pink up, and we could stop and get a break. But then I would see him become cyanotic. His pulse would become thready, so I would start again.

The paramedics finally arrived and loaded him into the ambulance. He was still blue in the face, and I honestly thought he would probably not survive. I said a quick prayer for him as they drove off.

For the next week, I wondered what happened to him. The next time I was at the beach, I approached some older guys and said: “Hey, I was doing CPR on a guy here last week. Do you know what happened to him?” They gave me a thumbs up sign and said: “He’s doing great!” I was amazed!

While at the beach, I saw the nuclear med tech who helped with the airway and oxygen. She told me she’d called her hospital after the incident and asked if they had received a full arrest from the beach. They said: “Yes, he was sitting up, awake and talking when he came through the door.”

A few weeks later, the local paper called and wanted to do an interview and get some photos on the beach. We set up a time to meet, and I told the reporter that if he ever found out who the guy was, I would love to meet him. I had two reasons: First, because I had done mouth-to-mouth on him and I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any communicable diseases. Second, and this is a little weirder, I wanted to find out if he had an out-of-body experience. They fascinate me.

The reporter called back a few minutes later and said: “You’ll never believe this – while I was talking to you, my phone beeped with another call. The person left a message, and it was the guy. He wants to meet you.” I was amazed at the coincidence that he would call at exactly the same time.

Later that day, we all met at the beach. I gave him a big hug and told him he looked a lot better than the last time I saw him. He now had a pacemaker/defibrillator. I found out he was married and had three teenage boys (who still have a father). He told me on the day of the incident he developed chest pain, weakness, and shortness of breath while surfing, so he came in and sat down at the water’s edge to catch his breath. That was the last thing he remembered. 

When I told him I did mouth-to-mouth on him, he laughed and reassured me that he didn’t have any contagious diseases. Then I asked him about an out-of-body experience, like hovering above his body and watching the CPR. “Did you see us doing that?” I asked. He said: “No, nothing but black. The next thing I remember is waking up in the back of the ambulance, and the paramedic asked me, ‘how does it feel to come back from the dead?’ ” He answered: “I think I have to throw up.”

He was cleared to surf 6 weeks later, and I thought it would be fun to surf with him. But when he started paddling out, he said his defibrillator went off, so he has now retired to golf.

I’ve been a PA in the emergency room for 28 years. I’ve done CPR for so long it’s instinctive for me. It really saves lives, especially with the AED. When people say: “You saved his life,” I say: “No, I didn’t. I just kept him alive and let the AED do its job.”

Ms. Westbrook-May is an emergency medicine physician assistant in Newport Beach, Calif.

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

As a lifeguard during college and then a physician assistant in emergency medicine for almost 3 decades, people often ask how I deal with emergency situations. I tell them the emotions turn off; skills and training take over. That is exactly what happened one day while I was surfing.

There’s a famous surf spot called Old Man’s on San Onofre beach in north San Diego County. It has nice, gentle waves that people say are similar to Waikiki in Hawaii. Since the waves are so forgiving, a lot of older people surf there. I taught my boys and some friends how to surf there. Everyone enjoys the water. It’s just a really fun vibe.

In September of 2008, I was at Old Man’s surfing with friends. After a while, I told them I was going to catch the next wave in. When I rode the wave to the beach, I saw an older guy waving his arms above his head, trying to get the lifeguard’s attention. His friend was lying on the sand at the water’s edge, unconscious. The lifeguards were about 200 yards away in their truck. Since it was off-season, they weren’t in the nearby towers.

I threw my board down on the sand and ran over. The guy was blue in the face and had some secretions around his mouth. He wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. I told his friend to get the lifeguards.

I gave two rescue breaths, and then started CPR. The waves were still lapping against his feet. I could sense people gathering around, so I said, “Okay, we’re going to be hooking him up to electricity, let’s get him out of the water.” I didn’t want him in contact with the water that could potentially transmit that electricity to anyone else.

Many hands reached in and we dragged him up to dry sand. When we pulled down his wetsuit, I saw an old midline sternotomy incision on his chest and I thought: “Oh man, he’s got a cardiac history.” I said, “I need a towel,” and suddenly there was a towel in my hand. I dried him off and continued doing CPR.

The lifeguard truck pulled up and in my peripheral vision I saw two lifeguards running over with their first aid kit. While doing compressions, I yelled over my shoulder: “Bring your AED! Get your oxygen!” They ran back to the truck.

At that point, a young woman came up and said: “I’m a nuclear medicine tech. What can I do?” I asked her to help me keep his airway open. I positioned her at his head, and she did a chin lift.

The two lifeguards came running back. One was very experienced, and he started getting the AED ready and putting the pads on. The other lifeguard was younger. He was nervous and shaking, trying to figure out how to turn on the oxygen tank. I told him: “Buddy, you better figure that out real fast.”

The AED said there was a shockable rhythm so it delivered a shock. I started compressions again. The younger lifeguard finally figured out how to turn on the oxygen tank. Now we had oxygen, a bag valve mask, and an AED. We let our training take over and quickly melded together as an efficient team.

Two minutes later the AED analyzed the rhythm and administered another shock. More compressions. Then another shock and compressions. I had so much adrenaline going through my body that I wasn’t even getting tired.

By then I had been doing compressions for a good 10 minutes. Finally, I asked: “Hey, when are the paramedics going to get here?” And the lifeguard said: “They’re on their way.” But we were all the way down on a very remote section of beach.

We did CPR on him for what seemed like eternity, probably only 15-20 minutes. Sometimes he would get a pulse back and pink up, and we could stop and get a break. But then I would see him become cyanotic. His pulse would become thready, so I would start again.

The paramedics finally arrived and loaded him into the ambulance. He was still blue in the face, and I honestly thought he would probably not survive. I said a quick prayer for him as they drove off.

For the next week, I wondered what happened to him. The next time I was at the beach, I approached some older guys and said: “Hey, I was doing CPR on a guy here last week. Do you know what happened to him?” They gave me a thumbs up sign and said: “He’s doing great!” I was amazed!

While at the beach, I saw the nuclear med tech who helped with the airway and oxygen. She told me she’d called her hospital after the incident and asked if they had received a full arrest from the beach. They said: “Yes, he was sitting up, awake and talking when he came through the door.”

A few weeks later, the local paper called and wanted to do an interview and get some photos on the beach. We set up a time to meet, and I told the reporter that if he ever found out who the guy was, I would love to meet him. I had two reasons: First, because I had done mouth-to-mouth on him and I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any communicable diseases. Second, and this is a little weirder, I wanted to find out if he had an out-of-body experience. They fascinate me.

The reporter called back a few minutes later and said: “You’ll never believe this – while I was talking to you, my phone beeped with another call. The person left a message, and it was the guy. He wants to meet you.” I was amazed at the coincidence that he would call at exactly the same time.

Later that day, we all met at the beach. I gave him a big hug and told him he looked a lot better than the last time I saw him. He now had a pacemaker/defibrillator. I found out he was married and had three teenage boys (who still have a father). He told me on the day of the incident he developed chest pain, weakness, and shortness of breath while surfing, so he came in and sat down at the water’s edge to catch his breath. That was the last thing he remembered. 

When I told him I did mouth-to-mouth on him, he laughed and reassured me that he didn’t have any contagious diseases. Then I asked him about an out-of-body experience, like hovering above his body and watching the CPR. “Did you see us doing that?” I asked. He said: “No, nothing but black. The next thing I remember is waking up in the back of the ambulance, and the paramedic asked me, ‘how does it feel to come back from the dead?’ ” He answered: “I think I have to throw up.”

He was cleared to surf 6 weeks later, and I thought it would be fun to surf with him. But when he started paddling out, he said his defibrillator went off, so he has now retired to golf.

I’ve been a PA in the emergency room for 28 years. I’ve done CPR for so long it’s instinctive for me. It really saves lives, especially with the AED. When people say: “You saved his life,” I say: “No, I didn’t. I just kept him alive and let the AED do its job.”

Ms. Westbrook-May is an emergency medicine physician assistant in Newport Beach, Calif.

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

As a lifeguard during college and then a physician assistant in emergency medicine for almost 3 decades, people often ask how I deal with emergency situations. I tell them the emotions turn off; skills and training take over. That is exactly what happened one day while I was surfing.

There’s a famous surf spot called Old Man’s on San Onofre beach in north San Diego County. It has nice, gentle waves that people say are similar to Waikiki in Hawaii. Since the waves are so forgiving, a lot of older people surf there. I taught my boys and some friends how to surf there. Everyone enjoys the water. It’s just a really fun vibe.

In September of 2008, I was at Old Man’s surfing with friends. After a while, I told them I was going to catch the next wave in. When I rode the wave to the beach, I saw an older guy waving his arms above his head, trying to get the lifeguard’s attention. His friend was lying on the sand at the water’s edge, unconscious. The lifeguards were about 200 yards away in their truck. Since it was off-season, they weren’t in the nearby towers.

I threw my board down on the sand and ran over. The guy was blue in the face and had some secretions around his mouth. He wasn’t breathing and had no pulse. I told his friend to get the lifeguards.

I gave two rescue breaths, and then started CPR. The waves were still lapping against his feet. I could sense people gathering around, so I said, “Okay, we’re going to be hooking him up to electricity, let’s get him out of the water.” I didn’t want him in contact with the water that could potentially transmit that electricity to anyone else.

Many hands reached in and we dragged him up to dry sand. When we pulled down his wetsuit, I saw an old midline sternotomy incision on his chest and I thought: “Oh man, he’s got a cardiac history.” I said, “I need a towel,” and suddenly there was a towel in my hand. I dried him off and continued doing CPR.

The lifeguard truck pulled up and in my peripheral vision I saw two lifeguards running over with their first aid kit. While doing compressions, I yelled over my shoulder: “Bring your AED! Get your oxygen!” They ran back to the truck.

At that point, a young woman came up and said: “I’m a nuclear medicine tech. What can I do?” I asked her to help me keep his airway open. I positioned her at his head, and she did a chin lift.

The two lifeguards came running back. One was very experienced, and he started getting the AED ready and putting the pads on. The other lifeguard was younger. He was nervous and shaking, trying to figure out how to turn on the oxygen tank. I told him: “Buddy, you better figure that out real fast.”

The AED said there was a shockable rhythm so it delivered a shock. I started compressions again. The younger lifeguard finally figured out how to turn on the oxygen tank. Now we had oxygen, a bag valve mask, and an AED. We let our training take over and quickly melded together as an efficient team.

Two minutes later the AED analyzed the rhythm and administered another shock. More compressions. Then another shock and compressions. I had so much adrenaline going through my body that I wasn’t even getting tired.

By then I had been doing compressions for a good 10 minutes. Finally, I asked: “Hey, when are the paramedics going to get here?” And the lifeguard said: “They’re on their way.” But we were all the way down on a very remote section of beach.

We did CPR on him for what seemed like eternity, probably only 15-20 minutes. Sometimes he would get a pulse back and pink up, and we could stop and get a break. But then I would see him become cyanotic. His pulse would become thready, so I would start again.

The paramedics finally arrived and loaded him into the ambulance. He was still blue in the face, and I honestly thought he would probably not survive. I said a quick prayer for him as they drove off.

For the next week, I wondered what happened to him. The next time I was at the beach, I approached some older guys and said: “Hey, I was doing CPR on a guy here last week. Do you know what happened to him?” They gave me a thumbs up sign and said: “He’s doing great!” I was amazed!

While at the beach, I saw the nuclear med tech who helped with the airway and oxygen. She told me she’d called her hospital after the incident and asked if they had received a full arrest from the beach. They said: “Yes, he was sitting up, awake and talking when he came through the door.”

A few weeks later, the local paper called and wanted to do an interview and get some photos on the beach. We set up a time to meet, and I told the reporter that if he ever found out who the guy was, I would love to meet him. I had two reasons: First, because I had done mouth-to-mouth on him and I wanted to make sure he didn’t have any communicable diseases. Second, and this is a little weirder, I wanted to find out if he had an out-of-body experience. They fascinate me.

The reporter called back a few minutes later and said: “You’ll never believe this – while I was talking to you, my phone beeped with another call. The person left a message, and it was the guy. He wants to meet you.” I was amazed at the coincidence that he would call at exactly the same time.

Later that day, we all met at the beach. I gave him a big hug and told him he looked a lot better than the last time I saw him. He now had a pacemaker/defibrillator. I found out he was married and had three teenage boys (who still have a father). He told me on the day of the incident he developed chest pain, weakness, and shortness of breath while surfing, so he came in and sat down at the water’s edge to catch his breath. That was the last thing he remembered. 

When I told him I did mouth-to-mouth on him, he laughed and reassured me that he didn’t have any contagious diseases. Then I asked him about an out-of-body experience, like hovering above his body and watching the CPR. “Did you see us doing that?” I asked. He said: “No, nothing but black. The next thing I remember is waking up in the back of the ambulance, and the paramedic asked me, ‘how does it feel to come back from the dead?’ ” He answered: “I think I have to throw up.”

He was cleared to surf 6 weeks later, and I thought it would be fun to surf with him. But when he started paddling out, he said his defibrillator went off, so he has now retired to golf.

I’ve been a PA in the emergency room for 28 years. I’ve done CPR for so long it’s instinctive for me. It really saves lives, especially with the AED. When people say: “You saved his life,” I say: “No, I didn’t. I just kept him alive and let the AED do its job.”

Ms. Westbrook-May is an emergency medicine physician assistant in Newport Beach, Calif.

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

The suggestion that long-term endurance exercise may lead to a paradoxical increase in coronary atherosclerosis has been raised again by a new study.

In the Master@Heart study, lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques, including more noncalcified plaques, than fit and healthy individuals with a similarly low cardiovascular risk profile.

The study was presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. It was also simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We consistently see higher plaque burden in lifelong endurance athletes. This is regardless of the plaque type, whether it is calcified, mixed, noncalcified, in the proximal segment or causing more than 50% stenosis,” concluded Ruben De Bosscher, MD, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), during his presentation.

The researchers suggested that all the information to date suggests there may be a “reverse J-shaped” dose-response relationship between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.

Dr. De Bosscher added that “the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. As soon as you do a little bit of exercise – just brisk walking or jogging up to 3 hours a week – it seems that’s where you get the most benefit. And after that, we tend to see an increase in coronary plaque burden.”

The discussant of the study at the ACC session, Michael Emery, MD, codirector of the Sports Cardiology Center at the Cleveland Clinic, asked how this information should be translated into advice for the general public, given that it is known that endurance athletes show much improved mortality.

“That is a very good question,” Dr. De Bosscher replied. “Yes, we do see less events and adverse outcomes in endurance athletes, but that is compared to the whole population, including those that are unhealthy and do not exercise.

“If we only look at healthy individuals who do exercise but at varying levels, the question is, do we then see the same relationship?” he asked. “There is increasing evidence that there may be a point of diminished returns – and at a certain point, an increased cardiovascular risk is seen in endurance athletes.”

On advice to the public, Dr. De Bosscher added, “one of the main findings here is that, despite having a very healthy lifestyle style and exercising a lot, no one is granted immunity to coronary atherosclerosis. It would seem that the most benefit occurs in individuals doing a moderate amount of exercise – up to about 3 hours a week.”

In a comment, Dr. Emery noted: “This continues to be a ‘hot topic,’ although I continue to be underwhelmed, given a lack of hard outcomes, and I worry about the wrong take-home message being sent, that too much exercise will do more harm than good.”

He added that fitness still matters regardless of calcium score, and he would not advise people to stop exercising, because “the better your fitness, the better the outcome.”

However, he acknowledged that “the study does nicely illustrate that exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear, honestly).”

Also commenting, Paul D. Thompson, MD, Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, who has studied the cardiac implications of exercise for many years, said: “The problem we have in the U.S. and in most developed countries is not too much exercise but rather that most people don’t exercise very much at all.”

He noted that the Master@Heart study as an “important contribution” to the field.

“We have seen in previous trials that lifelong endurance athletes appear to have more deposition of cholesterol in their coronary arteries than you would expect,” he said. “But, while prior studies suggested that most of the deposits in endurance athletes were the safer type of highly calcified plaques, this study shows that the plaques in endurance athletes are not quite as benign as we had previously thought.”

It’s not clear what this means though, he added, because “despite these findings, it’s pretty clear that endurance athletes live longer than most people. But do they live longer because of the amount of exercise they do or because they are just hardier than the rest of us?”

He does not believe the study should be interpreted to mean that endurance exercise is dangerous. “We don’t have great evidence for that. This is a finding in a coronary artery. We don’t have outcome data.”

However, he added, “it doesn’t seem like you have to do a lot of extreme sport to get the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. All the studies show that the greatest benefits happen in people who go from doing very little to doing a moderate amount of exercise. Then it seems to plateau.”

Dr. Thompson pointed out that the most recent physical activity guidelines in the United States recommend between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous activity, such as running.

But he does not believe this study should put people off participating in endurance exercise, noting that many individuals engage in high levels of vigorous exercise for other reasons, not necessarily for their cardiovascular health.

“If people want to do more – for competitive reasons or if it makes them feel good – I say go ahead and do it,” Dr. Thompson added. “You should enjoy your life. But if you’re doing high levels of endurance exercise for your health and you’re miserable doing it, you may be wasting your time, as it doesn’t look as these more extreme levels of exercise do you any good. Does it do you any harm? We don’t have evidence yet to conclude that.”

In his presentation, Dr. De Bosscher noted that previous studies have reported higher calcium scores in athletes as well as more coronary plaques, compared with control persons. But the atherosclerotic lesions observed in the athletes were predominantly calcified plaques that were considered more stable and less prone to rupture, whereas nonathletes had predominantly mixed plaques that were considered less stable and more prone to rupture.

He pointed out, however, that these studies had limitations in that they included some individuals with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking and intake of statins or antihypertensive drugs; they did not always assess the association between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis in a dose-response relationship; and while they reported the relative difference in plaque types, they didn’t report the absolute prevalence in calcified, noncalcified, and mixed plaques.

The Master@Heart study aimed to look at this question in a more comprehensive way.

The observational cohort study evaluated coronary atherosclerosis in 191 lifelong master endurance athletes, 191 late-onset athletes (endurance sports initiation after age 30 years), and 176 healthy nonathletes who engaged in no more than 3 hours a week of exercise. All participants were male and had a low cardiovascular risk profile. The median age was 55 in the three groups.

Maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max) was used to quantify fitness. Lifelong and late-onset athletes had higher percentage predicted VO_2max than nonathletes (159 vs. 155 vs. 122).

There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to age, weight, blood pressure cholesterol levels, or hemoglobin A1c levels. While the control group had a healthy body mass index and body fat percentage (19%), both groups of athletes were significantly leaner (body fat percentage, 14%-15%).

The exercise performed by the lifelong and late-onset endurance athletes was similar – mainly cycling and running. The endurance athletes reported an average of 10-11 hours of exercise per week, compared with 1 hour per week for the control persons. Only 22% of the control group reported engaging in no exercise at all; the others reported jogging, cycling, or engaging in nonendurance exercise, such as tennis.

Results showed that the overall coronary plaque burden assessed by segment stenosis score and segment-involvement score was higher among lifelong athletes than control persons (between-group difference, 0.86 and 0.65, respectively).

In comparison to control persons, lifelong endurance sport participation was associated with having one or more of each of the following, compared with a healthy nonathletic lifestyle:

• More than one coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.94)
• More than one proximal plaque (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.11)
• More than one calcified plaque (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.49)
• More than one calcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35)
• More than one noncalcified plaque (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.40)
• More than one noncalcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.39-5.65)
• More than one mixed plaque (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.99)

In comparison with late-onset athletes, at least 50% stenosis in any coronary segment (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.20-6.50) and at least 50% stenosis in a proximal segment (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 1.22 – 28.80) were more prevalent among lifelong athletes.

Vulnerable plaques, as defined by the presence of at least two high-risk features, were uncommon in all groups, but a lifelong athletic lifestyle was associated with a lower prevalence (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98).

In their article in the European Heart Journal, the researchers noted that the Master@Heart study is the largest and most comprehensive study to assess the dose-response relationship between intensive endurance exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.

“The findings do not support the hypothesis that highly trained endurance athletes have a more benign plaque composition to explain their lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to nonathletes,” they wrote.

“As studies on the impact of physical activity in the upper range are lacking, our data open the question on whether coronary events are indeed less prevalent in this high-end exercise cohort, and if that is the case, on what explains the paradox,” they concluded. “More and longitudinal research at the higher end of the endurance exercise spectrum is definitely needed.”

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

The suggestion that long-term endurance exercise may lead to a paradoxical increase in coronary atherosclerosis has been raised again by a new study.

In the Master@Heart study, lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques, including more noncalcified plaques, than fit and healthy individuals with a similarly low cardiovascular risk profile.

The study was presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. It was also simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We consistently see higher plaque burden in lifelong endurance athletes. This is regardless of the plaque type, whether it is calcified, mixed, noncalcified, in the proximal segment or causing more than 50% stenosis,” concluded Ruben De Bosscher, MD, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), during his presentation.

The researchers suggested that all the information to date suggests there may be a “reverse J-shaped” dose-response relationship between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.

Dr. De Bosscher added that “the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. As soon as you do a little bit of exercise – just brisk walking or jogging up to 3 hours a week – it seems that’s where you get the most benefit. And after that, we tend to see an increase in coronary plaque burden.”

The discussant of the study at the ACC session, Michael Emery, MD, codirector of the Sports Cardiology Center at the Cleveland Clinic, asked how this information should be translated into advice for the general public, given that it is known that endurance athletes show much improved mortality.

“That is a very good question,” Dr. De Bosscher replied. “Yes, we do see less events and adverse outcomes in endurance athletes, but that is compared to the whole population, including those that are unhealthy and do not exercise.

“If we only look at healthy individuals who do exercise but at varying levels, the question is, do we then see the same relationship?” he asked. “There is increasing evidence that there may be a point of diminished returns – and at a certain point, an increased cardiovascular risk is seen in endurance athletes.”

On advice to the public, Dr. De Bosscher added, “one of the main findings here is that, despite having a very healthy lifestyle style and exercising a lot, no one is granted immunity to coronary atherosclerosis. It would seem that the most benefit occurs in individuals doing a moderate amount of exercise – up to about 3 hours a week.”

In a comment, Dr. Emery noted: “This continues to be a ‘hot topic,’ although I continue to be underwhelmed, given a lack of hard outcomes, and I worry about the wrong take-home message being sent, that too much exercise will do more harm than good.”

He added that fitness still matters regardless of calcium score, and he would not advise people to stop exercising, because “the better your fitness, the better the outcome.”

However, he acknowledged that “the study does nicely illustrate that exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear, honestly).”

Also commenting, Paul D. Thompson, MD, Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, who has studied the cardiac implications of exercise for many years, said: “The problem we have in the U.S. and in most developed countries is not too much exercise but rather that most people don’t exercise very much at all.”

He noted that the Master@Heart study as an “important contribution” to the field.

“We have seen in previous trials that lifelong endurance athletes appear to have more deposition of cholesterol in their coronary arteries than you would expect,” he said. “But, while prior studies suggested that most of the deposits in endurance athletes were the safer type of highly calcified plaques, this study shows that the plaques in endurance athletes are not quite as benign as we had previously thought.”

It’s not clear what this means though, he added, because “despite these findings, it’s pretty clear that endurance athletes live longer than most people. But do they live longer because of the amount of exercise they do or because they are just hardier than the rest of us?”

He does not believe the study should be interpreted to mean that endurance exercise is dangerous. “We don’t have great evidence for that. This is a finding in a coronary artery. We don’t have outcome data.”

However, he added, “it doesn’t seem like you have to do a lot of extreme sport to get the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. All the studies show that the greatest benefits happen in people who go from doing very little to doing a moderate amount of exercise. Then it seems to plateau.”

Dr. Thompson pointed out that the most recent physical activity guidelines in the United States recommend between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous activity, such as running.

But he does not believe this study should put people off participating in endurance exercise, noting that many individuals engage in high levels of vigorous exercise for other reasons, not necessarily for their cardiovascular health.

“If people want to do more – for competitive reasons or if it makes them feel good – I say go ahead and do it,” Dr. Thompson added. “You should enjoy your life. But if you’re doing high levels of endurance exercise for your health and you’re miserable doing it, you may be wasting your time, as it doesn’t look as these more extreme levels of exercise do you any good. Does it do you any harm? We don’t have evidence yet to conclude that.”

In his presentation, Dr. De Bosscher noted that previous studies have reported higher calcium scores in athletes as well as more coronary plaques, compared with control persons. But the atherosclerotic lesions observed in the athletes were predominantly calcified plaques that were considered more stable and less prone to rupture, whereas nonathletes had predominantly mixed plaques that were considered less stable and more prone to rupture.

He pointed out, however, that these studies had limitations in that they included some individuals with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking and intake of statins or antihypertensive drugs; they did not always assess the association between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis in a dose-response relationship; and while they reported the relative difference in plaque types, they didn’t report the absolute prevalence in calcified, noncalcified, and mixed plaques.

The Master@Heart study aimed to look at this question in a more comprehensive way.

The observational cohort study evaluated coronary atherosclerosis in 191 lifelong master endurance athletes, 191 late-onset athletes (endurance sports initiation after age 30 years), and 176 healthy nonathletes who engaged in no more than 3 hours a week of exercise. All participants were male and had a low cardiovascular risk profile. The median age was 55 in the three groups.

Maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max) was used to quantify fitness. Lifelong and late-onset athletes had higher percentage predicted VO_2max than nonathletes (159 vs. 155 vs. 122).

There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to age, weight, blood pressure cholesterol levels, or hemoglobin A1c levels. While the control group had a healthy body mass index and body fat percentage (19%), both groups of athletes were significantly leaner (body fat percentage, 14%-15%).

The exercise performed by the lifelong and late-onset endurance athletes was similar – mainly cycling and running. The endurance athletes reported an average of 10-11 hours of exercise per week, compared with 1 hour per week for the control persons. Only 22% of the control group reported engaging in no exercise at all; the others reported jogging, cycling, or engaging in nonendurance exercise, such as tennis.

Results showed that the overall coronary plaque burden assessed by segment stenosis score and segment-involvement score was higher among lifelong athletes than control persons (between-group difference, 0.86 and 0.65, respectively).

In comparison to control persons, lifelong endurance sport participation was associated with having one or more of each of the following, compared with a healthy nonathletic lifestyle:

• More than one coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.94)
• More than one proximal plaque (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.11)
• More than one calcified plaque (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.49)
• More than one calcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35)
• More than one noncalcified plaque (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.40)
• More than one noncalcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.39-5.65)
• More than one mixed plaque (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.99)

In comparison with late-onset athletes, at least 50% stenosis in any coronary segment (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.20-6.50) and at least 50% stenosis in a proximal segment (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 1.22 – 28.80) were more prevalent among lifelong athletes.

Vulnerable plaques, as defined by the presence of at least two high-risk features, were uncommon in all groups, but a lifelong athletic lifestyle was associated with a lower prevalence (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98).

In their article in the European Heart Journal, the researchers noted that the Master@Heart study is the largest and most comprehensive study to assess the dose-response relationship between intensive endurance exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.

“The findings do not support the hypothesis that highly trained endurance athletes have a more benign plaque composition to explain their lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to nonathletes,” they wrote.

“As studies on the impact of physical activity in the upper range are lacking, our data open the question on whether coronary events are indeed less prevalent in this high-end exercise cohort, and if that is the case, on what explains the paradox,” they concluded. “More and longitudinal research at the higher end of the endurance exercise spectrum is definitely needed.”

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

The suggestion that long-term endurance exercise may lead to a paradoxical increase in coronary atherosclerosis has been raised again by a new study.

In the Master@Heart study, lifelong endurance athletes had more coronary plaques, including more noncalcified plaques, than fit and healthy individuals with a similarly low cardiovascular risk profile.

The study was presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. It was also simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

“We consistently see higher plaque burden in lifelong endurance athletes. This is regardless of the plaque type, whether it is calcified, mixed, noncalcified, in the proximal segment or causing more than 50% stenosis,” concluded Ruben De Bosscher, MD, Catholic University of Leuven (Belgium), during his presentation.

The researchers suggested that all the information to date suggests there may be a “reverse J-shaped” dose-response relationship between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.

Dr. De Bosscher added that “the worst thing you can do is nothing at all. As soon as you do a little bit of exercise – just brisk walking or jogging up to 3 hours a week – it seems that’s where you get the most benefit. And after that, we tend to see an increase in coronary plaque burden.”

The discussant of the study at the ACC session, Michael Emery, MD, codirector of the Sports Cardiology Center at the Cleveland Clinic, asked how this information should be translated into advice for the general public, given that it is known that endurance athletes show much improved mortality.

“That is a very good question,” Dr. De Bosscher replied. “Yes, we do see less events and adverse outcomes in endurance athletes, but that is compared to the whole population, including those that are unhealthy and do not exercise.

“If we only look at healthy individuals who do exercise but at varying levels, the question is, do we then see the same relationship?” he asked. “There is increasing evidence that there may be a point of diminished returns – and at a certain point, an increased cardiovascular risk is seen in endurance athletes.”

On advice to the public, Dr. De Bosscher added, “one of the main findings here is that, despite having a very healthy lifestyle style and exercising a lot, no one is granted immunity to coronary atherosclerosis. It would seem that the most benefit occurs in individuals doing a moderate amount of exercise – up to about 3 hours a week.”

In a comment, Dr. Emery noted: “This continues to be a ‘hot topic,’ although I continue to be underwhelmed, given a lack of hard outcomes, and I worry about the wrong take-home message being sent, that too much exercise will do more harm than good.”

He added that fitness still matters regardless of calcium score, and he would not advise people to stop exercising, because “the better your fitness, the better the outcome.”

However, he acknowledged that “the study does nicely illustrate that exercise does not make you immune from heart disease (which is a message a lot of athletes need to hear, honestly).”

Also commenting, Paul D. Thompson, MD, Hartford (Conn.) Hospital, who has studied the cardiac implications of exercise for many years, said: “The problem we have in the U.S. and in most developed countries is not too much exercise but rather that most people don’t exercise very much at all.”

He noted that the Master@Heart study as an “important contribution” to the field.

“We have seen in previous trials that lifelong endurance athletes appear to have more deposition of cholesterol in their coronary arteries than you would expect,” he said. “But, while prior studies suggested that most of the deposits in endurance athletes were the safer type of highly calcified plaques, this study shows that the plaques in endurance athletes are not quite as benign as we had previously thought.”

It’s not clear what this means though, he added, because “despite these findings, it’s pretty clear that endurance athletes live longer than most people. But do they live longer because of the amount of exercise they do or because they are just hardier than the rest of us?”

He does not believe the study should be interpreted to mean that endurance exercise is dangerous. “We don’t have great evidence for that. This is a finding in a coronary artery. We don’t have outcome data.”

However, he added, “it doesn’t seem like you have to do a lot of extreme sport to get the cardiovascular benefits of exercise. All the studies show that the greatest benefits happen in people who go from doing very little to doing a moderate amount of exercise. Then it seems to plateau.”

Dr. Thompson pointed out that the most recent physical activity guidelines in the United States recommend between 150 and 300 minutes of moderate exercise, such as brisk walking, or 75-150 minutes a week of vigorous activity, such as running.

But he does not believe this study should put people off participating in endurance exercise, noting that many individuals engage in high levels of vigorous exercise for other reasons, not necessarily for their cardiovascular health.

“If people want to do more – for competitive reasons or if it makes them feel good – I say go ahead and do it,” Dr. Thompson added. “You should enjoy your life. But if you’re doing high levels of endurance exercise for your health and you’re miserable doing it, you may be wasting your time, as it doesn’t look as these more extreme levels of exercise do you any good. Does it do you any harm? We don’t have evidence yet to conclude that.”

In his presentation, Dr. De Bosscher noted that previous studies have reported higher calcium scores in athletes as well as more coronary plaques, compared with control persons. But the atherosclerotic lesions observed in the athletes were predominantly calcified plaques that were considered more stable and less prone to rupture, whereas nonathletes had predominantly mixed plaques that were considered less stable and more prone to rupture.

He pointed out, however, that these studies had limitations in that they included some individuals with other cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking and intake of statins or antihypertensive drugs; they did not always assess the association between exercise and coronary atherosclerosis in a dose-response relationship; and while they reported the relative difference in plaque types, they didn’t report the absolute prevalence in calcified, noncalcified, and mixed plaques.

The Master@Heart study aimed to look at this question in a more comprehensive way.

The observational cohort study evaluated coronary atherosclerosis in 191 lifelong master endurance athletes, 191 late-onset athletes (endurance sports initiation after age 30 years), and 176 healthy nonathletes who engaged in no more than 3 hours a week of exercise. All participants were male and had a low cardiovascular risk profile. The median age was 55 in the three groups.

Maximal oxygen uptake (VO_2max) was used to quantify fitness. Lifelong and late-onset athletes had higher percentage predicted VO_2max than nonathletes (159 vs. 155 vs. 122).

There was no significant difference between the three groups with regard to age, weight, blood pressure cholesterol levels, or hemoglobin A1c levels. While the control group had a healthy body mass index and body fat percentage (19%), both groups of athletes were significantly leaner (body fat percentage, 14%-15%).

The exercise performed by the lifelong and late-onset endurance athletes was similar – mainly cycling and running. The endurance athletes reported an average of 10-11 hours of exercise per week, compared with 1 hour per week for the control persons. Only 22% of the control group reported engaging in no exercise at all; the others reported jogging, cycling, or engaging in nonendurance exercise, such as tennis.

Results showed that the overall coronary plaque burden assessed by segment stenosis score and segment-involvement score was higher among lifelong athletes than control persons (between-group difference, 0.86 and 0.65, respectively).

In comparison to control persons, lifelong endurance sport participation was associated with having one or more of each of the following, compared with a healthy nonathletic lifestyle:

• More than one coronary plaque (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.94)
• More than one proximal plaque (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-3.11)
• More than one calcified plaque (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.49)
• More than one calcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.28-3.35)
• More than one noncalcified plaque (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.12-3.40)
• More than one noncalcified proximal plaque (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.39-5.65)
• More than one mixed plaque (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.06-2.99)

In comparison with late-onset athletes, at least 50% stenosis in any coronary segment (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.20-6.50) and at least 50% stenosis in a proximal segment (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 1.22 – 28.80) were more prevalent among lifelong athletes.

Vulnerable plaques, as defined by the presence of at least two high-risk features, were uncommon in all groups, but a lifelong athletic lifestyle was associated with a lower prevalence (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.98).

In their article in the European Heart Journal, the researchers noted that the Master@Heart study is the largest and most comprehensive study to assess the dose-response relationship between intensive endurance exercise and coronary atherosclerosis.

“The findings do not support the hypothesis that highly trained endurance athletes have a more benign plaque composition to explain their lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to nonathletes,” they wrote.

“As studies on the impact of physical activity in the upper range are lacking, our data open the question on whether coronary events are indeed less prevalent in this high-end exercise cohort, and if that is the case, on what explains the paradox,” they concluded. “More and longitudinal research at the higher end of the endurance exercise spectrum is definitely needed.”

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

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

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

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

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

Adults with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor had roughly a third fewer episodes of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with matched people with type 2 diabetes treated with a DPP4 inhibitor, in an analysis of health insurance data from more than 100,000 Taiwan residents during 2016-2018.

The findings add to, and expand on, prior evidence that treatment with an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor class cuts the incidence of AKI, say the authors of the report, which was recently published in JAMA Network Open.

The long-term risk for AKI among people with type 2 diabetes treated with an SGLT2 inhibitor “appears to be quite low” compared with adults who received an agent from the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor class.

Treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor – such as canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), or empagliflozin (Jardiance) – causes a transient drop in kidney function that manifests as a temporary dip in estimated glomerular filtration rate, which caused concerns about AKI when the drugs were first introduced.

Indeed, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin had warnings strengthened 7 years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in a Drug Safety Communication for accumulating reports of AKI linked to their use.

More recent experience has calmed AKI concerns, however.

Commenting on the new study, F. Perry Wilson, MD, a nephrologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said: “It’s a nice piece of data to demonstrate that the long-term risk from SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is low.” Dr. Wilson was not involved with the new study.

The Taiwan study found a cumulative incidence of AKI events during about 2.5 years of follow-up of 5.55 events/1,000 patient-years among adults with type 2 diabetes receiving an SGLT2 inhibitor and 7.88 events/1,000 patient-years among those taking a DPP4 inhibitor such as sitagliptin (Januvia).

Main barrier to SGLT2 inhibitor use is unfamiliarity, not AKI risk

“My impression is that the main barrier to wider use of the SGLT2 inhibitor class is not a perceived risk for causing AKI, but rather ongoing unfamiliarity with the class,” Dr. Wilson said in an interview.

Although he sees “relatively broad comfort with and enthusiasm for the class among nephrologists and cardiologists,” routine prescribing does not seem to have caught on nearly as much among primary care physicians, he said.

Clinicians in primary care “still perceive the SGLT2 inhibitor class as something of a ‘specialty drug,’ and they defer initiating it on that basis,” Dr. Wilson observed. “That’s probably not a good thing,” as many people with type 2 diabetes do not have access to a specialized clinician who might be more amenable to prescribing an SGLT2 inhibitor.

One example of the lag in SGLT2 inhibitor uptake for people with type 2 diabetes in practice was a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Researchers identified a representative U.S. sample of 1,330 adults with type 2 diabetes studied in depth during 2017-2020, of whom 82% fulfilled criteria published in 2022 for receiving treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor. Despite this high prevalence of medical appropriateness, a scant 5.3% of those with a recommended indication actually received an agent from this class.

Early AKI concern has diminished

Results from more recent studies, such as a 2019 meta-analysis of more than 100 randomized studies and four large observational studies that together included about 180,000 people receiving SGLT2 inhibitor treatment, showed the opposite of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment triggering AKI.

In the trials, people taking an SGLT2 inhibitor had a relative 25% lower rate of AKI events, while in the observational studies, SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was linked with a 60% relative reduction in AKI. The study also found that SGLT2 inhibitor use in the trials was linked with a significant 20% relative increase in the incidence of low fluid volume.

Despite accumulated evidence exonerating AKI risk, U.S. labels for canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin continue to cite AKI as a potential adverse reaction, especially in patients who undergo volume depletion while on SGLT2 inhibitor treatment.

The new Taiwan study used data from the country’s National Health Insurance Research Database. Out of more than 250,000 adults with type 2 diabetes in the system from May 2016 to December 2018, the researchers identified 52,231 propensity-score matched pairs of people where one was on treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other with a DPP4 inhibitor.

During follow-up, 856 of these people (0.8%) had an AKI event, including 102 people with AKI that required dialysis.

A logistic regression analysis that adjusted for 16 potential confounders showed that SGLT2 inhibitor treatment linked with a significant 34% reduction in AKI events compared with DPP4 inhibitor treatment, as well as with a significant 44% relative risk reduction in the incidence of AKI events requiring dialysis, reported the authors from several medical institutions in Taiwan.

The study’s main limitation was its reliance on “quite insensitive” administrative coding data to identify AKI cases, said Dr. Wilson.

He noted that although concern about AKI events secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is uncommon among U.S. clinicians they do worry about the potential risk for fungal infections, urinary tract infection, or gangrene in people with diabetes who receive an agent from this class.

The study received no commercial funding, and none of the authors had disclosures. Dr. Wilson has reported receiving research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor, and Whoop.

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

NEW ORLEANS – A wearable device that monitors thoracic fluid and can signal elevated levels can improve outcomes after heart failure hospitalization, according to a comparative but nonrandomized trial.

In this study, management adjustments made in response to a threshold alert from the device led to several improvements in outcome at 90 days, including a significant 38% reduction in the primary outcome of rehospitalization, relative to controls (P = .02), reported John P. Boehmer, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The same relative risk reduction at 90 days was observed for a composite outcome of time to first hospitalization, visit to an emergency room, or death (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .03).

Quality of life, as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), improved steadily in both the experimental and control arm over the 90-day study, but the curves separated at about 30 days, Dr. Boehmer reported. By the end of the study, the mean KCCQ difference was 12 points favoring the experimental arm on a scale in which 5 points is considered clinically meaningful.
 

70% report improved quality of life

“Responder analysis revealed that nearly 70% of patients in the arm managed with the monitor reported a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life, compared to 50% of patients in the control arm,” said Dr. Boehmer, professor of medicine and surgery at Penn State Health, Hershey.

Fluid overload is an indication of worsening disease and a frequent cause of heart failure hospitalization. The Zoll Heart Failure Monitoring System (HFMS) that was tested in this study already has regulatory approval. It is equipped to monitor several biomarkers, including heart rate and respiration rate, but its ability to measure lung fluid through low electromagnetic radiofrequency pulses was the function of interest for this study.

In this nonrandomized study, called Benefits of Microcor in Ambulatory

Decompensated Heart Failure (BMAD), a control arm was enrolled first. By monitoring the initial patients enrolled in the control arm, the investigators established a threshold of thoracic fluid that would be used to trigger an alert in the intervention arm. This ultimately was defined as 3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Patients were eligible for this study if they were discharged from a hospital with heart failure in the previous 10 days. Of exclusion criteria, a short life expectancy (< 1 year) and a wearable cardiac defibrillator were notable. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not considered for inclusion or exclusion.

All subjects participated in weekly phone calls and monthly office visits. However, both investigators and patients were blinded to the device data in the control arm. Conversely, subjects and investigators in the intervention arm were able to access data generated by the device through a secure website.

Of the 245 eligible patients in the control arm, 168 were available for evaluation at 90 days. Among the 249 eligible patients in the intervention arm, 176 were included in the 90-day evaluation. Of those who were not available, the most common reason was study withdrawal. About 20% died before the 90-day evaluation.

The majority of patients in both arms were in class III or IV heart failure. About half had LVEF less than 40%, and more than 40% of patients in each group had chronic kidney disease (CKD). Roughly 55% of patients were at least 65 years of age.

At 90 days, the absolute risk reduction in rehospitalization was 7%, producing a number to treat with the device of 14.3 to prevent one rehospitalization. In a subgroup stratification, the benefit was similar by age, sex, presence or absence of CKD, LVEF greater or lower than 40%, Black or non-Black race, and ischemic or nonischemic etiology.
 

Patient access to data considered a plus

If lack of randomization is a weakness of this study, the decision to unblind the data for both investigators and patients might not be, according to Lynne Stevenson, MD, director of the cardiomyopathy program, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“You might be criticized for this [allowing patients to monitor their data], but I actually think this is a strength of the study,” said Dr. Stevenson, who believes the growing trend to involve heart failure patients in self-management has been a positive direction in clinical care.

She indicated that, despite the potential bias derived from being aware of fluid fluctuations, this information might also be contributing to patient motivation for adherence and appropriate lifestyle modifications.

Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, chair of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, made a similar point but for a different reason. She expressed concern about the work that monitoring the wearable device creates for clinicians. Despite the positive data generated by this study, Dr. Bozkurt said the device as used in the study demanded “a lot of clinical time and effort” when these are both in short supply.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While she called for a larger and randomized study to corroborate the results of this investigation, she also thinks that it would make sense to compare the clinical value of this device against alternative methods for monitoring heart failure, including other wearable devices. Dr. Bozkurt asserted that some of the most helpful devices from a clinical perspective might be those that patients monitor themselves.

“Hopefully in the future, we will be offering tools that provide patients information they can use without the immediate need of a clinician,” she said.

Dr. Boehmer reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Zoll Medical Corporation, which provided the funding for this study. Dr. Stevenson reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bozkurt reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, LivaNova, Relypsa, Renovacor, Sanofi-Aventis, and Vifor.

NEW ORLEANS – A wearable device that monitors thoracic fluid and can signal elevated levels can improve outcomes after heart failure hospitalization, according to a comparative but nonrandomized trial.

In this study, management adjustments made in response to a threshold alert from the device led to several improvements in outcome at 90 days, including a significant 38% reduction in the primary outcome of rehospitalization, relative to controls (P = .02), reported John P. Boehmer, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The same relative risk reduction at 90 days was observed for a composite outcome of time to first hospitalization, visit to an emergency room, or death (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .03).

Quality of life, as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), improved steadily in both the experimental and control arm over the 90-day study, but the curves separated at about 30 days, Dr. Boehmer reported. By the end of the study, the mean KCCQ difference was 12 points favoring the experimental arm on a scale in which 5 points is considered clinically meaningful.
 

70% report improved quality of life

“Responder analysis revealed that nearly 70% of patients in the arm managed with the monitor reported a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life, compared to 50% of patients in the control arm,” said Dr. Boehmer, professor of medicine and surgery at Penn State Health, Hershey.

Fluid overload is an indication of worsening disease and a frequent cause of heart failure hospitalization. The Zoll Heart Failure Monitoring System (HFMS) that was tested in this study already has regulatory approval. It is equipped to monitor several biomarkers, including heart rate and respiration rate, but its ability to measure lung fluid through low electromagnetic radiofrequency pulses was the function of interest for this study.

In this nonrandomized study, called Benefits of Microcor in Ambulatory

Decompensated Heart Failure (BMAD), a control arm was enrolled first. By monitoring the initial patients enrolled in the control arm, the investigators established a threshold of thoracic fluid that would be used to trigger an alert in the intervention arm. This ultimately was defined as 3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Patients were eligible for this study if they were discharged from a hospital with heart failure in the previous 10 days. Of exclusion criteria, a short life expectancy (< 1 year) and a wearable cardiac defibrillator were notable. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not considered for inclusion or exclusion.

All subjects participated in weekly phone calls and monthly office visits. However, both investigators and patients were blinded to the device data in the control arm. Conversely, subjects and investigators in the intervention arm were able to access data generated by the device through a secure website.

Of the 245 eligible patients in the control arm, 168 were available for evaluation at 90 days. Among the 249 eligible patients in the intervention arm, 176 were included in the 90-day evaluation. Of those who were not available, the most common reason was study withdrawal. About 20% died before the 90-day evaluation.

The majority of patients in both arms were in class III or IV heart failure. About half had LVEF less than 40%, and more than 40% of patients in each group had chronic kidney disease (CKD). Roughly 55% of patients were at least 65 years of age.

At 90 days, the absolute risk reduction in rehospitalization was 7%, producing a number to treat with the device of 14.3 to prevent one rehospitalization. In a subgroup stratification, the benefit was similar by age, sex, presence or absence of CKD, LVEF greater or lower than 40%, Black or non-Black race, and ischemic or nonischemic etiology.
 

Patient access to data considered a plus

If lack of randomization is a weakness of this study, the decision to unblind the data for both investigators and patients might not be, according to Lynne Stevenson, MD, director of the cardiomyopathy program, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“You might be criticized for this [allowing patients to monitor their data], but I actually think this is a strength of the study,” said Dr. Stevenson, who believes the growing trend to involve heart failure patients in self-management has been a positive direction in clinical care.

She indicated that, despite the potential bias derived from being aware of fluid fluctuations, this information might also be contributing to patient motivation for adherence and appropriate lifestyle modifications.

Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, chair of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, made a similar point but for a different reason. She expressed concern about the work that monitoring the wearable device creates for clinicians. Despite the positive data generated by this study, Dr. Bozkurt said the device as used in the study demanded “a lot of clinical time and effort” when these are both in short supply.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While she called for a larger and randomized study to corroborate the results of this investigation, she also thinks that it would make sense to compare the clinical value of this device against alternative methods for monitoring heart failure, including other wearable devices. Dr. Bozkurt asserted that some of the most helpful devices from a clinical perspective might be those that patients monitor themselves.

“Hopefully in the future, we will be offering tools that provide patients information they can use without the immediate need of a clinician,” she said.

Dr. Boehmer reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Zoll Medical Corporation, which provided the funding for this study. Dr. Stevenson reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bozkurt reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, LivaNova, Relypsa, Renovacor, Sanofi-Aventis, and Vifor.

NEW ORLEANS – A wearable device that monitors thoracic fluid and can signal elevated levels can improve outcomes after heart failure hospitalization, according to a comparative but nonrandomized trial.

In this study, management adjustments made in response to a threshold alert from the device led to several improvements in outcome at 90 days, including a significant 38% reduction in the primary outcome of rehospitalization, relative to controls (P = .02), reported John P. Boehmer, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

The same relative risk reduction at 90 days was observed for a composite outcome of time to first hospitalization, visit to an emergency room, or death (hazard ratio, 0.62; P = .03).

Quality of life, as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), improved steadily in both the experimental and control arm over the 90-day study, but the curves separated at about 30 days, Dr. Boehmer reported. By the end of the study, the mean KCCQ difference was 12 points favoring the experimental arm on a scale in which 5 points is considered clinically meaningful.
 

70% report improved quality of life

“Responder analysis revealed that nearly 70% of patients in the arm managed with the monitor reported a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life, compared to 50% of patients in the control arm,” said Dr. Boehmer, professor of medicine and surgery at Penn State Health, Hershey.

Fluid overload is an indication of worsening disease and a frequent cause of heart failure hospitalization. The Zoll Heart Failure Monitoring System (HFMS) that was tested in this study already has regulatory approval. It is equipped to monitor several biomarkers, including heart rate and respiration rate, but its ability to measure lung fluid through low electromagnetic radiofrequency pulses was the function of interest for this study.

In this nonrandomized study, called Benefits of Microcor in Ambulatory

Decompensated Heart Failure (BMAD), a control arm was enrolled first. By monitoring the initial patients enrolled in the control arm, the investigators established a threshold of thoracic fluid that would be used to trigger an alert in the intervention arm. This ultimately was defined as 3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Patients were eligible for this study if they were discharged from a hospital with heart failure in the previous 10 days. Of exclusion criteria, a short life expectancy (< 1 year) and a wearable cardiac defibrillator were notable. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not considered for inclusion or exclusion.

All subjects participated in weekly phone calls and monthly office visits. However, both investigators and patients were blinded to the device data in the control arm. Conversely, subjects and investigators in the intervention arm were able to access data generated by the device through a secure website.

Of the 245 eligible patients in the control arm, 168 were available for evaluation at 90 days. Among the 249 eligible patients in the intervention arm, 176 were included in the 90-day evaluation. Of those who were not available, the most common reason was study withdrawal. About 20% died before the 90-day evaluation.

The majority of patients in both arms were in class III or IV heart failure. About half had LVEF less than 40%, and more than 40% of patients in each group had chronic kidney disease (CKD). Roughly 55% of patients were at least 65 years of age.

At 90 days, the absolute risk reduction in rehospitalization was 7%, producing a number to treat with the device of 14.3 to prevent one rehospitalization. In a subgroup stratification, the benefit was similar by age, sex, presence or absence of CKD, LVEF greater or lower than 40%, Black or non-Black race, and ischemic or nonischemic etiology.
 

Patient access to data considered a plus

If lack of randomization is a weakness of this study, the decision to unblind the data for both investigators and patients might not be, according to Lynne Stevenson, MD, director of the cardiomyopathy program, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn.

“You might be criticized for this [allowing patients to monitor their data], but I actually think this is a strength of the study,” said Dr. Stevenson, who believes the growing trend to involve heart failure patients in self-management has been a positive direction in clinical care.

She indicated that, despite the potential bias derived from being aware of fluid fluctuations, this information might also be contributing to patient motivation for adherence and appropriate lifestyle modifications.

Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, chair of cardiology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, made a similar point but for a different reason. She expressed concern about the work that monitoring the wearable device creates for clinicians. Despite the positive data generated by this study, Dr. Bozkurt said the device as used in the study demanded “a lot of clinical time and effort” when these are both in short supply.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While she called for a larger and randomized study to corroborate the results of this investigation, she also thinks that it would make sense to compare the clinical value of this device against alternative methods for monitoring heart failure, including other wearable devices. Dr. Bozkurt asserted that some of the most helpful devices from a clinical perspective might be those that patients monitor themselves.

“Hopefully in the future, we will be offering tools that provide patients information they can use without the immediate need of a clinician,” she said.

Dr. Boehmer reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Zoll Medical Corporation, which provided the funding for this study. Dr. Stevenson reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Bozkurt reports financial relationships with Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardurion, LivaNova, Relypsa, Renovacor, Sanofi-Aventis, and Vifor.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.